User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2009/July

Marinas in Turkey

Hello Mike! I did a few updates and adjustments of style and content for the article mentioned. I left a note in Talk:Marinas in Turkey on this. Please check to see if you notice any bits and parts that seem out of balance to you and comment. It remains my intention to stress the presence of smaller/family enterprises in the market. Mention of big companies were not overstatements in the sense that, one has a broad (not to say dominant → not up to me to judge:) presence in the market in Turkey, and another is widely/globally recognized as a leading name in the industry. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Mike! If you have no comment to make, I will remove the tag, and let the article float :). I am aware that Marinas in Turkey is presently unique in that it attempts to encompass all marinas in a single country, most of the articles I saw on the subject treated individual marinas. But a natinally arranged format providing at least a list and a few observations could follow in the future for, you name it, Marinas in Switzerland :), Marinas in Belgium, Marinas in France, Marinas in the United Kingdom, Marinas in the United States, Marinas in New Zealand. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Original research" tag at Zilog Z80

I see you have tagged the article, but haven't explained your reasons on the talk page. Could you do that, please? I don't seem to see any particularly bold or dubious claims on the article, and the article is sourced by a number of quotations from the Zilog Components Data Book, although I'm willing to admit more references should be sought (but that alone doesn't justify the template). Thanks, --LjL (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. I hope that helps; let me know if you need further clarification about why the template is justified, and why the article should be pared down to the facts that are verifiable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zilog Z80, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I'm sorry it has to come to this, you have removed a whole section of content while I had clearly stated that I was in the process of looking for sources for that section, and I had already provided sources for many of your other concerns. I have looked at your user page and I see you have strong opinions about this kind of issues; that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled, I believe, to disrupt to illustrate your point, or for that matter to refrain from giving me a little chance when I'm in the process of looking for the sources that you requested. It's just a matter of civility, really. --LjL (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My removal did have a valid reason in the edit summary. See the article talk page for the rest. -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Tijuana Zebra

Hello Mikeblas, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tijuana Zebra has been removed. It was removed by LjL with the following edit summary '(Prod template removed because book references about the term added IMO estabilishing notability (books use terms like "famous", "stereotype"))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with LjL before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)