MUCfan
To Angelo de la Paz (the fan of Miss Bolivia Universe 2006, perhaps? Are you going to prove that you're anything but the angel of peace as your Spanish nickname indicates?)
I am a fan of MUC Canada and not a fan of false interpretations of the facts. The listing on the official miss universe website is not totally similar, and pageantpolis website is not the official website, so their listings are irrelevant. I am just wondering why you are taking this so personally? Since you mentioned Panikian, do you have some personal vendetta against her because her placement was confirmed by the official MUC website that she was in 6th place.
And BTW you do not own wikipedia and if there is a dispute, it should be resolved in a different way. However, you do not like this because it wouldn't work in your favor. You do not represent Miss Universe, so you are not the one to say there were no placings. Show one article originating from Miss Universe that shows you're right.
MUC fan
Miss Universe 2006
editHi there! You must read these lines carefully for your edits at Miss Universe 2006:
- There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year so please don't changed alphabetical order of country name. According to article on official website of Miss Universe Organization ([1]); its placements are totally similar to the appearance order of contestants for rest of top 10 and top 20. Compare the lists and find out more on YouTube and Pageantopolis ([2]).
I am not wonder when you always revert it and reject other opinions because as I can see you are a fan of Alice Panikian; and you want she stand at 6th place but unfortunately, she was only the first name in rest of top 10 who failed to make the top 5.
Otherwise, if you search for Miss Universe 2007 ([3]) and 2008 ([4]) on official website of Miss Universe Organization. You could see the same that MUO arranged them by appearance order during live telecasts, not exact placements. So please must stop do it again. Thank you.
Evidences
editDetail of Miss Universe pageants in recent years, according to MUO website and Order of announcement during the Live Telecast. You must compare the lists, there were sources. All show you are trying to protect for your faulty edits which is very biased for Miss Universe Canada 2006. Please stop do it again and if you do it once more time, I will leave a warning and you would be block. Thank you.
- Note: There was a small order mistake of Denmark's placement on MUO website. There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year. [5]
| According to MUO [6] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [7][8][9] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2007 [10]
| According to MUO [11] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [12][13][14] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2008 [15]
| According to MUO [16] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [17][18][19] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Miss Universe 2006
Angelo de la Paz, the things you listed above are irrelevant, it's your own interpretation and it has never been published in an official Miss Universe article.
An official article of the placings exists and it should have priority.
Wikipedia states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
Do not delete the official Miss Universe link of the placements:
Miss Universe 2006
editMiss Universe 2006
Angelo de la Paz, the things you listed above are irrelevant, it's your own interpretation and it has never been published in an official Miss Universe article.
An official article of the placings exists and it should have priority.
Wikipedia states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
Do not delete the official Miss Universe link of the placements:
http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
MUCfan (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Miss Universe 2006 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Miss Universe 2006
editIn Miss Universe 2006 article I am not expressing my point of view, I provided only the official link of the placements for Miss Universe 2006 and the placements according to the same article. However, you Angelo del la Paz, are expressing a point of view in the MU 2006 article, based on sources that are not the official Miss Universe link. In the official article at http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html it is stated the decision and opinion of the Miss Universe Organization, not mine.
You, however, are biased because you repeatedly deleted this link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html and forced your interpretations of the pageant which are not backed by any official Miss Universe source or article.
You're also the one who first mentioned the name of the Canadian representative that year which clearly shows your lack of neutrality.
Tell me why.
editI have given all reliable sources (even included video clips) in the Talk Page to show that you are doing wrong at Miss Universe 2006 page. Why you did it with MU 2006 only although MU 2007 and 2008 also have the same cases? Tell me your reason. You look at what you are doing: you delete citation given and it break down the article like this [20], it's violate WP:RS. And you text edit is not suit with WP:STYLE rule. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
12 hour block
edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Miss Universe 2006
editANSWER
To me is a mystery why you are not using the official information from the official website http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
You cannot state a verifiable source for the fact that there were no rankings that year, you only speculate and give links to sources that are not associated with Miss Universe Organization or website.
MUCfan (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
But why only with Miss Universe 2006 only; not with Miss Universe 2007 or 2008? Their cases are the same. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
answer MU 2006
editMiss Universe Organization decided to be that way, even the listing layout for MU 2006 placings is different than 2007, and 2008, but that's how it is.
MUCfan (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I give you new examples as your request, for Miss Universe's placements. The left column served your willingness (according to MUO and arranged by your desire) and the right column is the exact ranking. Could you explain for this phenomenon in 2006, 2007 and 2008?
| According to MUO [21] |
Official placements [25] base on exact score in Swimsuit [26] and Evening Gown [27] competitions |
|---|---|
|
|
Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Second question: as you insist this article on MUO website is the exact ranking of Miss Universe 2006 but I wonder, it is even very similar to order of announcement during the Live Telecast; although there is only 1 different mistake of Denmark's position? Could you explain when its scores were not revealed at all? [28]
| According to MUO [29] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [30][31][32] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
MU 2006
editDifferent years at MU don't have to be the same. Every year is separate. If people use your reasoning they would have to change many other years at MU to fit your theory. Last year there wasn't a National costume award, for example.
So, there are differences every year. But still the placings at the official Miss Universe site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html should be the ones cited in Wikipedia.
They didn't reveal the scores, but they released the placements on the official website. And you're are citing a source that is not a reliable, it's just some pageant site, not the official website.
You also said that placements on the official website are totally "similar" (that's your opinion) with your placements, but not just Denmark, that is different on the official site placements (from your placements), but also 12 more contestants. Only Mexico and Ukraine have the same placements on the official website http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html and on your unreliable unofficial site.
Moreover, you're trying to deceive the administrators and other editors by saying that only Denmark's placement was different.
I can prove that your source http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php is unreliable because they have listed the rankings for the rest of the top 15 in Miss Universe 2005, but the official site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/05.30.05.html doesn't have them even listed.
Factual errors in the placements of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 listed on Wikipedia
editAll of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 placements can be found on the official Miss Universe link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html and they all have different placements than the ones listed on Wikipedia respective articles for each year. In some of them there is not any source cited for the rankings, on others is cited only the unreliable unofficial sources known for their errors http://www.pageantopolis.com/international/universe_2006.htm and http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php
The general official site is given, but not the direct link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html with all the information about the ranking in the above years.
I am new and this is too complicated for me to fix, not to mention that Angelo de la Paz blocked me, and used any kind of tricks to prevent me of citing the official sources, instead of trying to help me fix the problem.
MUCfan (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
MUCfan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Angelo de la Paz blocked me, and used any kind of tricks to prevent me of citing the official sources and editing the article, instead of trying to help me fix the problem. Please see the history of article "Miss Universe 2006" and My talk page
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.