User talk:Mtking/Archives/2011/December

Flavio Briatore

It's an extant, multiple conviction, which is mentioned in every major Italian source (including his autobiography). There is no way it can count as WP:UNDUE as it's one of his most notable biographical facts, and has had a major effect on the shape of his life - even leading to a number of years as a fugitive. He's also been convicted more than once. I can't see how you can make an argument against its inclusion in the lead. Every other article on people with similar convictions, mentions them in the lead.Avaya1 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent editing history at Flavio Briatore shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.Avaya1 (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No I am not - you are the one intent on major changes to a stable lead without discussion.Mtking ^(edits) 06:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are. And I think it's pretty strange how you added it to my page, when I've only made two reversions. You can only 3RR obvious vandalism, BLP or unsourced additions. The edits you reverted are well-sourced and factual. Your argument against them can only be plausibly construed as being based on WP:UNDUE, and therefore you have almost broken 3RR.Avaya1 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your intent is clearly to paint the subject in a negative way, how else do you explain the removal here of the fact he "he was subsequently released". Mtking ^(edits) 06:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed that sentence (which I myself created a few edits earlier here), because I realised it's not in the source (which is a news article reporting his bail). He was released, but I've been trying to tidy the article and link the correct sentences to the correct sources. Your last reversion was pretty disruptive to the editing, because you removed some of the citations from the top of the page (which I had just formatted). By the way, I have a reversion left. If I revert the article now (I won't because I don't want to start some annoying edit warring), you'd break 3RR by changing it. Avaya1 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually you don't "have any left" (one, two and three), there is clearly no consensus for the insertions into the lead. You could have left it in and added {{cn}} if you had wanted to. I stand by my claim, your intent is clear, you wish to portray him in a negative way. Mtking ^(edits) 06:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, only edits one and three are reverting the same material, therefore I have a spare revert - and you don't. For 3RR to apply, the reverts have to concern the same sentences. You're being pretty aggressive and, as you keep demonstrating, you don't seem to understand the rules of wikipedia. Whatever you conjecture about someone's "intent" (which is not an acceptable reason for reverting edits in wikipedia), if it's reliably sourced and notable, then it belongs in the article. Instead of attacking other editors, the assumption you should be following is - is the information notable and is it reliable? In this case, the information fulfills the standard wiki criteria for both those things, therefore I will add it. Avaya1 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If your are going to try and quote WP:3RR at least get it right; it says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." so as you see it does cover different material. Your intent, when in relation to a WP:BLP is very relevant. Mtking ^(edits) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the second edit that you listed doesn't in any way revert your edits. The edit involves formatting a sentence and the source details for it, that was already in the body of the article from long before. You are in a complete muddle. Secondly, BLP has no relevance to your arguments. Adding details of well-publicised, notable and outstanding convictions, cited in the major sources, is standard for biographies of living people and the only argument you can possibly make is based on WP:UNDUE. There's no question of "intent" (which is just your subjective opinion). Either you think it's undue to add the convictions to the lead or not. However, given the precedent of the other wikipedia articles on people with similar convictions, it clearly is considered DUE in leads of wikipedia biographies of living people: Conrad Black, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken - etc. None of your arguments add up, and overall you've disrupted the editing of the article (for example, I don't understand why you disrupted the formatting of the sources that I was doing). Avaya1 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not mater which editor you were reverting, you made three reverts, WP:BLP does apply as you are changing the article to portray the subject in a more negative way, these convictions are old and pre-date even WP and up till yesterday they were not in the lead and you wanted to add them, there is no consensus so to do so they should remain out. Mtking ^(edits) 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reinstate of Day PItney Page

Hi Mtking

We were in correspondence earlier this month about moving the user page "Day Pitney". Could you please advise as to the status of making a request at WP:DRV?

Thank you

Tabajek (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tabajek

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 episode 12

Why is there a problem you put original research tag. The storyline is not an original research, its a based on this episode. Have you watched it on TV or YouTube? Becuase, the show is conflicted with the first season of The X Factor (U.S.) and Survivor: South Pacific? It seems this is not a truly original research. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the conclusions drawn are clearly not taken from the source cited . Mtking ^(edits) 03:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Mtking. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Flavio Briatore revert war

Please see a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Flavio Briatore. You and Avaya1 should stop editing the article until agreement is reached, by joining in a discussion that incudes some other editors. More details on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Montana Grizzlies pages

Mtking. We've had this conversation before. For an Australian you sure have some kind of obsession with a single, smaller university's athletic program. No others, just the Montana Grizzlies football. I've looked through your contributions; the only college programs you've focused on is this page and those related to it. It's 100% modeled on better-known programs from the around the country, it uses the college football project as a guide. It is just like the hundreds of other programs around the country. Yet, you're not obsessing over theirs. The thing is, you're not just focusing on this page, but all those closely related to it. And, you aren't spending ANY time pursing this matter on any other school. You've mentioned yourself that you know nothing about American College sports, so why not leave it to an editor that does? You're clearly, clearly stalking. I'm hoping that you mean well because I don't want to report you. Though, I know from messages on my talk page that you probably wouldn't be so lenient. So, please go away. Out of the millions of Wikipedia editors, you're the only one that cares so deeply about every page I edit to the point of following me around to at least ten different articles. The fact that you're using your time to comment on articles about things thousands of miles away and which you admittedly know nothing about just confirms it. Please, please, stop stalking me.Dsetay (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not stalking you (or anyone else for that matter); my concerns are to identify where WP is being used as a free promotional tool, as a fan site, as a free Webshots, or where editors violate copyright. Mtking ^(edits) 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You're acting as if my apparent crimes are especially egregious, when they're clearly modeled off much better known articles. It's extremely unlikely to come across a lower-division football program and completely miss articles such as LSU Tigers football, Michigan Wolverines football, and Texas Longhorns football who are much more well-known, have committed all the fouls that I supposedly have, and you've never pursued them. I've told you repeatedly that my pages were not unique and if your real concerns were to "identify where WP is being used as a free promotional tool, as a fan site, as a free Webshots, or where editors violate copyright", I'd imagine that you would have pursued this further. For example, this entire category of violators Category:College sports teams in the United States by team. If a police officer only pulled over the same person for speeding each time on a highway where everyone else was driving much faster and flamboyantly, wouldn't it be suspicious. Wouldn't it be even more suspicious when only that same driver gets pulled over even when he's driving a different car? At the very least you're in violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. And, so long as you avoid going after the big boys and concentrate on minor violations on pages related to mine, you have no credibility for me to believe that you're not stalking me. So, please go away.Dsetay (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checking up on how much you really care about Wikilaw being applied to college athletic pages or are just obsessed with my particular page about a program you admittedly don't understand. I can't help but notice that the aforementioned team pages have not had a single visit from you. You haven't deleted their helmet picks, you haven't tagged them for having too many stats, no threats to remove for insufficient sources... In the time it took you to threatened to have me blocked for trying to address your concerns you could have visited half the pages in the entire category that I sent you. What IS your obsession with my pages in particular and those related to them? Really, stop following me around. See WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Dsetay (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

lol

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.36.193 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: East End Brewing Company

Hello Mtking. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of East End Brewing Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. On further consideration, I agree with you and have deleted the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the constructive criticism, I'll definitely take it on board, I think I'll give The Age hacking scandal article a rest for a while but I think there's some good material that could be included, hopefully others will get around to it. --Brandonfarris (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As a rough guide, how long should we wait before changing the article after raising the issue on the Talk page? --Brandonfarris (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I draw your attention to these edits [1] --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Amber DePace

Did you know that when Amber called the 12th on casting, on the background, where the girls are still, she appeared not 12th, but last? On the background of the girls appeared in the same order in which they were called, except Amber. What you tell about this? Maybe it meant that she would leave the show? KIRILL95 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well either the text is wrong or the call out table is (or both); so a reliable source is needed to back up the claim she quit in eps 1. Mtking ^(edits) 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your signature and talkpage coloration

Yellow should never be used as a background, or as a text color on a white background. It's just too hard to read. If you would, please change it. --erachima talk 04:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to change the talk page  Done; but would like to keep the green and gold signature. Mtking ^(edits) 05:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at background colours and see if I can make them work with the superscript part. Mtking ^(edits) 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandonfarris

Hi, I've responded to your latest suggested unblock conditions at User talk:Brandonfarris. To be frank, I don't think that you're helping by suggesting these conditions - im my view, they're not at all in line with WP:BLP given the extent of the problems Brandon was creating and the way in which he was going about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I will withdraw them, just trying to help. Mtking ^(edits) 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your warning

OK. I done wrong. But keep in mind that you are removing truthful information. And then you shout the other participants look for links. Have you at least once added links or other participants should do all for you? KIRILL95 (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would but RS on ANTM are just not out there. Mtking ^(edits) 04:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Angelea Preston

Why do you remove the truthful information when in the article are references? Maybe you'll return the name Angelea in the table and we'll stop these disputes? Or how much time her name wouldn't be in a table? Indefinitely? KIRILL95 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't see what your issue is - did she take part in the deliberation ? No. Did she take part in the call out ? No. Then why should her name be listed in the Call out table ? Mtking ^(edits) 19:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To show that she was disqualified. And add "The contestant was disqualified from the competition outside the judging panel". KIRILL95 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called the call out list, the notes at the bottom make it clear what happened any way. Mtking ^(edits) 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why you do not affect the text "The contestant was eliminated outside the judging panel"? Much of a muchness KIRILL95 (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not; she took no part in the call out or deliberation so she should not be in the list. Mtking ^(edits) 10:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But she discussed separately. KIRILL95 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can show that she took part in the deliberation and or call out that followed I don't see the point in continuing this debate.Mtking ^(edits) 11:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandonfarris additions to Crikey article

Can you have a look at the material Brandonfarris added to the Crikey article, the "Controversies" section? I do not feel comfortable editing it, but - as I've pointed out on the talk page - I don't feel it's encyclopaedic at all, and that it's clearly there for POV reasons. Since WP doesn't usually list every "apology" or settlement from a media organisation - and it would be absurd if it did - I think the entire section should be removed until there's something substantial to include in it. Garth M (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done; replied at the talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 00:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wladimir Klitschko vs. David Haye

Whats is the matter with you man? Do you have a problem or something? DO dislike the Klitschko Brothers or something? I mean come on. I have used so much time on the article and for what? To see it get deleted? Please dont delete it man. Please answer me, dont hide answer me. Why dont you look at the other fight article that are so much less significant? You havent event looked at them or anything. Why do you bother about deleting the big fight article?.

It is common sense which effect this fight had.? Everybody that has just a little interest in boxing knows that. Why dont you deal with the other fight articles first??? Everybody knows how huge og significant this fight was going to be and was.

Devon Alexander vs. Lucas Matthysse

Saul Alvarez vs. Kermit Cintron

Saul Alvarez vs. Alfonso Gomez

Saúl Álvarez vs. Matthew Hatton

Saúl Álvarez vs. Ryan Rhodes

Lucian Bute vs. Glen Johnson

Lucian Bute vs. Jean-Paul Mendy

Julio César Chávez, Jr. vs. Peter Manfredo, Jr.

Nonito Donaire vs. Omar Narvaez

Nonito Donaire vs. Wladimir Sidorenko

Sergio Martinez vs. Sergiy Dzinziruk

Sergio Martinez vs. Darren Barker

Julio César Chávez, Jr. vs. Sebastian Zbik

Jan Zaveck vs. Andre Berto

Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León

Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Jorge Solis — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)