User talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/February

userpage link
Mtking, I just wanted to let you know that those two links on your userpage of "Best ever response to a CSD Notice:" no longer work. It's quite a shame, because I was looking forward to seeing those. I've fought my way out of speedy deletion before, so I kind of connect with them, but still that's really amusing. And hang in there on Talk:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York you've raised some excellent points which I'm in full agreement with, and I just hope attention is paid to them. Writing encyclopedically can be surprisingly difficult, but the final result is truly something to be proud of. Wikipedia has excellent policies. Jessemv (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, you are right it is a shame they no longer work. Mt  king  (edits)  19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rucka Rucka Ali
I believe the person's work is very clearly controversial, and could find only one relevant source, so I thought it would be enough to start a section. But frankly, I don't care enough to argue about this. I do want to learn though. You left an edit summary "per WP:BLP name not mentioned in article". Where in WP:BLP does it say anything about sources where the person's name is not mentioned? There is no question the work is by him, and it was brought as a source for the controversial work he does. --Muhandes (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ref to WP:BLP was relating to the whole section, in that as there is no source calling it controversial then we should not call it such, since the persons name is not used in the article you cited it is synthesis to claim it is about him, you need a reliable source saying it was his song. Mt  king  (edits)  06:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, putting the question if this is a controversy or not aside, I really don't see what the person's name being there or not has anything to do with it. We don't need sources for things which are obvious, only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged. Are you challenging that "Ima Korean" is his work? Even if you are, a reliable source could easily be arranged, it appears on his albums on iTunes, on his website etc. Even if you could not find one, tagging for source for such a minor issue would be better than removing the entire section on grounds of synthesis. Anyway, since this is not some policy I was unaware of, there is little more to discuss. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see
As you participated in discusion before, please see here the last proposition. Thanks! -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Helmets
See this image: File:VillanovaHelmet.gif--GrapedApe (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a Reminder-- Delete votes hurt writers' feelings
Hi Necrthesp. A while ago, you !voted for delete on an article I had tried to help write on a what I sincerely believed was a good-faith topic that would non-controversially improve Wikipedia. You felt my time did not improve Wikipedia, so I wanted to tell you a little bit about how it feels to be a spend your time on something and hear it should be erased.

You see, my time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all. I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.

If Wikipeda keeps my gift and improves it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future. But if you take my hand-made gift and visibly throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction.

I probably won't feel very welcome here. I may feel "Wikipedia" doesn't like me or want me. I may not feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time. After all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??


 * (Forget me personally-- I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway.)

You need to be aware-- delete !votes have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that. Make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.

I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, vanity article, etc. But when good-faith people are trying to do good-faith things, deletion is a very insensitive tool.

Please try to remember this in the future. You're not just deciding on whether to keep a single article-- you're deciding on whether to keep authors. HectorMoffet (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your failure to follow BRD
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bucknell University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you 'may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 1) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Arrr how nice, warnings, WP:BRD is an essay that those who wish to retain their version of an article hide behind, I wear it as a badge of honour that I don't subscribe to it. Unlike you though I wont remove this notice claiming that you are being .  Mt  king  (edits)  23:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it. So all the guidelines disagree with you, so you decide to ignore them and base your disruptive behavior on the idea that it is best to ignore them!LedRush (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are just that, guidelines, in this case, the lead is more balanced without both the rankings and the comment about how selective it is. Mt  king  (edits)  23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact Tag
Why did you put a fact tag on the US News Ranking in the lede? It looks like to me that it is well cited in the body and therefore doesn't need to be cited in the lede. I am asking because I don't want to simply revert you if you have a specific issue in mind (in which case I'll do my best to address the issue).LedRush (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self reverting.LedRush (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notification
M., please let me inform you that Rangoon11 had not yet agreed to cease editing when he did this. He is not presently editing at all at the article, and is now involved in the mediation. He was not attempting to edit war during mediation time.-- Djathink imacowboy  21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just one of a large number of occasions where Mtking has, after watching my edit contributions, gone to an article where they had previously never edited - but I had edited extensively - purely in order to revert me. I count, thus far, over 10 such examples. I'm keeping a detailed record of this and other aspects of Mtking's interactions with me. This is one more for the list. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet again a WP:AGF fail on the part of Rangoon11, since it's creation I have monitored WP:DR/N. Mt  king  (edits)  22:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In relation to your behaviour towards me actions have long spoken louder than words. And the entry on the Dispute resolution board doesn't even refer to this, you would actually have needed to be watching - and reading in detail - Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Columbo. I note that the Columbo article has now been left as the wrong version. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, I have not actually been to [Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Columbo]] until you posted it there. Mt  king  (edits)  22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mtking, I've asked Mike Wazowski to keep off the Columbo article, and wanted to inform you of it, because he just likes to come and cause trouble when he thinks I am vulnerable or in trouble. He has a history of doing this. I apologise for Rangoon's outburst, but I repeat he was within his rights when he edited the article which edit you reverted. In any case, Wazowski has reverted it back. Why did I bother you with this? Just please, keep an eye on him and the article during our mediation. He most assuredly won't show up to assist if we ever actually get working on the article again....What angers me most is he only restored the Internet Movie Database external link. Am I missing something with these IMDB links we're suddenly allowing on WP??-- Djathink imacowboy  04:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMDB links are perfectly acceptable in the external links section - that's why there's a template for them. It's when the site is used as a 'reference that there' a problem. Restoring it to the article was just common practice - it has nothing to do with whatever persecution complex you seem to have - I didn't even know you were involved in this, and it certainly doesn't help my mood when you start spreading untruths and slanderous allegations about me on other people's talk pages. I fixed what looked like an error, simple as that. I do not need your permission to edit an article, should it happen again, Cowboy... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)