User talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/November

Explanation
I totally sympathise with your comments on AN/I; unfortunately it's just the nature of the thing. I've posted an explanation for you at which I hope you find useful. Prioryman (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Cleveland Browns logo, 2006 to present.svg
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Epoka University
Hi -- if you're not too busy, perhaps you could have a look at recent activity at Epoka University? Lots of newbie/SPA action, clearly an effort by people at or associated with the university itself. I've filed at SPI, but I can't keep reverting... thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just Reverted again] - and gave a 4im for advertiding, which is what it looks like. Mdann52 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

UFC Ultimate Fight Night
Hi! I have provided a published source for this article and hope you will reconsider as a courtesy to your fellow editors. I see that you are being targetted by sock accounts (which sucks, because years ago when I previously edited here, I got harassed by socks, too and so barely edit anymore) and I see that your critics are calling for your ban. As a suggestion, rather than put wood on the fire, show your colleagues that you can be moderate and reasonable. Happy Halloween! --Morphed Editor (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock of User:A Nobody --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 (multiple violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Hello, I'm 172.162.38.35. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hello, I'm 172.162.38.35. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver
Hi there,

You asked a question in Northamerica1000's RfA stating that "toolserver can't help". Please have a look at this. Change the last character of the url from 0 to 16 to view different namespaces. Is this what you were looking for? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 06:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't
Don't edit-war on ANI. Your violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF needs to be removed - I'll recommend you do it yourself. If you don't have the guts to submit an SPI, then you have to stop discussing it as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not meant to be an attack, as for SPI, the editing fits the patten of any number of MMA Socks for example :
 * Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0, Sockpuppet investigations/Temporary for Bonaparte or Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody.
 * how would you recommend how to present the similarities as out lined and  without appearing to attack ?  Mt  king  (edits)  17:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep it was a sock, in this case of BStudent0. Mt  king  (edits)  01:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

America's Top Model pages deletion
I don't really know anything about this, but I'd imagine that all 3 pages are valid Wikipedia articles even if they were created by a sockpuppet. That is, assuming other uses have turned them into reasonably valid articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done.

 * Thanks. Mt  king  (edits)  06:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My talk page
Don't ever edit my talk page and add such nonsense again. I called you an anti-MMA editor, which you are and isn't an insult. I said you should be ignored, because you pick fights with real MMA editors and target MMA articles for deletion; again not an attack, but a statement of truth. I disagree with every viewpoint you have, but do not litter my talk page with such rubbish again.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you attracted me as an editor, see your talk page. Mt  king  (edits)  23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Question ?
Re your Other re-granting proposals what would be the processes if an admin gives up his tools tomorrow (not under a cloud) then makes no further edits and with their very next edit on 1 December 2015 asks for the bit back ? Mt king  (edits)  02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * per current policy/guidelines, they would be re-granted adminship at bureaucrat discretion (determining if it was "under a cloud").
 * Per the 24 hour wait proposal, they would have to wait at least 24 hours while bureaucrats attempt to make that determination.
 * If you're asking whether the 3 year proposal applies to them, no. If you're suggesting it should, I'll suggest to you as I did to Thryduulf: Please feel free to make a separate proposal : ) - jc37 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started the proposal : ) - jc37 07:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also (thought of this as I hit save) what happens if an admin gives up his tools, then six months later is topic banned from all BLP's by the community for breaches of BLP (all of the breaches being after he gave up the admin bit) then asking for the bit back ? Mt king  (edits)  02:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic banning is as an editor. Use of any tools (including admin ones) would presumably be subject to that topic ban. But that (afaik) wouldn't affect the policy/guidelines on re-granting. - jc37 02:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Colour of your sign
Hi Mtking! I really don't mind usage of yellow colour but it is a bit difficult to read half of your sign in yellow against the white background. Can you add any background to your sign or make your colours more readable? Just suggesting, best.  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * how about Mt  king (edits) 06:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks much better! I like it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded!  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Message
Please review your opinions and try to collect some relevant information and educate yourself so that you understand what it is you are removing before you intend to do so. You are making a lot of people very sad. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.141.143 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why all the MMA hate?
Stop fucking vandalizing UFC event pages.

Wikipedia used to be the best place on the web to find out about past/future MMA events, until you started your crusade of bullshittery. Stop it.

Lukeh15 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your intense interest in MMA articles
Have you ever contributed to an MMA article? Honest question, not meant to be rhetorical/sarcastic. --SubSeven (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete
Hey it's User:74.178.177.227,yeah my ip changes once a while,don't worry I'm not a sock,but it seems that all those pages have already been deleted.74.163.16.121 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment
The continued AfDs on UFC pages are getting absurd, I don't see how they follow any set standard for notability or being valuable information. Byuusetsu (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
Not sure if you saw my Talk Page post, but it really was a sticky mouse going into "blanket select and insert mode" (again), it seems. Another good reason to stop watching AN/I, I guess. Or even to get a new computer. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC articles
Hi, could I ask you to stop edit-warring on these articles? If your redirecting the article is reverted, then you should consider either discussing on the talk page or else taking them to AfD, rather than edit-warring. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was reverting the edits of a blocked sock.  Mt  king  (edits)  19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey asshole, please stop vandalizing MMA articles. Thanks. jk2exp (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about destroying Wikipedia's MMA entries? From all I've seen you don't even follow MMA, it'd be like someone who doesn't play video games running roughshod through all of the site's Video Game Entries and having many of them deleted. You say that Wikipedia shouldn't be a resource for MMA fans to get the results from events, but why not? It's a resource for lots of other media such as music, movies, scripted TV shows etc. MMA coverage on Wikipedia was doing just fine before you came along and you have been nothing but a detriment to it. I have no idea what possesses someone to be so obstructive when there's nothing to gain from said destruction, unless you are involved with the culinary union that has beef with the UFC or something which I doubt is the case. Polyh3dron (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are constantly destroying MMA Articles. Especially UFC ones. You need to leave MMA alone or leave yourself. People come to this site all the time for coverage and they can't find any because you nominate every damn UFC card for deletion.

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC redirects
The redirects to the deleted "List of events in 2012" should be redirected to List_of_UFC_events instead, not delete. (Or really, the list of events in 2012 just redirect to the list of events, and let a robot do the heavy lifting). Wily D 08:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

PROD'ing instead of AfD'ing
Greetings, Mtking. I've noticed that you've used the PROD tag for articles you'd like to see deleted quite a bit recently instead of the AfD process. Per WP:PROD, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." Certainly, that would clearly not be the case for articles like Smokey (mascot), Rhody the Ram, and True Grit (mascot). PROD is like the "minor" button in the edit summary... it should only be used in situations where it's reasonable to think that no one could disagree with your action. In cases where there is likely to be an opposing viewpoint, using the AfD process is more appropriate, because it facilitates discussion, whereas the first objection to a PROD kills the PROD request completely. (In fact, I'd support merging some CFB mascots like True Grit into the pages for their school's athletic teams on the basis that they are not notable enough to warrant a separate article.) Thank you for your attention to this issue in the future. -Jhortman (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

AfDs of mma articles
First, i want to say that it is not my goal to attack you personally i don't agree with people doing that and i don't think it's appropriate or constructive. I am wondering if we could engage in a conversation about you think the long term goals of mma editors as a group should be. Kevlar (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to help people better cite sources i created WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources, i will put more work into it as i get time. UFC 148 is currently a "B-Class" article and is also a good article nominee. Do you feel that other articles if they could be brought to this standard, would then be appropriate for wikipedia? Also you recently said "This right here is why this project has such a poor reputation on the wiki", are there discussions about WP:Mma that the rest of us are not aware of? Kevlar (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will leave some comments on the sources page as for the discussions have a look at the archives of ANI you will see an number. Mt  king (edits) 08:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think this Better sourcing for UFC events is balanced? I'm going to be spending my wikipedia time on updating that, then sourcing pages and updating the sources page. Any input would be great. Kevlar (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with balance, it may be worth working on the list of sources and examples of the sort of coverage that WP:NOT expects events to have to demonstrate lasting effect, that would act as a sort of cheat sheet. Mt  king (edits) 22:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hey, so i've finally got the Better sourcing for UFC events to a state where all of the events are at least listed. i think it's pretty clear that if some of those articles are to remain they will need lots of work, a large number of them cite 0 sources. I've also put more time into the sources page, but it's not really at a point where i would call it useful, feedback is very much appreciated. i did notice that on Articles_for_deletion/UFC_155 it seems as though you stated that that article was of a sporting even deemed routine, and therefore should not have it's own article. I'm wondering if I'm not understanding this issue correctly. NOT and Routine make it very clear that not all sporting events are appropriate for their own articles. Neither state what events are notable just that some events are, and some events are not. My understanding was that we look to WP:MMANOT when we want to determine what events are or are not suitable for their own articles as it is much more specific in what makes an event notable. Is there a better way to determine this, or a Policies and guidelines page that superseeds WP:MMANOT that gives guidance on how to determine if an event is routine or not? Kevlar (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick eddit. i just noticed your notes on the sources talk page. wanted to say thanks. my paragraph above reads as though you hadn't already given feedback, you did, i just didn't see it. Kevlar (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Wifione  Message 17:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD on UFC articles
After the logical policy-based arguments which led to a nearly unanimous keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_on_FX:_Sotiropoulos_vs._Pearson, would it be too much to ask that you please stop putting UFC articles up for deletion constantly? Byuusetsu (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)