User talk:MikeNicho231

Names

Funny thing. I came on here under an invented pseudonym because I too share a name with someone famous (or possibly infamous - in certain quarters...). What do I find? Someone using that name as a pseudonym. Gets me confused when we edit close together on something. I prefer to live in compartments on the net (and elsewhere...), and don't let them know who's who even. Only one other user here knows who I really am, and I intend to keep it that way - if only to avoid any suspicions of advertising. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess you are a bit wrong about my name, as my real name is Michael Nicholas Jackson. I can only blame my parents, or perhaps my great-grandparents, who gave my grandparents those names...

I have experienced that people ask if i'm kidding, or i'm using a pseudonym, but I actually find it quite amusing :P MichaelJackson231 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

May I suggest adding User:UBX/ubx-5? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a good idea :D MichaelJackson231 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

You seem to like food alot. (Goatcheese384 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)).

Yes, I do. Thank you. (I though prefer real, serious questions..) MichaelJackson231 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's "Serious" not sereious.lol (Goatcheese never goes bad (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)).

Ever heard about a typo? MichaelJackson231 (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ross Worner

Yes, but he has not actually made an appearance in the Championship yet. Thus failing the guidelines as noted. --Jimbo^[online] 11:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we have lots of articles on nonleague players... Apart from that, I think he will get some appearances in the League one this season, as he looks set to be the reserve goalie. And all Charlton players have an article. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. He might play, but at the moment that is not definate. The articles on other non-League players should pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG, if not nominate them for deletion. --Jimbo^[online] 13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MikeNicho231. You have new messages at Lear's Fool's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kristof Goddaert

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Kristof Goddaert. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:N requires significant coverage by third party sources, not just trivial entries or coverage on the teams website. --Active Banana | bananaphone 14:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But this BLP is referenced by Cyclingnews, the world's leading cycling webpage. His team's homepage and his Cyclingnews profile confirms that he is a member of the team. It seems nothing can make you happy, even if I list up 100 references, you probably wouldn't be happy. I get an impression that you are one of those who should have everything perfect. If you so badly want that BLP to be 100% perfect, improve it yourself! And from what I see of your contribs, almost all of your edits are adding unreferenced BLP tags to referenced BLPs?? MichaelJackson231 (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] is NOT significant coverage. ~ Active Banana ( bananaphone 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is appearant that you have no insight in cycling at all, as cyclingnews is the world's leading cycling webpage. And do you really mean that footnotes are needed for a single-sentence BLP? MichaelJackson231 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA Do not attack other editors. And yes, footnotes are required for articles about living people WP:BLP, even one sentence articles that have not yet been shown to meet the requirements of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. WP:N Active Banana ( bananaphone 12:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi MikeNicho231. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Curtis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave you rollback so you could revert vandalism, not edit war. Regardless of whether you used rollback in the dispute or not, continued edit warring will result in removal of your rollback rights. When handing out rollback privileges, I purposely maintain higher standards than many other administrators; I would expect better conduct from you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this edit war is appearantly conflict of interest. I mean there are enough reliable references. Some of those may be considered gossip, but most of the others are reliable. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry for the late response to your posting. Regarding your message, it seems you already have rollback now. I have only been logging in recently, and was unable to answer your request at that time. Thanks. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 11:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

protected images

Regarding File:Taric Alani Cum shot.jpg, the image is protected and it can only be used in certain pages (the pages are listed in the information page of the image). You added it to the article, but it was not visible at all, so I removed it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

STOP re-posting an inaccurate and LIBELOUS article about me.

If you would like me to somehow confirm that I am the subject of the article that you keep reverting, I am more than happy to do so. The article that was up was FALSE and LIBELOUS and all I have done is replace it with accurate information that is completely supported by my links. I don't know why you are so passionate about the article that was up originally but I have REPEATEDLY noted that it is false and misleading and misattributed. PLEASE STOP messing with my edits. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with them until someone actually disputes the information which NO ONE HAS and NO ONE WILL. Thank you. 99.17.29.147 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please stop using CAPS, and second, please verify that YOU ARE the subject of the article. And I am higly in doubt that you are the person you are claiming to be, I would expect a recognised film director to be able to articulate himself in a proper way. And, I would suggest that you would take a look at WP:MOS, to see how you should edit Wikipedia in a proper way. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you like me to prove it to you? I used caps because understandably I am a little irritated about this bizarre crusade to restore a sloppy, misleading and misattributed article about me when the revisions I have done are completely supported and accurate. I can't begin to figure out the motive behind it. And I did the edits using the Wikipedia instructions.99.17.29.147 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not. If you continue citing Youtube and not adhering to the WP:MOS, I will go to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are formatting issues with my edits, then please kindly address those specifically. You can use a scalpel and not a nuclear bomb. It is not necessary to completely demolish my edits. If Wikipedia is in the interest of having up-to-date information in its articles, with supported information, then there is no reason it there should be any objection to my edits. I do understand formatting concerns however, and would appreciate your help addressing those. But please stop vacuuming up all of my information. There is nothing wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.29.147 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I also hope that you would stop citing Youtube as a source. MikeNicho231 (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert / WW2 arbitration

I have no reason to add Paul Siebert as a party, which you have asked me to do. Paul Siebert is aware of the case, and he is free to add evidence if he so wishes. You yourself are also free to add evidence if you so desire. In any event, the prefiling phase is ended, meaning that additional parties can no longer be added. Communicat (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You should add Paul Siebert as a party, because he has made several reverts and controversial edits in the "main" period of the dispute. He has been one of the most active users involved, thus he is a party in the case. MikeNicho231 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Social Trading G12

What is the source URL? Dlohcierekim 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the URL, but large amounts of unwikified text is often a copyright violation. This one looked as one, and I thought it was a violation. MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asperger syndrome. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand if you take the case or not.

It is not clear to me if you took the case for mediation or you have already dismissed it. If you don't, I'll understand it because I admit that this is a minefield. Besides, Andy the Grump doesn't want to accept it. All I want to clarify is that my account is not SPA; if you check my contributions, you'll find that I created three articles on Argentine singers/bands -I plan to add more- and I corrected the translation into English of two towns; one from Colombia and the other from Italy. I admit that White Argentine has absorved much of my energy, but it is not SPA. Maybe I've been rude talking about other users, and I don't care if user GiovBag considers me Neo-Nazi or not. I made my position clear in MBelgrano's and IANVS' talk pages, and if you follow the link I gave them, you'll see I am not racist in any way (If you don't understand Spanish I can translate it for you). I'd very much appreciate it if you contact me with some expert on the matter, so I can have some advice and guidance on what to do next. Thanks for your intervention anyway. --Pablozeta (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can not mediate over your account being SPA, nor draw a conclusion, as it is not part of your request. I can not mediate over an earlier version of the article, nor if you don't have consent from the parties in the case. If you clarify what I should mediate over, I will think about the re-opening the case. I have dismissed your request because you have failed to properly clarify what should be mediated, and I have got conflicting claims over what parts of the dispute that should be mediated. It seems that the content dispute is settled, and you should try solving the issue on the article's talk page. MikeNicho231 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) N.B. : I have not been able to find a user that has expertise on ethnical groups.

Nudity

Hi, I would appreciate your taking a look at Talk:Nudity#Child nudity. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas FAC

Hi Mike. I undid your attempted nomination of Christmas for FA status because you accidentally put it in the existing nomination subpage for the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix article. To nominate an article, you need to create a separate subpage by following the instructions at the top of the WP:FAC page. Please let me know if you require any further assistance.--Midgrid(talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Aspies

Saw yer discussion on the Asperger's article. You are absolutely right. Many people have tried before to balance that article. If you check the archives (2006-2008) you will find dozens of reliable sources making the same points you are. But there is no possibility of objective, well-intended debate on the subject. The entrenched editors will simply revert any improvement you try to make, raise endless spurious objections - including arguing the findings of the researchers themselves (yes, simon baron-cohen is probably the world's foremost authority.) They will basically stonewall you until they go away.

It's not that the entrenched editors have anything against aspies. They just don't like any intrusions from editors who challenge their (rather uninformed) beliefs.

Wikipedia is no longer governed by the Pillars or Consensus. It's simply governed by edit counts. A core group of about 500 people who edit wikipedia every day, all day, make decisions arbitrarily. They cluster and support each other.

You're wasting your time. CeilingCrash (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

I agree. People assume WP:OWN, they don't listen to my reliable sources, it's only "their version" that is correct. My brother, who is an aspie himself, is very disappointed with the POV in the article. It is not neutral the way it stands now. MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please can you supply WP:MEDRS for the statements you are adding to Asperger syndrome. WP is not about what you or I or your brother believe, but what reliable sources have to say on the issue. Colin°^Talk 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Third 3RR warning

You have been twice previously warned and once blocked for 3RR; please refrain from edit warring against consensus at Asperger syndrome. Non-free images should not be added to that article, and per consensus, a free image of Hans Asperger was previously removed from that article. Further, consensus is clearly in favor of the original image on the talk page; 3RR is not a license to edit war and revert against consensus even once. Please read WP:IUP, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN#Featured articles and respect talk page consensus before altering the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

About 3RR

You seem a bit confused about WP:3RR, which prohibits more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. The diffs you provided span nearly three weeks. Grsz 11 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia claims that edit warring doesn't have to be 3RR, and that the three reversions can be made over a longer period of time - see [2]. When he claims others users can get blocked for it - I suppose he can be blocked himself?

Where did you inform SandyGeorgia about the edit-warring report you were filing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On his talk page - i posted an 3rr warning. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You warned them of an alleged 3RR situation, but you did not inform them that you were going to report the alleged violation to the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

MikeNicho231, when removing content from an article, it is particularly important to explain why. In these edits you removed a caption from a picture but didn't explain the removal in edit summaries and didn't explain the removal on the article's talk page. The caption still hasn't been restored. Could you please either (a) restore it, or (b) explain on the article's talk page why you removed it. It appears that you removed the caption while there was an ongoing discussion about the photo and the caption on the article's talk page. Removing long-standing content during a discussion is regarded as edit-warring and contravenes the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and can quickly lead to a block, regardless of whether 3RR is breached. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the caption now. When I restored the photo of the child, the caption did not come in place. I am sorry. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of other people's comments on a Discussion page.

I see you deleted the entire section about your RfC on Aspergers Syndrome. I can understand why you might want to do that - but be aware that we DO NOT ALLOW deletion of other people's comments on public discussion pages.

Your editing pattern is becoming increasingly disruptive (see my post to that thread) - and this cannot continue. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the request. Then there is no need to discuss it. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)