Jump to content

User talk:Mtking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avaya1 (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 28 November 2011 (→‎November 2011). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MtKing Talk Contribs Logs Blocks Deletions Email
Welcome to my talk page.

Template:Busy2


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Signpost: 21 November 2011


Need assistance regarding a user who continues to troll Cung Le articles

Hi, I just wanted to know if you can help edit or help me contact someone regarding a specific user who refuses to acknowledge any proof that I have provided regarding a recent error by the UFC.

The specific user in question is Glock17gen4. His only evidence is a picture based on a mistake by UFC production, where MMA fighter Cung Le has already responded that he did not know about, yet Glock17gen4 refuses to accept that and continues to revert Cung Le's Nationality as a current Vietnamese national.

I have provided significant proof in both discussions at the UFC 139 and Cung Le's articles. Please take a look. Cung Le has acknowledged both his American nationality and his Vietnamese heritage (especially with the 3 striples flag which represents the fallen Saigon). I hope you can help. Both his website at CungLe.com and UFC.com profile describe him as a Vietnamese-American and he quoted as calling himself an American Wushu champion. Glock17gen4 seems to not understand the differences between Nationality and Ethnicity. He continues to only use that one picture as his proof. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being taken care of right now.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mtking&oldid=462969394"