User talk:ChakaKong

Please do not initiate a discussion here on my talk page if you intend to whine or bitch at me over an editing-related dispute. Take it to the article's talk page. I have better things to do than argue over nonsense with strangers. If you have a legitimate concern I'll listen, but I don't have much tolerance for BS disputes or bogus warnings. I make every effort to stick to the guidelines in my editing; if you do the same you likely won't have any reason to try to pick a fight with me.

Your pal, ChakaKong

Hello, ChakaKong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Simplified Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet

Hello, I am Nicholasemjohnson. I understand that you have accused me of being a sock puppet of User Bt8257. I assure you that I am not. I have never even heard of this account. I would like to know why you would make such an accusation. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can explain why it seems I have made several edits on the same article. Sometimes when I edit an article, I forget to check the preview, so I get the results that I was not expecting. Other times I made one edit but then noticed something else that needed editing. I apologize if that may lead to any kind of suspicion, but I assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Erik Karlsson

About your removal of my picture of Erik Karlsson from his article with the comment "completely unnecessary", why do you feel that way? The current image is of very low quality. You practically cannot recognize his face. The picture I replaced it with is of much higher qualilty. If you an have issue with that particular photograph, how about these: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erik_Karlsson_-_Jokerit_-_2012_2.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erik_Karlsson_-_Jokerit_-_2012_3.jpg or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erik_Karlsson_-_Jokerit_-_2012_4.jpg? teevee (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kyuss

Hello,
The reason why I re-added "alternative metal" to the infobox was that the Allmusic source (which was used to cite heavy metal) also indicated that the band was alternative metal. Also please note that the article is of interest to Wikiproject Alternative music. Thank you. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, it would have been better to remove the disputable citation as whole rather than just focusing on the genre change changes themselves, sir. I know about Wikipedia's stance against Allmusic's genre classifications; nevertheless I thought that it would've been still valid as you didn't touch it. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lita Ford

Please explain why my source for her awards is not accurate? There is no reason for it to be removed. Xffactor (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely did if you look for at the awards years that were posted. If I have to post multiple pages to appease you then I will do that. Xffactor (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it did and was quite sufficient. But here ya go. Xffactor (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Law of One book series up for deletion

Hi ChakaKong, I was wondering if you could offer comment on the deletion of The Law of One book series? As far as I read the relevant pages such as WP:BKCRIT and WP:FRINGE, the book series is sufficiently notable to merit a mention. Could you weigh in? Is there some improvement I could make to the page that would meet the requirements? Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for supporting The Law of One. And apologies if I posed as a detriment to your cause. Neoconfederate (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Josh Homme

Hello,
After seeing this edit made by an IP, I've decided to further check about this. I've found some sources ([1] and [2]) calling Josh Homme a tenor; however I am not sure whether we should include these in the article or not (or how to include, if we should). I'd be grateful if you could help me on this topic. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Matt Cooke

Factual? Kind of. Misleading, absolutely.

Despite efforts to change his style, controversy again found Cooke on February 13, 2013, in a game against the Ottawa Senators. - Not only is "controversy again found Cooke..." unencyclopedic language, it sets a presumption that Cooke did something dirty (again).

Cooke brought his skate blade down on the back of Karlsson's left leg, severing the defenseman's Achilles Tendon. "Cooke brought his skate blade down" - Again, creates the presumption of a deliberate, dirty act.

Though the incident did not result in a suspension, many observers questioned Cooke's assertion that the incident was accidental... - This is where I have a huge problem. "many observers"? Of all the cites, only one introduces the question of whether the play was dirty, and singles out Ottawa Senator fans. Sorry, but angry fans don't count as "many observers". The other cites all basically say "the league took no action, nor should it have". This statement is deliberately misleading at best, and outright false at worst.

...given his history of suspensions for deliberate attempts to injure - Much like the rest of the paragraph, this statement is designed to implicate nefarious intent.

The passage also chooses to ignore the fact that the league itself stated the play was not malicious. Taken as a whole, the entire construct is designed argue that it is fact that the play was dirty on the part of Cooke even though few, other than Sens fans, are saying so. I understand why Sens fans are reacting the way they are - I can't imagine I'd be any happier if it happened to Iginla - but there is a lot of POV in that passage, based heavily on WP:SYNTH. I have reverted back, and if you want to take it further, I suggest taking it up at the point of view noticeboard. Resolute 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, and believe me, my very first reaction was the same. It's Matt Cooke, how could it not be dirty? But I think that if you step back, you'll see that very few are actually calling the hit anything but unfortunate. Most that are are in Ottawa. As I said, understandable given who made the hit, and who got hurt. Resolute 19:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Resolute. Its pretty clear that the object of your edits is to cast doubt on Cooke's intent. I certainly no fan of Cooke or the Pens, but you should stand down on this. TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"but you should stand down on this" - You've seen no further argument from me on the subject. I appreciate the advice nonetheless. ChakaKong^talk 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Homer?

Maybe it's not the best idea for an avowed Ottawa Senators fan to keep reverting good faith edits that result in info that you believe to be embarassing to one of the team's players. I would kindly request that you recuse yourself from editing something on a topic where your judgment may be biased. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edits just don't pass the duck test, my friend. You can go from computer to computer or hop from IP to IP all day long but you're not fooling anyone. An editor violating community standards and policies and making every effort to be deceptive should probably avoid finger pointing and lecturing other users. Have a nice day. ChakaKong^talk 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I edit anon and I have been on travel. Hardly trying to fool anyone. Sock puppetry refers to accounts, read your own link bro. My comment and polite request stand. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you know how Wikipedia works then ;) ChakaKong^talk 22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you are cordially invited to comment on the article talk page. Please note that I have there disclosed my accounts used in this matter fully. You reverted other editors with the same matter, I now see from the history, by my count you are reverting a total of three editors. I presume you will make a further accusation of sockpuppetry to the other anon accounts, which you are of course welcome to do. Can you suggest a method by which we bring attention to the discussion from other users so that your concerns on that front are allayed? Perhaps a note on an NHL project page? 75.103.11.162 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also in case you're wondering where my biases lie, I'm a Rangers fan with Kings season tickets. And yes, for a transplant it does suck to only get Western conference teams in town this year. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Go Sens Go!!!!

Go Sens go!!!!! Even without Karlsson and Spezza, we still play amazingly. I hope you agree, eh? NHCLS (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm pretty exicted about the Conacher addition. Seems a shame to let Bishop go, but, we don't really need another goaltender. And how great is it to actually be able to say that as a Sens fan? After Gerber, Emery, Leclaire, and many more, we finally have some goalies. and Praise Alfie. Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Milestones

I saw that you reverted all of my edits placing the milestones into the Player Pages because they do not follow the "recommended" format for the player pages. Please keep in mind that the format is there for a recommendation on how to format the pages. The format also has not been updated in quite some time so I opened up a discussion here to try to get them updated. Please know that I feel that my edits were useful information that could expand on the Players articles and that other players have information in their articles that do not follow the format either. - B2Project^(Talk) 01:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

MGM Music

Your edit to the MGM Music article was reverted because it contains false info. A citation was added from [3] to back up the current edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit reverted an edit which was adding unsourced information. I was merely following the guidelines. That's a very poor reason to leave a message on my talk page about adding "false info". ChakaKong^talk 15:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But your reverted edit revealed clearly false information. That was why your edit was reverted and a citation was added to show that the edit I made is correct. Once again, Warner Music Group DOES NOT OWN the MGM Records soundtracks. The rights are owned by Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit which had licensed the music to Rhino Entertainment which is owned by Warner Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Superastig made the error and he has been warned about making false edits time and time again. The proper thing to do is to insert a tag. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing whether or not your edit is correct. I honestly don't care. My only concern is that it was quite unnecessary to leave a warning on my talk page when all I did was follow the guidelines by reverting an edit which added unsourced information. It's not my responsibility to verify the accuracy of any completely unsourced information being replaced by newer and also completely unsourced information. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. That is what the guidelines state and that is what I did. End of story. I am under no obligation to add a tag; that is merely a suggestion and not "the proper thing to do". ChakaKong^talk 17:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is not right to change a correct, though uncited edit, with a clearly incorrect and uncited edit which you did. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, find someone else to argue with. It is you who acted inappropriately, not I. ChakaKong^talk 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I DID NOT act inappropriately. YOU DID. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure the edit you make is correct and that you DO NOT revert to a false edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Drop it pal. ChakaKong^talk 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if you apologize. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)