User talk:MichaelMaison

William Cheung

I have just reverted your edits of William Cheung as they have a distinct POV tone to them, hyou also removed references, and the 'controversy' section, which from the talk page and the various edits seems to need a place, there is a contorverly over the linage of Wing Chun so anyone claiming to be the Grandmaster needs to have alternate claims mentioned. I would suggest th is disscused on the article talk page. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. please use the Edit summary to explain you edits as it helps other contributes. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Was not intentionally disrespecting any one. The comments you kindly reposted were made by a now banned user who disliked the fact that I didn't let him self promote on wikipedia. I apologise if you felt my reverts were wrong, however I felt some of the language used was inappropriate; You stated contested things as facts and have not provided any sources for them, I have now tried to produce a compromise version please read it, then edit rather than just reverting.

P.S. Please do not remove other people's comments from talk pages, its impolite. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopaedia Wikipedia needs a reliable source to cite information, I have never trained in Wing Chun or an variant of it, and have no idea who is the real successor, I just want any claim to be phrased neutrally (see WP:NPOV)and be supported, i.e. to be a report of both sides drawing no conclusions. May I suggest a copy of the page is taken to the article talk & hacked about there till a consensus version can be reached? --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Ting

Please don't add such POV stuff to Leung Ting. The tone of your writings was completely inappropriate. Also, please see the article talk page and the discussion of controversy. --Mista-X 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm good. We'll simply include what William Cheung knows about it firsthand, and quote him. It seems that people often have a POV issue except when it's theirs. Of course, that won't fly, now will it?

Sorry, but what you are saying won't fly. I have no leaning towards Leung, other than I have seen him once on a TV show and own a book by him; I don't even practice Wing Chun. I am simply trying to keep the article factual and non-POV. --Mista-X 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Leung Ting. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mista-X 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

Please note you are up to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Violations 3 revisions on the William Cheung article today. If you violate the 3RR rule with a 4th revision, your IP can be blocked or other action taken per the 3RR page. --Marty Goldberg 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it at least 20 times today. Who gives you province?

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on William Cheung. Viridae ^Talk 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Edit

That was a good edit at William Cheung regarding the Germany incident. Glad to see you follow NPOV and make a solid contribution. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]