User talk:Mhking/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives Jan 2005 – May 2006 May 2006 – Dec 2006 Jan 2007 – Feb 2007 Feb 2007 – Apr 2007 Apr 2007 – Dec 2007 Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 Feb 2008 – Feb 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 14:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

area code map

Great map link you added to North American numbering plan! - DavidWBrooks 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism... just so you know, there are templates you can use to warn the vandals. These include {{test}}, {{test2}} (or {{test2a}} or {{test2b}}), and {{test3}}. There are {{test4}} and {{test5}}, but these are generally reserved for Admins who can enforce the warnings. They of course are not required, but sometimes help with recurring vandals. Hope this helps. Keep up the good work. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I had just seen your name a few times in the last week or so, so I thought I'd swing by to show some gratitude. Too often, hard work goes unnoticed. Thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for taking note of and reverting vandalism on the Arcata Eye page. I appreciate the help. --Metatree 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

When you put that message in my talk page, you forgot to sign-and signing is really important. CoolKatt number 99999 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning messages

Good day Sir. I just wanted to comment you that it's a good idea to sign (with 4 tildes) or at least timestamp (with 5 tildes) the warnings like {{subst:test1}} left on talk pages. And due to technical reasons, it's encouraged that you "subst" them as {{subst:test1}}. Thanks for your time. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal

I'm curious how you justify your removal of a link to the Washington Blade newspaper website in the Coretta Scott King article[1]. The Blade is a valid media outlet - a newspaper dating back to 1969. Is there some bias at work? AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God

If I revert him again, I run the risk of being blocked for the 3RR rule... It's on you now... He can't revert any more either... I don't think his edit will stand the test of consensus, eventually... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite "beat you to it"... Sam S merely went back to his old favored version that was discarded long ago, and now it's just gone back to Serge's version... We now have a clear consensus to drop "mythology" as unecessary, ambiguous and probable pov-pushing, I just don't want to be accused of 3RR, so would you do the honours? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Nicknames

Hi Mhking. I noticed you reverted the MJ article a little while ago. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Michael_Jackson#Nicknames on this nickname debate. When you have time, can you read through the history and add any comments? I am proposing we remove the nicknames from the opening paragraph but include them later in the article along with explanations of their origins. I would welcome your input on this issue. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Would you accept a compromise if we removed both names from the opening paragraph and included them later in the article? My argument, as I mentioned further up in the discussion, is that we also called Ronald Reagan The Gipper, should we also include that name in his opening paragraph? Just trying to find a solution here ...

Monkeyman^(talk) 02:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be more than happy to accept that sort of compromise. Just keep in mind that the same sort of battle will ensue there as well. --Mhking 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm painfully aware of that. :) I guess it's one compromise at a time around here. Thanks for your input.

Monkeyman^(talk) 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Siddhartha21 has edited once only today and it's a content dispute not vandalism. Please don't post such issues on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That board is meant for alerting admins to vandals who are rampaging through the site "right here, right now". To report complex problems like this go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If the editor has broken the 3RR rule report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --kingboyk 01:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies -- did not mean to overstep, or to step on any toes. I'm still trying to get the hang of things, and of rules around here. --Mhking 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. Think of it as calling 911 (which you did) rather than just leaving a message at the local police station and asking them to check this out when they've got a moment :-) No harm done, thanks for writing to me. --kingboyk 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 9, Episode 3

Note that the 3rd episode is titled, "I'm in Russia Playing with the Dolls" indicating the location for that leg. This is available through advance publicity. Cheers, --Madchester 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you delted the canged name i had for Cher back to the incomplete one??? Tom 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madea's Family Reunion

Why are you reverting the cast to the play version? This page is about the film version.

No Problem, I know who you were talking about. ;) Crumbsucker 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Almedia

Thank you for semi-protecting the page AdamJacobMuller 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

If you are unsure of his win for this award, you can verify it here.--Fallout boy 03:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, you may also add input here: Talk:George_W._Bush#Worst_Actor_Razzie. --Fallout boy 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

172.140.99.217

Just so you know, User 172.140.99.217 also vandalized the List of DirecTV U.S. channels article.

THIS USER ACCUSED ME OF SOMETHING I DID NOT DO Mhking

AND ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING I DID NOT DO. ALL I DID WAS ADD A VALUABLE LIST OF CHANNELS THAT DIRECTV DOES NOT CARRY, BUT SHOULD, IF I AM ACCUSED AND TOLD LIES LIKE THAT AGAIN, I WILL BE CONTACTING THE OWNER OF THE SITE

SO HOW IS ADDING SOMETHING

  IS A MAJOR CHANGE? IT WAS NOTHING LIKE IT ON LIST, AND ANYBODY WITH COMMON SENSE CAN SEE HOW ADDING CHANNELS DIRECTV DOES NOT CARRY IS VALUABLE INFO IN DECIDING ABOUT IT AND IS INFORMATIVE.

AND THE PUTTING LOCAL CHANNELS AFTER HDTV, IS CALLED PUTTING STUFF IN ORDER

DUH

Personal insult removed.

Help!

I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacko Jacko Mediation.

The process is described here WP:M. Due to personal problems at the moment I cannot spend much time on wiki, I am prepared to add to the case if someone else can instigate it though. Cheers. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Hey Michael, thanks for your message. No, I do not think you have been out of line; not at all. I agree wholeheartedly about Siddhartha. Fortunately he has now been IP blocked for one month. But he emailed the mailing list claiming the block was "unjustifiable" and "without warning or vindication". I replied saying he was warned numerous times by numerous people. I'm just hoping another admin doesn't unblock him--it would be nice to have a month free of his game playing. Regarding an RfC, I think we should probably put that on hold pending the outcome of the block. Don't worry, I know that you are acting in good faith and I also agree that it appears he is not. I looked at his contributions the other day and he has very little in the way of edits to other articles. I think that says a lot about his agenda, motives etc. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If I thought there were any problems with you, I would tell you straight up. There is information about the en mailing list here. Out of interest, these are his two emails:

Without warning or vindication Alkivar has blocked my IP from editing for up to a month while misleadingly insinuated that I have violated the 3rr. I have been actively discussing the moniker issue pertaining to the Michael Jackson intro for some time now unlike Alkivar whose participation thus far has been merely blocking my IP. There has been no established consensus on this issue as there have been a number of differing views on this subject and the only alleged “consensus” that has taken place has been among those who unlike myself, never compromised which would constitute a legitimate consensus. I feel that Alkivar has emphatically abused his power on this occasion and has shown very poor discretion.

User:siddhartha21, Ip

Alkivar has rashly blocked me for a month for doing no different than the people that disagreed with me. I have not violated the 3rr nor have I been warned of wrong doing by Alkivar or any other Wikipedia administrator. Where is the justification in me being blocked for a month for disagreeing with a small faction Wiki users who have done the same things as myself however in a more aggressive manner which has deterred others from continuing to disagree with them?

Funny how we seem to be responsible for his behaviour. lol. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson

Who are you to dictate how the opening line should read? Get a life! Ken Y. 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain (from a content point of view) the problem with my edit? Did you even read it? It keeps both nicknames in the introduction, but provides adequate context for them.

I will also point out that the straw poll only requests that votes be offered on whether the words should remain "in the lead". Not "lead sentence" or "lead paragraph", simply lead. Again, my edit keeps both nicknames in the lead, but provides context that was lacking in previous edits. -- ChrisB 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons -- first off, changing the lead without discussion first is something that -- as is pointed out in the article -- something that will garner reversion; secondly, while you have moved the terms to a later point in the article, that is hardly compromise, especially while there is continuing discussion going on. --Mhking 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can fully understand reverting something if the content is inappropriate or unacceptable. But the reasons you're providing are arbitrary. There is no guideline that requires that those terms be in the first sentence. First sentence to second sentence is hardly "later in the article".

Furthermore, what discussion is going on? The voting process as it's being run ignores all discussion, and flatly violates Wikipedia:Voting is evil by relating to votes rather than to the comments being made during the voting process.

~~Read what I wrote and tell me EXACTLY how it isn't an improvement to what's there now. -- ChrisB 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm jumping ship on this dispute, as it seems like there's more going on here than I want to deal with. I left one final suggestion on Talk:Michael Jackson. -- ChrisB 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

We previously butted heads over the Nirvana article, I insisted on adding information about Cobain's singing range. Because he didn't wish to have anything on that because he has no ability to verify it, he cited original research, in as much as it can be original research to point out notes in a musical piece, by the same logic one would assume pointing out lyrics is also out of bounds. It was ludicrous, and eventually we got into the rut that he insisted that any note sung in a song could be auto tuned. I left it there as I am a musician and I know that this is impossible to do realistically - it doesn't sound good. Autotune is obvious. Listen to Sk8er boi by Lavinge? Me thinks you can hear it. Anyway I abandoned the argument, but not before he attacked the Staley article which i had given a little TLC to, and deleted my first article, I let it go because whilst the deletion and merge was not discussed as is policy and unneccessary I knew he was just trying to bait me, I gave a little nip back and clipped bits of unverifiable information from the Cobain article which he then rv'd citing it as sourced with a book which is part-fiction (Charles' cross - heavier than heaven, last part is all fiction) however he took this personally and then started wikistalking me. I ignored him and his constant interruptions and comments in every article i regularly edit however he recently jumped in my way in the MJ article - which is where you come into contact with him. I had no idea he posted this into your user page. I believe if you ignore him he'll go away eventually ;)--Manboobies 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY FUCKING CRAP. Are you insane? Dude, I'm done. This is not what happened at all. I'm not even going to get into it - Mhking, just read User_talk:Manboobies/Archive001 and the last section of Talk:Nirvana_(band) and see what I actually said. Reading this, now I'm completely freaked out. -- ChrisB 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to spare you reading all of that, here's one excerpt about his "autotune" assertion. Manboobies doesn't read what I write when I explain things - he reads selected parts and ignores the rest. The only reason we've had a dispute is because he doesn't understand my explanations and simply accuses me of trolling. This is in User_talk:Manboobies/Archive001 and has not been edited:

"I'm not talking about autotune. Have you ever used a real studio-level tape machine? They have a pitch knob, which can manually adjust the speed of the recorder. If there's a pitch you can't hit, you just slow the tape down enough to where you can hit the note, record it, then reset the machine to normal speed. And, again, a tab book doesn't prove that the note was actually in his range. You need a source THAT ACTUALLY SAYS HE COULD HIT THE NOTE IN EXPLICIT TERMS. That's the original research part of the sentence, and the real problem. -- ChrisB 06:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

He clearly never read this paragraph, and I genuinely believed that it covered the point consicely.

I can't imagine that you care about this, but there's more in the locations noted. Apologies for intruding on your talk page. -- ChrisB 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to quote you, verbatim in one of your many million offensive comments: "Whose fucking version of "accuracy" are you talking about?" [2]--Manboobies 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, it's not possible to do what you say and have it sound good. Yes, I have been near studio equipment, I have my own small studio, I've been in many, including some very big ones. Nobody uses tape any more. And again, the only record I can think that used speeding up the tape to good effect is Bohemian Rhapsody. Now, does that F#5 sound good to you? No. It sounds like a fast forwarded C4, which it is. I don't see the point in arguing with you, you're such a troll, you're always baiting people, your talk page is full chocka block with people complaining about your behaviour and Rv'ing without asking, and when somebody points it out you flip your lid. I'm more than happy to source every little thing you've done to wiki stalk me since April. Because you would have happened upon the MJ article and started arguing over it with me normally? Had you ever touched that article before in your life? Why am I even bothering with you?--Manboobies 06:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a response to all of this, but I'll take it to User_talk:Manboobies. -- ChrisB 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Important - Your input requested ASAP *

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
You can leave your message on this talk page here.

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mhking! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your link removal

Please explain why you removed the external link for John Cleese, which I added to his page when I was accidentally not logged on. The link was a genuine one, and was to a profile of John Cleese at a comedy website.

By your actions in reverting to a previous edit by VandalProof, you have now unfairly and untruthfully branded me a vandal, which is something I did hot deserve. Your removal of the link was virtually immediate (going by the history page) on my adding the link to John Cleese's page, so it would appear that you did not even give me the courtesy of checking the link before you swooped into action. Figaro 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing to me and explaining what happened. I appreciate it very much. I know how difficult things can be sometimes with children about :-) All the best Figaro 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Removal In Olympia music scene

I'm curious as to why you removed the link I made to the olympia music scene page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:205.134.215.59&redirect=no

I live in Olympia, and it is an active band that i'm in.

Babe Ruth link removal

He changed "30, 40, 50, and 60 home runs" to "30, 40, and 50 home runs". Babe Ruth set the record at 60 home runs in one season, so by definition, he was the first to hit 60 home runs. The intent was not to vandalize the page (the change I made was technically correct, if not stylistically correcty). My intent was not to degrade wikipedia's content, but to further highlight the magnitude of Babe Ruth's career.

User 146.7.40.174

You reverted my edit and sent me a vandalism warning. I am user Rjm656s who requested speedy deletion. I signed out and realized that I had not formed the request properly and removed it to further research the issue. 146.7.40.174 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

david blaine

Holy shit. Fast editing on the David Blaine. you took it out like 30 seconds after I put it in.

Anyway, good job. Keep monitoring it.

Cheers MT

vandalism to Carbonic acid

um atchually i was reverting vandalism flagged on #vandalism-en-wp , i assume youve made a mistake ;) Benon 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, appears our revisons got all tangaled up sorry about that :) Benon 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to User:RadioKirk

Thank you! :) Radio Kirk talk to me 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Lemoncat

What was this edit about? --pgk^(talk) 22:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to remove me tagging the indef blocked user notice as vandalism? You did succeed and I restored it right after protecting the page, the user is indef blocked for creating a string of articles an example of which I gave on the page (now all deleted) --pgk^(talk) 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, I was just somewhat confused. The reason for posting one of the full links is that deleted edits don't show up in the persons contributions, so anyone looking at it will wonder what vandalism they were blocked for, admins can see deleted edits so will know... --pgk^(talk) 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Sorry "Mhking". my bad! Won't happen again! :^) --69.67.226.10 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tape: Not vandalism

See that page again. Look at the link while you're at it. I think you're a little quick to pull the trigger - 10 minutes would have been enough to see the link working. 68.124.65.69 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look over your talkpage, and contributions history, Mhking. Looks like you've been a vandalcop for all of 9 days now and you have pissed off tons of (apparently) legitimate users. Nice going! I wonder: Are other users of vandalproof generating similar amounts of complaints? Are other users of vandalproof reverting hundreds of items per day? I know it's hard to stop and read the things you're reverting when you're plowing along at scores of items per hour, but you really ought to slow down. Your carelessness isn't any kind of solution. 68.124.65.69 01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

Hi. Your previous edit in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has been reverted as it apparently looks as if it is vandalism. This may very well be a simple mistake, and you may want to try again. Thanks. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Didn't go back far enough... --Mhking 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've settled what you needed to do there. Cheers. :) ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Robert O'Connor

Why did you revert my revert? The article was about a novelist who's book was basis for a movie. On May 8 it has been substituted by an article about an insignificant recording artist who will publish his debut album by the end of 2006.--84.56.52.140 14:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the opening section is somehow compulsory when changing the complete matter of the article. It seems like a more technical criteria but if you what to keep that pitiful singer i'm not going to disturb you anymore.--84.56.52.140 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Vomano

Having a hard time knowing what specifically led you to request a cleanup of Villa Vomano? Ulissi 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]