User talk:MKil

Welcome!

Hello, MKil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! Mushroom (Talk) 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Steele edits you made

Why did you say the "information about pictures with national Republicans" was "erroneous"? Did I miss something? I went through Steele's website and saw lots of pictures with smiling citizens but I recognized only McCain. What other prominent Reublicans is he pictured with, and where is the link? Please let me know. Thanks.Acham 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Craig

I wont bother protecting as at the moment its all coming from one IP (whom I just blocked) - I will keep an eye out however :) Keep up the great work Glen 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please abide by the three revert rule. Failure to do so may result in your IP being blocked. Jerimee 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your history here clearly indicates you revert things, I am not the one to judge you, but you reverted things on Rocky page and I do not mean just first paragraph. Also, i mentioned rocky was greatest, not the greatest, but some say he is greatest, so I am not putting any pov, but generally accepted fact, if you continue reverting I will make sure you are blocked, do you understand me?

In reply... O yea, this is exactly what you just made up, anon, but correct, besides I know administrators and rocky fans who make edits, also now you tell me english thing, hey, another excuse, shut up, never once when you reverted things did you say it is because of english, but because of rocky's greatness and so on, also, when i log off my computer, log on, new ip comes out, so, stop thinking of poor, poor excuses, when you have no point at all and you never did.I personally never said Rocky was the greatest, nor anybody else, that is not a proper question. yea, but it was not hard to delete things which have nothing to do with understanding, YES, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND ME, WHEN I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF, WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED 100 TIMES, LINKS ARE ALSO ON THE ROCKY PAGE, AND IF YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, TRUST ME, I AM NOT POINTING THEM OUT! That's that.

Please

I understand you are upset with a certain IP adress but please refrain from fighting with it Natasha 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, he keeps on putting same things into my mouth, generally accepted idea, he wants to change that, i gave him all the links he wants, he wants more. So, I am only doing what's right.

Natasha, perhaps I am in the wrong here for picking a fight with this person who hides behind the anonimity of his IP address. It's not worth it, that's certain. MKil 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

No, not hiding, simply trying to make that article ok, you have to read again and you will find out what I told you.

List of greatest boxers

Did you know, that article has been deleted, i recall most of the people voted for it, do you agree, go there, amazing, wow, amazing, do you agree with that, that was a fine, reliable article... Shall we do something about this, write to idiot who did it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_considered_greatest_fighter_ever and

Lineal champs... WOW, should we have a say? Also gone... en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lineal_heavyweight_champions&action=edit

I am requesting some info, you showed some interest in the above, i know you made some edits, are we going to do anything about that, which is much more important than any other edit you are playing with? I also asked you to look into other things, but you have personal vandetta here, keep on arguing rocky is totally not the greatest, reverting baker page, etc... Also, you left on my talk page word vandettta, there are no 3 t's! User_talk: BoxingWear

Bob "The Grinder" Baker

(Copied from User:lmcelhiney Talk Page)

==Wikified== Hello, I am trying to make this one article wikified, also I did provide few sources, hopefully you can review few things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .User_talk: BoxingWear

I, too, am trying to improve the Baker article. Unfortunately, my attempts to improve the writing on the page as well as remove weasel words, insertion of rumors, etc., are continually reverted. Let's work together to improve this article. MKil 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

That is 100% not true, I am simply putting correct information, also Mkil had lots of problems with other users in the past. I simply want article to look good, i am not doing anything wrong, this man demands self evident truth, something that already exists in the world he wants evidence, he had problems with calling rocky greatest, as some people consider him, i gave links, he reverted, I would like this user no longer to bother others, sure, he can reply well and may be he means well, but he is not doing it right, so even if he means well, eventually problems arise, I was asked by others as well to look into his problems. Here's some evidence, this guy HAS SERIOUS BEHAVIORAL problems, 3 rule revert, so this happened last year with others... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR

Every time I try to fix something, he keeps on inverting his own story, on the Baker talk page, I truly explained myself, on rocky marciano page, others tried to explain. He simply does not listen, will not listen,then when he gives an argument, he writes a whole book, repeats himself and adds stuff totally irrelevant to the situation, tries to revert the given, something already well, well known.User_talk: BoxingWear

OK, please don't use MY talk page for your personal disagreements!

OK, BoxingWear and MKil, You folks need to work together to resolve this, please. The Talk page is longer than the article! Here are two examples which are similar to this article: Tony Gale and Marcel Cerdan. Note, that both are basically a blob of text on the page without citations. Now, look at Rocky Graziano, Al Hostak, and Sugar Ray Robinson for example which have been WikiFied. Note the use of an introduction and sections which pull together common information.

Use WikiPedia (as I did to find these articles) and Google to find other sources of information and cite your sources. (That doesn't mean just putting an external reference at the bottom or having WikiLinks within the article.) Then, once you have the facts and all agree on them, you can write the article and have minor disagreements over the way something is said. Right now, there is so little material there and so many weasel words (many, some, about, etc.) that the article has no chance of being retained over time. The guidelines here give you lots of information about what an article should look like and how to use and cite sources.

As painful as it might seem, you might be better off in simply rewriting the entire article than trying to piece together improvements. Every time that you swap edits back and forth, it draws attention on the Recent Changes page and brings in folks like me. By the way, I have absolutely no interest in boxing--just in making WikiPedia better (not perfect, but better).

Please write to me if you want additional guidance or suggestions. Thanks for listening. Larry

Lmcelhiney 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and tried and tried to reason with this man, not only that he is taking away important information on Baker, he is doing the same with Rocky, if you go on my talk page, it has been explained, other users complained, so, try to block that guy, he is killing very important informtion, e.g. Chuvalo fight, date sep 9, keeps on reverting, i mean, he is hopeless, this is now vandalism, he has his own agenda, and other users reported that problem to me. He should not be allowed on wiki, he creates problems. Besides I was a pro boxer, I know a little bit more. The problem is, he keeps on putting words into my mouth. Another point, on marciano page, he reverted my edit abour rocky's military service, i deleted united kingdom reference, since he did not provide evidence of that, this is not a self given, we need to know that for sure, he needs to provide sources, i wanted to add myself he delivered ammunition to soldiers in France, but I have no link to prove it. User_talk: BoxingWear All I ask is that my edits and BoxingWear's edits be compared and judged on their merits. Mine are better written and avoid the use of weasel words. This disagreement is becoming quite childish, I'll admit. It's unfortunate that it has to reach the level where we are drawing the attention of others. MKil 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Folks, no one is going to compare your edits and judge them on their merits until you simply stop changing them and allow people to read them! You'll never be able to create this article if each of you have such ownership of the text. But, please understand, THAT is not the problem with this article. Your reverts will cause the article to be protected or the editors blocked or banned.

Please take this argument off of my User page...

Lmcelhiney 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll back down. Thanks for the words of advice. MKil 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Re:User talk:58.64.103.227

You do some fine work. Good find on the Duva cite. Also, thanks for cleaning up my Marciano book reference.

Why not register with a Wikipedia account so you can establish a history here? You seem like you'd be a good addition. MKil 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Thank you.

My English skill is very poor.i am just a boxing fan in a faraway country. all i can do for Wikipedia is just finding some source, remove or add a short sentence. :)

actually i am the editor who added IBRO citation for the Louis page. that meant we have talk talked once at Louis' talk page :)

btw, i saw you editing boxer page in Wikipedia for times. i like your works. Keep working :)

How hard to understand, do not leave me messages

Do not leave me any messages, DO NOT TALK TO ME, this has been explained 100 times, the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me? Every time i do small edit, you jump on it and not only that you reverse what I said, YOU REVERSE MANY OTHER THINGS I DID NOT EVEN TOUCH. -Boxingwear

One, the user with the IP address beginning with 58 is not me. Two, you may want to read the following page on how to resolve disputes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes). In it, it states, "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." When you make changes, I do not automatically delete them. I try to improve your writing. That is what I did today. You added some info on Patterson and then when I tried to improve it, you automatically reverted it. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. MKil 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

It is you and I had enough of your stupidity and sophisticated vandalism.

Do not leave me any messages, DO NOT TALK TO ME, this has been explained 100 times, the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me? Every time i do small edit, you jump on it and not only that you reverse what I said, YOU REVERSE MANY OTHER THINGS I DID NOT EVEN TOUCH. -Boxingwear

BoxingWear, you may also want to check out this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines), specifically this: "Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you." MKil 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

AGAIN, do not put words into my mouth, I NEVER SAID ADMINISTRATORS I KNOW, NEVER, I said i will report you and block you, may be somebody else said it, because on my talk page people left messages, complaining about you, reporting you to administrator is not threat but part of wiki or any civil policy YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING. You are a sophisticated vandal who must be and will be stopped.

I would like good soluion to our problem, but you keep on reverting, reverting, reverting, thus, there is no compromise, end of story!

Again, I do not merely revert; I improve the writing of poorly written articles. You are the one who keeps reverting my changes. When I try to improve your badly written sentences, you revert the changes and call me a vandal. That is a violation of wikipedia policy. MKil 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

There are no bad sentences, I am reverting what you revert, other people's good work, again you have time on your hands to come up with excuses after excuses and then again some new excuses.Boxingwear

You think these are good sentences? "Many wonder how come Rocky did not wait around for Floyd Patterson, here was some talk about Floyd Patterson fighting Rocky on Wednesday Night Fights; either on January 11, 1956, or on January 4 or January 6, 1956, (Floyd's 21st birthday). This Los Angeles, CA bout may have used two-and-a-half minutes exhibition, 2 rounds format, originally planned for Los Angeles, CA. " MKil 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You do not stop do you, i do not care what you have to say, you revert, you put your own words, if it is bad spelling or writing, correct, do not kill mr. mkill sophisticated vandal, same old story, new excuses.

I tried to correct both of those sentences, but you reverted my changes. MKil 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Do not reply, this last change, I more or less agree with you, but these situations are very rare due to your attitude. Boxingwear

Miami fight

Mkil, if you go under the footnote jan 2, go under beecham fight, there is a full explanation to that bout, also claims on january 2 a heavyweight championship fight was scheduled, that is the reference to marciano fight.

Also your last reply on my talk page..

Well, I will again reply, but do not reply on my talk page, go reply on yours, do you ever read articles, no, it says exhibition only and citation has been given on other new year match, think... I moved citation to Cuba fight, I do have that old pdf file to prove that. Boxingwear

You can't ban me from your Talk page. These pages are used to discuss these matters and we can do it on yours as well as mine.

To the matter at hand, I have no idea what you are saying. What article are you referring to? What article mentions the Marciano-Patterson exhibition bout? If you have one, put it in the citation page. I'd like to read about it. As far as the January 2 match, I explained that the boxrec source is a pretty poor source. A better one would be nice. MKil 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Merging pages

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. —Drowne | Talk 18:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get things done together

Ok, I am done talking to you on Marciano page, you really vandalized it, pov, well i may agree with you on punches, but would you say we should add a little bit, dude, just relax, be more specific, realistic, we are human, we can not have everything perfect, also remember popular opininon thru time become facts. Now... Liste of lineal heavyweight champion is gone, look what i said above, get in touch with this administrator....Gwernol and, I am perplexed, shocked, staggered, i mean we voted 5:2 or 5:1 not to delete and it's gone, we need that article back, shall you recreate it?

FINAL WARNING, I TRIED AND I TRIED TO BE REASONABLE WITH YOU- I WILL TOMORROW START FULL INVESTIGATION, WILL REPORT YOU FOR MANY PROBLEMS, THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, IF YOU DO NOT LEAVE THIS WILL GO TO SPECIAL WIKI ADMINISTRATION, I AM SICK OF YOUR VANDALISM AND YOUR REVERTS, YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO DO, THIS WILL BE VERY SERIOUS IF YOU CONTINUE, DO NOT TALK TO ME, DO NOT CONTACT ME, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. UNDERSTAND, I do not mean to shout, but i do NOT want you on my talk page, ever again!

I know you used other ip's to log on, defend yourself and other people who backed you are your buddies. Boxingwear

Say what you will, but it is all untrue. I don't use other IPs to log on and I never talked to Pulltoopen before this. I understand that you are upset that a third-party review of our disagreements vindicated me and delivered a stinging rebuke to you. Instead of claiming there is some sort of conspiracy against you, though, you may want to actually read what Pulltoopen wrote and start abiding by Wikipedia policies. I'm happy to work with you if you do so. MKil 15:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Fine by me. I am confident than any examination of these issues will do more to vindicate my position than yours. I'm happy to leave it up to editors to sort out. MKil 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

good!

3RR stuff

I truly am sorry that you got pulled into an edit war with BoxingWear. You were civil and patient, and I wish you best of luck to your wiki-career in the future. Cheers, P TO 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to admit to some bad behavior myself in terms of edit warring, though. I should have also called for mediation sooner. Thanks for your help on this. MKil 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Rocky Marciano

I have protected the page again for a short duration. I would ask you to again return to the talk page and work out your differences there - I have started a new topic. I would love to moderate the discussion a little, but I'm afraid my time is a little limited at the moment due to some long work hours (can't edit from work), my responses may be a little slow if things get heated. Your patience is appreciated. Kuru ^talk 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Boxer

Actually Anderson isn't an un-notable amateur boxer. He's a student in y11 whom faked everything on that page wondering how long it would take to be taken down. (a long time as it turned out)

Deletion in order indeed.

Rocky Marciano, update

Thank you for your rather infinite patience on this article, MKil. I'm afraid that I did not dig deep enough into the edit history of the article to see the long term issues that were present; and I apologize for that. I can promise you that the situation you encountered is a fairly infrequent occurrence; and I hope that you continue to contribute! You seem to have fairly quickly grasped our core policies. Kuru ^talk 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the conflict...

Hi MKil,

I tried earlier as you know, but I just didn't have the power to do much other than counsel you both. I believe that you saw yourself being sucked into a bad situation, though sometimes we can't pull ourselves up with our own bootstraps, unfortunately.

I hope that things go better for you in our WP future!

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No end to conflict

Mkil, you need to realize you got me into trouble, anyways, i do agree with most of your edits like I told you on January 31st, I do know you had your buddies here, i had nobody, i found out I had somebody (who was banned) left me some messages on my talk page, i tried to help. I will not go into details, if they think I used some IP he used, well, all i know is they are wrong. Some time ago you told me you want to resolve situation, i simply wanted to correct few things and be on my way anyways, can you talk to plo and few others to unblock me, after all I tried to resolve situation, do not leave messages on my talk page, i can not edit there, reply here, i will look into this situation. I am not saying we should work together, i am only writing to let you know if they think that is whoever they think it really does not bother me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BoxingWear&diff=105012607&oldid=104944575

Here's the history of my main page. If you can get me unblocked it will be appreciated and I can assist you with boxing stories, i published a dozen of stories on eastsideboxing and on few other boxing sites. I knew I would get into trouble. You never accepted the fact that you made many mistakes with boxing dates and I corrected them. It does not bother me to be suspended, :). Did you know they blocked all of the local ip's, HAHA, now, nobody can even edit and join wikipedia, ah well, even better.

To the problem... On January 31st we agreed we need new marciano greatest link, what do you suggest? I am not going away just like that. Sure I can have another account, no problem, I WILL NOT do that. And certainly I can log on from a computer at my work, so they can not check user check and i certainly could touch other accounts, aside from the ones i touched so it would be impossible to find me. But I do not need that since I am not welcomed here. I simply want few things agreed, do not change those dates, just put citation needed, we shall be just fine. Honestly, my contributions, nobody had problem with them. For example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoxingWear#A_late_welcome this is general, but there are others who appreciate my additions. Boxingwear Boxingwear —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.129.105.149 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If i remain banned, ok, we can still work together, i do not care if i am banned or not, but yea, i should not be banned. I am glad you move the baker page, i wanted to do that for a long time and the information box is something i wanted to do, but when i asked an administrator for assistance, nobody ever replied, i was told from the beginning i should never put my faith on wiki administrator! By the way under baker, real name, it's empty, do you think that is appropriate? Boxingwear

ps. As far as my block goes, i simply want that removed, then we can make some editions and I WILL BE GONE FROM wiki, as you remember, i told you i need few things corrected, if i am not welcomed, fine, i shall not contribute. I do not have time anyways but when I do, I do contrubute well and I had plans to create 10 more articles on some fine boxers the world barely remembers today. It's a shame, but, anyways... boxingwear

List of lineal heavyweight champions

I am in touch with few other people, banned or not, we need to fix that, what do you suggest, how do we bring back, yea, before i was "discovered" long before, I requested this from administrators, i was ignored. May be you should create that link again? Boxingwear —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.144.160.251 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Look, BoxingWear, it was never my intention to get you banned. I wanted editors to mediate our dispute, but when they found you were a long-time abuser of Wiki, they rightly banned you. There is nothing I can do to reverse that. If you want me to create some articles on old-time boxers that you feel is missing, I'd be happy to help. I'm also happy to work on the lineal heavyweight championship article. As for unbanning you, though, I can't do anything about that. MKil 15:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Warning

We are working on resolving situation with this individual, so do not want him to be mixed with others, that particular talk must not be removed.DO NOT continue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.37.2.142 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you are an administrator, I'll gladly follow your direction. However, I think it strange that an administrator would not be logged in. If you are not an administrator (and are, as I suspect, BoxingWear), then I'll keep restoring the improperly removed material from the Marciano talk page. MKil 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BobBaker.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BobBaker.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Chuvalo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuvalo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BW

Greetings! Yes, he now uses open proxies (by Wikipedia policy those are to be blocked on sight). We could semi-protect the page, but since he's the only troublemaker currently active on it, and then only about once a day, reverting isn't a huge deal. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks. MKil 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Marcaino details

Some guy put something about his height, totally wrong, I deleted that! Was that you? Reach, it is important. Rocky was a small-time fighter, it is amazing he was the top dog with this reach, you said that is not important? You are WRONG. It is remarkable. Middle weight fighters have longer reach than that. There are stories in every biography. http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't write anything about Marciano's height. As far as the reach goes, what I meant was that it should not be included in the opening paragraph. It's not important enough to go there. Where you put it in the body works quite well, however. MKil 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

mkil, ok, just keep it clean and correct...I pasted a better web site on Marciano's reach. It is amazing how much confusion can arise after so many years. And even people who knew him really do not know him. (it happens to many, a similar situation or two)

SCHIP

You inserted this in the SCHIP article: "The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives." Where in the CBO report does it say this? I'm not saying it's not there, I'm merely asking because I didn't see it when I read the report. I didn't read it too in-depth, however, so I could have missed it. Thanks. MKil 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

The claim is paraphrased from the report. Here it is verbatim: "The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower costs, or some combination thereof ), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children." [1], page 9. Abe Froman 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavyweight limit

I'll have a look at this in a couple of days (hopefully tomorrow), but the edit warring is helping no one nor Wikipedia. Remember, if someone changes a fact which is well sourced, it isn't just an content dispute, but vandalism, so it helps to source it well. Regards, Severo^TC 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's also Ring magazine's ratings, which show the cruiserweight limit at 200. Therefore, anything above that is heavyweight:http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages/ratings2.html.

As much of a problem as the "anonymous" user is, I don't really think this is vandalism. I truly think that he doesn't understand the distinction that I'm trying to make. Thanks for stepping in, though. MKil 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

True, it all seems to be in good faith, just a lot of fuss over half a kilogram! Severo^TC 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, we want Wiki to be accurate, no? MKil 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I always agreed, we need to make wiki much more accurate.

I will live with your decision, i always wanted to be sure we are correct. Ok, I will however ask boxing historians and take it from there. If it's over 200 lbs so be it, if you check my conversation from yesterday I said, let it be 201 or more for now, if it's otherwise, then we can change it. So for now, let it be. But, as long as the word over is included, it's ok, people will assume 201.

August 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Coley Wallace. Thank you. Rjd0060 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September, 2007

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not sure the AIV is the right place. Why not here? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and they said next time something happens report it at AIV.MKil 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I was the one who suggested WP:AIV. In addition to whatever good-faith issues the anon might have had, this was mixed with rather trival personal attacks. Someguy1221 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Heavyweight Division.

You havent a clue what you're talking about. Muppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoBastardo (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hopkins page

Someone has added that Hopkins won the Light heavyweight title vs Tarver & re-added the Ray Robinson reference. The page should be either unlocked or reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Robbins (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the information about the round by round punch stat results from Hopkins-Taylor yet left in the overall punch stats results? Fights are scored on a round by round basis.

I know how fights are scored. They aren't scored by punches landed, you know.MKil 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Yes, but punch stats are looked at after the fight as an indicator of who did better. The article mentioned total punch stats for Hopkins vs Taylor, which favoured Hopkins and implied that he really really won. It neglected to mention that Hopkins landed a lot of these punches in the last three or four rounds, after giving away most of the first 8 rounds, and that Hopkins was out-landed in the majority of the rounds. I'm a big Hopkins fan and I agree that Hopkins did much more than Taylor, even having Taylor look like he was on his way to being KOed. The problem was that he did it all in the last three or four rounds. Hopkins won most of his rounds big, Taylor won his rounds barely. It doesn't make a difference, they still only get scored 10-9 and Taylor won more rounds (as INDICATED not DETERMINED) by the round by round punch stats. To mention total punch stats but not the round by round stats is bias in this particular case, because it would lead a casual observer to think that Hopkins was on the end of a raw decision. Holymolytree2 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xman52 is vandalizing again. Your last couple have edits have looked fine to me. Page should be locked & Xman52 should be banned. Anthony Robbins 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Calzaghe

Sorry to revert you last edit but I dont think there is any need to "find consensus" where one already exists. Calzaghe is the undisputed champ and I have provided about a dozen cites (mostly on the talk page) stating as much. As far as I know no serious source says otherwise. While it is imortant not to overstate facts on wikipedia it is also important not to understate. Ignoring his undisputed status would, to my mind at least, be a case of the latter. The term "undisputed champion" is heavily sourced and editors should feel free to use it despite a single users boorish protests to the contrary. --LiamE (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

Why is the wrestling info irrelevant? The article is not about Mike Tyson's boxing career; it's about Mike Tyson as a whole. I'm not the on that added the wrestling info, but I would like that clarified anyways.--Nhgaudreau (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Marciano Amatuer Record

I didn't know the user was a trouble maker thanks for the heads up and your right many sources Rocky had an 8-4 record so thanks for the heads up on the unknown user. The K.O. King (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippin-American War

I feel compelled to ask why you are continuously removing the edits done to this article. I read the reference I they seem to be in-line so I wonder if there is something I am missing.--Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, see I thought there might be more to that than met the eye. thanks--Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that this IP user left a not so nice message about you on my talk page and although I have left it for now I will likely remove it later. I have asked the user to create a user account so that we can talk through these issues that are occurring and we'll go from there.--Kumioko (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks

Extended for a week. If he comes back again, I might well make them permanent. Black Kite 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxingwear

Fair enough, based on the volume of messages and emails I have recieved I can understand your aggrivation. I saw that article and when I saw that the great poobah of WP Jimbo Wales was involved I let it go. There ain't an admin in the WP world that would touch that one. Besides as I told he who shall not be named in my talk page my RFA got shot in the face so there ain't nothing I could do anyway.--Kumioko (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring championship

The rankings are updated later tonight. Just wait and see what Ring actually do. I didn't say Calzaghe didn't win the light-heavyweight title. I said that if Ring rank him as a light-heavy and place him as champion, they would remove him from the super-middleweight rankings. Ring never usually have a fighter in multiple divisions. They do now, of course, as they've released the new rankings, and placed Calzaghe as champion in both divisions, which is very unusual. Neıl ☎ 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Briggs

I have warned User talk:76.110.181.55 about abiding by the 3RR and about the conflict of interest. (Although I see User_talk:Shannonbriggs has already been warned.) If he persists in edit-warring today I will report him to WP:AN3 and he will probably be blocked. If he persists in making self-promotional COI edits, please report him to the conflict of interest noticeboard. (Also, just so you know, third opinions are usually about content disputes, not disruptions, but I hope I've been able to help you out.) Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't really consider it a disruption so that's why I went to the third opinion option. I sympathize with his position and am hoping that if he hears about the proper procedures from someone besides me (he apparently thinks I have some dislike of him) it would end the situation. I didn't realize there was a COI noticeboard, though, and if the conflict persists I'll mention it there.

Thanks again.MKil (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Quotation convention

Re Orson Welles etc, see Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks. Apart from direct speech, Wikipedia uses the "logical convention" for quotes (i.e. punctuation marks outside the quotes). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.MKil (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

New sock

Addendum: I just ran into the previous via off-wiki canvassing that I took to be a naive user asking in good faith about reasons for reversion, and didn't realise the extensive background until I checked it out. Turns out to be a new sock of BoxingWear etc: NewBlock (talk · contribs). I've reported it to Antandrus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to New Sock and on Boxingwear

How funny and ironic it is, new sock NewBlock and IndyWisdom were used for emails only, there are dozens more accounts just for email alone, cant block all, lol, NewBlock means it will eventually be new block, duh, please block them.

Toni Mannix, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toni_Mannix&diff=212721494&oldid=212716232 its obvious I put down correct info on Lozzi, some other user did it, then it was reverted by Antandrus' proxy, how nice, but I am glad it was reverted to my version, that speaks for itself. (other edits like welles, patterson, kosovo status, gunfight at ok corral i was proven right as well, there are many more)Additional info on lies, non-sense, read this fine reverted version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewBlock&diff=212918345&oldid=212918300

As far as me and mkil argue, that's between us, not his or his administrative vandals (antandrus) proxies. Resolving wiki edit problems thru others speaks bad about editor... my edits are always correct, researched, true, accurate.

-Boxingwear

Hey Gogy, I know in your deluded mind you were "proven right" about all kinds of things here. It's too bad that no one else here (or on the BoxRec wiki, or the Polish wiki, or Simple wiki, etc.) agrees with you. Your edits are continually reverted not out of some animus towards you but because they make no sense or are unsupported by facts. It's not a conspiracy. It's just that you make very poor edits. That's it. But I'm sure you believe in the conspiracy as strongly as you believe you were a writer for Ring magazine or that you are some sort of a historian, as you've claimed here and in other places. Whatever.MKil (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Think what you want and as i told you i wrote articles for Ring (they do not have to be 10 pages articles) believe what you want P.V. Jr, mafia member, son of P.V. Sr.

I told you many times, my new polish account I created ONLY TO REVERT YOUR STUFF AND 99% WAS SUCCESSFUL ON THOSE EDITS, 8-4 record I can live with because its generally accepted but in reality is 9-4 as explained (rocky), so that account is blocked for 2 years but i will never use it again- i have to go and learn polish, but again i am not getting polish keyboard, I was not born there and I have the right to make few mistakes, goes to show you administrators do not understand others in any language- i have another account where i edit since polish wiki was created, I am not editing since you started it, because I do not want problems there, but whatever, think what you want, you are always full of crap and yea i was proven right on many articles from kosovo to rocky to toni mannix as even other sites on wikipedia itself relate to my edits (as explained, i cant go on repeating myself), those sources are direct and from wikipedia even though they do not mean much to the outside world, especially universities (and we shall make sure it stays like that) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=universities+do+not+allow+wikipedia+as+sources Either way, I am glad somebody reverted toni mannix page, at least for a moment, its obvious that was your proxy. I was proven right on rocky, muradi, kosovo situatin, valdez, baker, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Baker_%28boxer%29&diff=101843717&oldid=101840502 Date also correct, keep in mind how you reverted october 7th 1955, baker-valdez fight, amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Kosovo&diff=210566803&oldid=208722665 a good editor with kosovo knowledge put back my line, again i was proven right, you wrong AS USUAL!

Keep on vandalizing wikia and i was not suspended on any other places you claim to be but you can claim all you want my 'friend' whatever, great, enjoy yourself, go kill some more people, you will get higher hierarchy in vario crew mafia! You are the real vandal with destruction of so many good pages, i certainly tried to make them look good and correct! But as sources indicate and http://wikipedia-watch.org and other sources, wikipedia is home for people like you!So enjoy yourselves until you all burst! Reply all you want, you have time on your hands, so go ahead and waste it! All your articles are waste anyways! But nothing of yours will be eternal here, nor your kind, waste your and other peoples time, you are expert at it! Now thank me for the honor of replying to your crap! On wiki, your types will always defend you but together you will fall in its own good time! -Boxingwear, where truth is 100% eternal!

Yeah, Gogy, I'll hang out with my mafia crew and you'll hang out with your chess club and we'll both be happy. You say Wiki doesn't mean much to the outside world. Why, then, are you so intent on editing here? Why do you return when you've been banned so many times? I just feel sorry for you.MKil (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP: [162.84.41.179]

Do you even know what "oxymoron" means, Gogy?MKil (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Charley Belanger

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. But the Charley Belanger was incomplete when i came upon it. I always refer to a boxer by his first name while making a page. I will also continue to. If you are a real boxing enthusiast then you would enjoy seeing Charley's notable fighters and what titles he held with the year and what boxer he took the title from I know other enthusiats are appreciating it. I se you have done around 20 boxer that is nice. I have done 100 boxing articles as well as mane other contributions to pages that were already made. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tyson

I wanted to ask you also why would the wrestling information sbout Mike Tyson be irrlevant Wikipedia is here to provide researchers with as much information about a person of interest and importance life. Wrestlemania where he was the referre is the biggest wrestlig PPV of all time. You should look it up I highlighted it for you. Muhammad Ali was at the first Wrestlemania in 1985. Also even the great Muhammad Ali was involved in wrestling facing wreslters like Gorilla Monsoon, and Antonio Inoki. Muhammad Ali was alos a guest referee at Wrestlemania in 1985. Floyd Mayweather Jr. also has a wrestling section in his profile for the last Wrestlemania that he was in2008 is that irrelvant? Rowdy Roddy Piper had a boxing match with Mr. T at Wrestlemania in 1986. Roddy Pipper was acommpanied by Lou Duva and Mr. T was accompanied by Joe Frazier is that irrelevant? For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Wikipedia a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing

Obivously you have your opinion and I have mine. Go bother someone else I dont have time for you and your pity arguements. My tone of voice was also not a problem. I you think so that is also your opinion. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about one thing this is not my first time in a debate with someone over an article and this is not your first time either. I have came to a mutual agreements with anyone who has given opinions. But you are not justified by deciding what should be in someone article or not. If you continue to re edit the profile I will continue to fix them have a nice day. Reallmmablogger (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea here is a copy of the etiquette for you maybe you should read up on it etiquette. I have not been anything but nice to you if you feel that I am not I am sorry about that. BEcause you do not get your way doesnt mean someone is not being nice. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tyson

You posted this incorrect information to anotheer Wikipedia user trying to help out.

I think it's irrelevant because it's a very, very minor incident in his life. If Wikipedia were to start listing every single public appearance by everyone, it would quickly devolve into a trivia site, not an encyclopedia. Not everything someone does is notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.MKil (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)MKil

How can Mike Tyson being at Wrestlemania be a public appearence? It was ajob that he had he got paid to be the special guest referee. I think that you have a problem with wrestling. Do you? It was also false of you to state that it was minor in Tyson life. He was retiring from boxing at the time and he got a job to work at Wrestlemania which I stated to you before which you probably did not read up on is the biggest PPV ever in Wrestling history period. Please read the Wrestlemania article maybe then you can understand until then I am not sure if you will. User Nhgaudreau was right in asking you what was the problem now I will make it my personal mission to make sure his questions and contributions do not go unheard. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charley Belanger

I mostly wanted the edit warring to stop before anyone breaks 3RR, and didn't think much about the two list sections that are still in. I don't know what the best form is here. It's not that there isn't precedent for having a detailed list of his boxing record, like with Mike Tyson#Professional boxing record. I doubt that this boxer is notable enough to warrant a list with *all* his fights though, and since all but one of the blue-linked boxers are already part of the prose, I'm inclined to agree with you. --Amalthea^Talk 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong

Hey bud I am writing you to let you know that I apologize. There will be no more disputes from me. I hope we can work together in the future to make the boxing section in to a great section keep up the good work. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reallmmablogger

Ok, I just skimmed through the EAR and 3RR reports (to think that I probably gave Reallmmablogger the idea …). If anyone still wants me to give a statement of some sort, feel free to tell me, but as far as I can tell everthing's sorted out already and we can move on.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battling Nelson Image

MKil, as you built, and appear to maintain the page on Battling Nelson, I thought you may be the best person to ask to check this out. I have recently added a photo to the Jimmy Wilde page, and checking out the same collection of photos came across a picture of 'Bat. Nelson'. I presumed it could only be Battling Nelson, but I can't be sure if it's the man himself. Could you give it a view and tell me if it's OK. Otherwise I'll delete it from the Commons. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edits at de facto

Hi, I started a discussion at Talk:De_facto#recent_edits_by_User:MKil_and_User:Mirandamir in hopes that you could work things out on the discussion page rather than rving on the page. Pdbailey (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Doctrine

Thank you, this is much more clear. NJGW (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the version which is accurate to the source. I think you'll see it is a completely ridiculous statement to leave in the text, but with out knowing more it is all that can be deduced. NJGW (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of this viewpoint is a total mistake. The statement unclear and is from a POV source. It should not be used. They guy hasn't read the book, and we don't know what description he's commenting on (including who made the description, what aspects of the theory were in the description, or how clear the description was). We don't even know what he feels is absurd about it. He's also biased as he had an upcoming book with a competing thesis. I hope you'll see the issues with this source and remove that sentence. NJGW (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the review:

Mr. Williamson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, has not read the book, but after a brief description said, “It doesn’t sound like she has a full appreciation of my position.”

Anders Aslund, also at the Peterson Institute and the author of a forthcoming book, “Russia’s Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed,” labeled a description of Ms. Klein’s argument as “complete nonsense.”

It's pretty clear that Aslund hasn't read the book. No reading between the lines required. Also, any real life connection Aslund has to the topic of the book has to be clearly laid out, as not doing so is a NPOV problem.

Most of the criticism section is questionable actually... there's far too much weight given to Norberg, and it's strange to balance "Nobel Laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz" and the huge positive reception the book got with such a long and detailed crit section. The Washington Post review (which you might expect to be slanted to the right) actually equates Shock Doctrine's importance to The Clash of Civilizations--that's some pretty heavy praise. Not quite the impression a casual reader might get reading through the criticism section. NJGW (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion to the article's talk page. I think the Crit response section needs to be overhauled. NJGW (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Marciano Golden Gloves

All-Eastern Golden Gloves was a term for the New York Golden Gloves Tournament of Champions 1937-1961. Check out the hardware (belts,programs,etc) of the era. The Marciano-Wallace fight was on March 1,1948. Most accounts have the decision being split and very unpopular. An understanding of the Golden Gloves before the current format (1964 on) has not been well documented yet, DSPORTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by DSPORTS (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Kessler

Hi Mkil, please could you explain why you reverted my recent edit to the Mikkel Kessler article? I can see no reason why you would have done this. Thanks Notjamesbond (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mkil, I have noticed that you have also taken out the 'see also' links which direct readers from the Sakio Bika and Jaidon Codrington pages to the main article of their fight for the contender championship! I'm afraid that I cannot understand what harm having these links in there does to the integrity of the article. There is nothing within Wikepedia guidelines that says this is an inappropriate use of the link. Quite the contrary, the 'see also' templates allow readers to be redirected to content which is directly related to the topic in which they are viewing. For guidelines about the 'see also' template please refer to WP:SEEALSO. If after reading the guidelines you still feel strongly that the links are un-necessary or disruptive then it looks as if we may need to seek mediation from an administrator. I await your further thoughts on the matter, Thanks Notjamesbond (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mkil, thanks for your response, I am happy with putting the 'see also' links at the end if that seems to be the most appropriate place. Just to confirm my position on the links, I do feel it is beneficial to have these at some point within the article so that readers can be redirected should they so wish. The Bika-Codrington and Calzaghe-Kessler fights were significant bouts and in many ways help to define the boxers concerned. It is for that reason that I feel people would be interesting in exploring those articles. Thanks Notjamesbond (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec.com

You have broken wikipedias three revert rule - please revert yours of I will report you.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec.com II

Explain this edit. You state it is outdated without evidence - this is exactly the type of edit that you make that it totally pissing me off. It is quite possible that it is outdated - however you must prove it - you DO NOT just delete it. --Vintagekits (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to refuse to proved evidence for your edits or are you going to continue to act like an utter DICK!.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence"? If something is outdated (or sourced by unreliable sources, like the ones you used), you don't need "evidence" to remove it. Maybe if you'd spend more time trying to defend your biased edits and less time calling people names we could try and find consensus.MKil (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

PROVE IT IS OUTDATED!!!! Are we to just take YOUR word for it? Have you read WP:OR??--Vintagekits (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Boxrec mainpage reference was from 2006 and the Hauser column from a few months ago, I think it's safe to say it's outdated. You do realize, don't you, that the site gets updated with hundreds of new fights a day?MKil (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Like I said I agree that it is PROBABLY out of date - however you cannot just make whatever edits you want because you think so - if its out of date then update it with the revised information - you do not just delete it. Do you understand that that is how wiki works? I will ask you again, Have you read WP:OR?? --Vintagekits (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how wiki works. It isn't run by someone like you telling people how they can make their edits. You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined. However, the material I removed was inaccurate. The article is more accurate without it. It may be even more accurate if someone were to find the updated numbers. Leaving inaccurate information up merely because someone has supplied a reference (no matter how out-of-date or unreliable such a reference is) is not wiki policy.MKil (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules. You are totally out of order stating "If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." - if you are going to refuse to abide by wiki rules I am going to report you to WP:ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've made extended comments at the appropriate section at ANI I would like you to read.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Cincinatifan/Battle of Kosovo 1389. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, mark the page as {{db-g5}}, read the critera first, at WP:CSD#G5, and only mark it for deletion if it meets it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duly slain. No worries, no red tape, just WP:ROUGE. Let me know if there's others. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

Hi there, you left a essage on my talk page a while agoe (User_talk:Kingpin13#Cincinatifan), I just got "somebody" replying. You may want to tag them as a sockpuppet, I'd do that myself, but you seemed more involved witht his case then me, so I thought I'd check it out with you since you'll know more :). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still around?

Can you take a look at the talk page of Mackinac Center for Public Policy? Some minor POV vandalizing going on there, and I'm hoping a demonstrably neutral party can fix it (I have and have disclosed a conflict of interest, but need action soon). Thanks, Jack McHugh (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it. That was a pretty clear case of someone pushing their point of view. MKil (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)MKil[reply]

--> I can tone it down, but the page requires a serious look in its prior form for similar POV errors.

Case in point the loaded term "nanny state" has no business in an objective article and should be replaced with the term "nation with a social safety net" The group also cites Robert Hunter, a former National Labor Relations Board member, as endorsing Michigan's transition to a Right To Work State without mentioning he works for the Mackinac Center, suggesting that labor approves of this transition. I believe it's fair to say he works for the Center, which he in fact does.

The Center's President wrote an article very recently explicitly stating: "For those of us dedicated to limited government and free markets, who have long sought a strong social movement to undergird our ideas, it looks like the newly awakened Tea Partiers might be the ones we’ve been waiting for." Saying they align themselves with the Tea Party is objectively and explicitly accurate --> http://www.mackinac.org/14206

It's also worth noting in the article that their previous director on environmental issues, Russ Harding, explicitly called environmentalists Communists. It's an accurate depiction of their environmental policy: "The environmental movement has been likened to a watermelon — green on the outside and red on the inside. Most environmentalists would not consider themselves socialists, much less communists, but the policies they support in the name of saving the planet almost always sacrifice individual liberty for central government control." --> http://www.mackinac.org/13443

Also...if the Center is going to try to draw credibility from Nobel Laureates, at least they should be VERY CLEAR they're merely citing WORK by the Nobel Laureates in question, rather than arranging the sentence to seem as though the Nobel Laureates are somehow affiliated with or even agree with the Center.

These are accurate depictions of the Mackinac Center. Not Point Of View. Removing items like these doesn't serve to create a clearer picture of the Center, they serve allow the Center to dictate its own POV rather than allowing an objective one.

Also...I'm a free agent. I work for nobody.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.252.107 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss my edits to the Mackinac page. First off, my edit of the Tea Party link, I think, more accurately reflects what was written. The author of that piece writes approvingly of the Tea Party movement. I certainly think that this characterization is more accurate than saying "in modern times" (as if past Mackinac activities occurred in ancient times?) that the center has spoken approvingly of the Tea Party (which is exactly what that link proves -- it is someone from Mackinac approving of the Tea Party).

As far as "safety nets" issue -- the terms we are discussing is "nation with a social safety net" vs. "welfare state" (not "nanny state"). "Welfare state" is an accurate description of a certain type of society. It is not a derogatory term; it is a statement of fact. As I'm sure the Mackinac Center would say, they support a nation with a social safety net. They just want that safety net to be provided by private individuals and organizations. One does not need the government to provide a safety net. Trying to say that the Mackinac Center is against people having a safety net is inaccurate, or at the very least it is more accurate to say they are opposed to the welfare state.

The environment issue -- from my reading of the article, I don't think it is saying that environmentalism=communism. I simply replaced your characterization with quotes from the article. I think it's better to let the author of the article speak for himself rather than relying on your characterization of his views.

Those are the reasons for my edits. I'm happy to elaborate more if you wish. And, like you, I "work for nobody" in the sense that I don't work for Mackinac and am not getting paid or anything like that to edit this page. I do have a free market bias but don't feel my edits push my POV. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to work to correct them.MKil (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can peaceably agree on these specific edits.

I ask that you please refrain from your past pattern of wholesale edit reversions. There is a lot more to say about the Center than what the Center has to say about itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.252.107 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly refrain from reverting any edits that don't violate what I understand to be Wikipedia policy. The edits I reverted by you and others on the Mackinac page were, in my view, pushing a point of view. I saw nothing wrong with what McHugh wrote. Yes, he works for Mackinac but he disclosed that and his edits were factual and neutrally described what Mackinac does.

There is certainly more to say about Mackinac than what the Center says about itself. Others who write about it should do so in a neutral manner.MKil (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Lineal boxing championships

Hi, many boxers pages now include info about the Lineal championship. Username7212345 has added many, and also incorrectly believes The Ring title is the same as the Lineal title. I've also added and/or edited some Lineal references in the articles also.

Is the Lineal championship no longer p.o.v under wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User38563 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darnell Wilson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Bailey and Robert Marsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Jack Solomons, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Jack Solomons" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MKil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MKil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MKil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Jaco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Douglas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]