User talk:Macktheknifeau/Archive6

Matthew Spiranovic

Hi! I am not interested in whether he played the tournament or not and I never accused you of lying. That's not the point. The point is that we as editors of an encyclopaedia are required to properly source content. A reader of the article is not able to re-watch whatever broadcast you watched and may have stored on your computer. As regards admin involvement: you have no leg to stand on – WP:Boomerang incoming! You're well beyond WP:3RR. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can threaten me with all the "essays" you like, but the fact of the matter is that the broadcast was shown on international television, it is a reliable source, and his participation is well documented in OTHER SOURCES as well. You are wikilawyering for no reason other than to disrupt the wiki to make a point because you refuse to accept the source. 3RR states you can't perform more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. I have not done so. Please do not make bad faith accusations. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologise for the tone of my older message here. Sorry! Robby.is.on (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, thank you :) Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Danijel Nizic

Hi in your recent edits to the page you added his move to his new club. In future, please make sure to add references to such changes. I've fixed this one up, but please be aware in the future. Thank you :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof, citing sources, etc.

I've told you this once before, and I see you ignored it then, but the burden of proof is on the person who wants to add the material. You should cite sources properly (i.e., in a footnote, not posting a link in an edit summary) and you need to ensure that the source you provide actually supports the material you say it does. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2019

Yawn. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Wikipedia:Citation overkill. "However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute". A google search that took 5 seconds to find doesn't need to be overkill sourced. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one citation at the end of a sentence isn't citation overkill. The citation clutter referred to in that essay is when too many citations are grouped together (eg six citations to back up one statement). All content still needs to be verifiable. In fact it says as much in the first line of the essay you quoted. Jevansen (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC

WP:HOUND

Hey bud,

Please don't WP:HOUND as you did here.

I'll assume good faith and not take it up, but please don't do it again.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who showed you that article in the first place, so if anyone was "hounding" anyone, it's you following my link to this article and attempting to delete it in order to defend your attack on my non-delete vote in the Bernie AFD. Please note that could easily be seen as a violation of WP:POINTY, as you're disrupting wikipedia by trying to delete a non-controversial article in a speedy AFD because you think it might strength your argument on a completely non-relevant AFD, then ignoring WP:CONTESTED is clear that a quick AFD tag cannot be reinstated once an objection has been rasied. I also don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith considering this obviously POINTY behaviour. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Markus Babbel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sydney Derby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydney International Equestrian Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Radosław Majewski, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refer to WP:BRD. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you refer to WP:OVERCITE and WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS. I don't carpet bomb articles with citations, especially not for something as simple & uncontroversial as "this player played in 3 games for his club then was injured". If you want to go ahead and add a billion citations for such simple information as, then feel free to WP:BEBOLD and do it yourself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Radosław Majewski, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macktheknifeau, just add the flipping source. This is so unnecessary. The content you added is not common knowledge – I did not know about it – and needs a reference. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is completely unnecessary, because basic details about a football player do not need to be overkill sourced on a page with extensive existing sourcing. You've wasted more time complaining about the lack of a source than it would have taken you to find a source that's acceptable for you. I also note your WP:POINTY disruption of his page, adding ridiculous tags to things like his Honours section, despite them all being covered by existing sources like Soccerbase, Worldfootball.net. Lastly, do not threaten me with a ban without reason. I do not appreciate it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm guilty of "WP:POINTY disruption", feel free to report me at WP:ANI. I suspect you won't, though, because your own WP:POINTY, disruptive behaviour will have a light shone on it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

I think it's obvious what you're doing was Pointy, and disruptive, and doing it along with threatening me with a ban simply for disagreeing with you is just what I expect from powertripping admins. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Radosław Majewski. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you should quite threatening me with a ban and do something else. But just to satisfy your curiosity, I've added multiple new sources for you! Congratulations you won! Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which you've added to the lead, not where the multiple disputed claims are! That's not of much benefit to our readers, is it? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added a half-dozen "citations needed" tags for such basic information as "this player played in 3 games", "this player was injured" and "competitions this player has won with each club". The citations are there to provide links to start a reader on the process of verifying the information. Transfermarkt on it's own has enough information to satisfy sourcing requirements for what games & what awards he has won. Where else would such overkill sourcing be placed, if not in the lead of the article. You wanted sources, you got them. Now they're not good enough? If you aren't happy, then WP:SOFIXIT instead of slapping disruptive, WP:POINTY tags on nearly every paragraph. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if I'm being "disruptive" and "WP:POINTY", feel free tot report me. BTW, Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claims need to be sourced, specifically. You can't just dump an assortment of links in the lede. That does not cut it.

You said Matty "wasted more time complaining about the lack of a source than it would have taken [him] to find a source". Well, you have wasted the time of two other editors and yourself instead of just properly sourcing your additions from the start – like every other proper contributor here at Wikipedia does. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Sydney Wanderers FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sydney Derby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Kunming attack

Hi. The 2014 Kunming attack edit of mine that you removed I think needs to be reconsidered. I personally was in China during that time period and actually at that very train station as well after the attack. What they report is indeed accurate. The narrative on the article is very pro-Communist Party of China's official narrative, which obviously is biased and hides their own oppressive policies that caused such events. I think we need better quality sources than merely "Xinhua News Agency" (Communist party official narrative) and "China Daily" (same official government narrative) and "GCP News" (same issue again and again). Read between the lines and study this issue deeply. What RFA reported is accurate, indeed--certainly more accurate than a bunch of official CCP narratives and a couple short Western media articles only citing those same CCP sources. Here's two articles you can read on the history of this issue for starters: 1. https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/648 2. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html?ref=oembed

Please reconsider what you did. It's not unbiased--you're leaving a biased narrative on a page with no other narrative. DivineReality (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "leave a biased narrative". I excised two sections that did not need to be in the lead of an article regarding a specific terrorist attack. The first removed section is a guessing game of justifications for the attack with no actual connection to the attackers, and is much better suited to inclusion in the main body of the article. The second removed section references the first section, and is also duplicated by lines with references further into the article. Other elements are NPOV and/or off-topic. Wikipedia is not about 'reading between the lines' of an American propaganda outlet and basing the articles about gut feelings and 'narratives' (regardless if the sources are Chinese Government or American sources seeking to absolve or justify the terrorist attack). It is about building specific articles using reliable sources and giving them appropriate weight in the body of the article. If you have further concerns bring them up on the talk page of the article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fairfield Heights, New South Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP

Hi. I just wanted to make you aware that even if you disagree, the guidelines for companies and organisations are WP:NCORP, not GNG. Refer to HighKing's comments on the IP2Location AfD for more info. SK2242 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry

Really sorry about that, that was definitely not my intention. Seems like a mis-click on my end. --hroest 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just thought it was a bit odd. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kerem Bulut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remand.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hughes

Sorry - I misunderstood what you were trying to do. My fault. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radosław Majewski

Hi. I reverted your removal of "citation needed" tags at Radosław Majewski. The "existing citations are fine" indeed but they are not sufficient. The parts where the tags were placed lack inline reference. For the example, the "Early career" section does not have a single one. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His page has nearly 40 citations, your tag spam just shits up the page. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I added a "More citations" tag at the top of the page instead. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your WP:POINTY edit. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINTY was not my intention. You took issue with tags being spread across the page so I assumed a single tag at the top of the page would be acceptable to you. Please assume good faith.

The article Is inadequately sourced and we need to indicate that. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your removal of the cn tags was previously reverted by @Mattythewhite: (link). So you're edit-warring against two other editors. Lame. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please see my message regarding the protection of Red Ripperz due to incessant edit warring.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (History policy of the Law and Justice party) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bowling (cricket), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]