User talk:MrChupon

Rehnquist

Saying that he was born at the same day as Jimmy Carter may redirect users who are viewing Rehnquist’s article to the article about Jimmy Carter, who was a greater and more progressive man, so I think this information should be kept, to make the world a better place to live for homosexuals, blacks or any member of minorities (except Jews).

201.47.216.128 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a Progressive, a major fan of Jimmy Carter, as well as a Jew, I still think its irrelevant in that article :-) Let's have it out on the talk page of that article if you want to keep it MrChupon (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Edit

Sir! The new Forbes' ranking is out, and Columbia is in fact ranked 42. I only added the "wtf?" comment in my edit because the ranking is an anomaly, if we take into consideration the school's actual strength and achievements. In fact, Columbia dropped 30 spots from Forbes' last published rankings. The methodology that Forbes' employs, moreover, is largely subject to question: how is it possible that ~40% of the score comes from RateMyProfessor.com (when top schools employ their own evaluation procedures), Who's Who (not reliable, hardly scientific), and PayScale (a self-reported website)? I say Forbes' opinion should be discounted for the colleges specified at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.27.4 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no opinion on it, just please keep the wtf commentary on that article's discussion page. MrChupon (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.27.4 (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munich

The sentence "12 murdered - the 5 terrorists were killed by German police attempting to save innocent Israelis" in the infobox doesn't fit NPOV, correct.

However, two things. 1 is a minor point, another is a less minor point.

I think the 5 members of Black September being killed part should go last and switched with the West German police officer. Just seems to make more sense, list it from innocent --> police --> terrorists or even list those killed together and those responsible at the end.
Black September is considered a terrorist organization, so writing "5 terrorists from Black September" shouldn't violate NPOV. Heck, it was because of them that many European counter-terrorism units were formed or upgraded, and Munich was a terrorist attack.

Let me know your thoughts on this. I didn't want to edit it, since it seems like it's been a back-and-forth thing twice, and doing a third time may give appearance of edit war. And also always better to discuss things once they're reverted twice already...

Thanks. --Activism1234 03:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to those more familiar with the topic if you'd like to make changes -- it just struck me as NPOV when I came across it. MrChupon (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American_Measurement_Standard edit

I am not harming wikipedia, if you look at the history, all I did was update the links so that they are proper. I didn't add these links, just made sure they went to where the originator meant them to. As you can see, there are at least 3 other companies links in there, so you obviously think company links are ok since you didn't remove them. Someone at some point thought our "Size Matters" course was relevant to this topic and used it as a reference. I am just tidying up links to our site. I understand why you are doing this, because wiki's don't like companies trying to improve seo etc., but I just wanted the links to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McKissock-Real-Estate (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. That said I still think the links don't belong, due to WP:ELNO #9 and WP:ADV. The site is selling the reference, it's not accessable as far as I can tell? Is there some way to view it without paying? Perhaps we can take it to the external links noticeboard for more opinions? MrChupon (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hello - there is a conversation on AIV about an IP you had warned which you may wish to participate in. Regards, 7 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

akora khattak

you just removed my editing of akora khattak which was truth about akora khattak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.237.193 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because there were no sources for your information, and they did not have an impartial tone. You might want to check out WP:IMPARTIAL for more information. MrChupon (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2012 (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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MrChupon. 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, MrChupon. 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, MrChupon. 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]

Archive