User talk:SaskatchewanSenator

Jons63 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC) See User_talk:Jons63/Archive_1#Reverting_non-contentious_information for full discussion.[reply]

See Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2013#Peacock_Terms for full discussion.

The Commissioner said the NHL Lifetime Achievement Award would be an annual award during the 2008 NHL Awards show.

68.188.177.195 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the redirect from my talk page. Buc (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page redirect is not appropriate for an account that you are using to edit. You can use the Template:User Alternate Acct to direct readers to your other account, if that is your intention.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please aks me your question here. Buc (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Why does your user talk page User talk:Bole2 redirect to User talk:Buc? I asked a similar question on the User talk:Buc on June 24. There has been no reply.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards this edit - have you got a source to confirm that. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reference [1] is the source.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this edit. Unless Lennox changed the name on his passport to include this honours then they are not part of his official name. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Order of the British Empire and the Order of Canada are generally named as such in the Wikipedia. See WP:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed in the article but do not become part of the legal name. I am going to revert it now. If you have an issue please take it up on the talk page. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consistent with the Manual of Style (linked above) which reads "Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes, such as this, generally don't qualify for speedy deletion. See WP:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes and WP:SPEEDY. It's only a matter of a couple of days, but it's better to stick to policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this practice is necessary with most cases, but I felt it was worth skipping, since the topic wouldn't have been obscure, as it would have been an internationally reported on event and it was recent. If it were smaller or older, sure, but I just felt like there wasn't need to overwhelm the procedural processes with something like this. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It's very strange, the ref name doesn't register under any capitalization however. I'm assuming you tried to fix it yourself, as well. At any rate, I simply removed the ref tag, because the statement isn't exactly disputable and can be easily checked with the wikilink to the 1949-50 season. That's how I feel about it anyway. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all right now... Thanks for warning me, I didn't realize that the Group A was wrong. Cheers. I€₣ ^(talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does "the two men fought again and Lewis won a close, but unanimous decision, in doing so becoming undisputed heavyweight champion of the World" make more sense than the using the word "by"? Boxers don't win but unanimous decision. They win by unanimous decision. This is simple English and not subjective. --Jimbo^[online] 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lewis won a close, by unanimous decision" is missing an object.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I must admit I only realised that after posting a message. Anyways, close and unanimous is a little contradictory anyway. I've removed all the subjectiveness. --Jimbo^[online] 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SS, I have come for two reasons. A. to see if you want to get involved in the above. YOu know your stuff and we could do with a few Canuks. B. To see what you knew about the guy in my latest article. He is fast becoming my favourite "up and coming fighter" and I was hoping you could make it your pet article and improve it? cheers!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not really a 'joiner'. I don't know much about David Lemieux but I'll keep an eye on him and the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Lemieux article. Did you manage to catch any of his fights on youtube? He certainly is a deceptively talented wee banger - a great prospect for Canada and surely him and Steve Molitor can carry the flag for a few years.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating your move for the the 1976 Super Series for immediate revert. In the aftermath of the move discussion you decided to make the move unilaterallyin bad faith nonetheless. For shame. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You do that, you go to the box, you know, two minutes by yourself and you feel shame, you know, ...and then you get free."- Denis Lemieux--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I left on the Kraft dinner talk page was not meant as a personal attack, just a comment that you should be more familiar with the policies and guidelines of WP by this point in your tenure here. Personal attacks refer more to direct insults and disparages of another editors character, however if you felt the comment was inappropriate, I will gladly remove it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on what you think of other editors is not useful. Stick to discussing articles and ideas and you won't risk offending anyone. Thanks for removing the comment.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames in the infobox, there has been a lot of previous discussion as regards the nicknames in the infobox at that article, have you been involved in any of it? Why have you chosen to add this fraudly nickname? I tis a bit of an attack name isn't it, its in the article whch is enough imo, name calling by his opponents is not worth much in an encyclopedic way is it, better in the school playground if you ask me, childish bigoted name calling is not worthy of a place in the infobox. 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

It is a commonly used nickname, perhaps the most commonly used nickname in reliable sources such as newspapers. Are you implying that it is racially motivated? Being childish is not a valid reason for removing it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain, trying to put other nicknames in that infobox, would be a wise move. Wouldn't you agree? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Two is enough for me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a dispute develops over it, don't loose your temper. Unfortunately, that's what happend to Vintagekis. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. Thanks.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to read Wikipedia:No original research. His birthplace according to hundreds of reliable sources like TSN, ESPN, NHL, Yahoo, etc. all say his birthplace is Aneroid. Regardless of what may be true or not, we at wikipedia go by what the sources say. I put 6 reliable sources under the birthplace which should that is more than enough for the birthplace to say he was born in Aneroid.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to read Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of being uncivil. What did I say to be uncivil. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything. I just like that one. I don't agree with a couple of things you wrote above, but the place to discuss them is Talk:Patrick Marleau--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a clear understanding that the right thing, under wikipedia policy, would be to use what the sources say, but you go change it back without alerting me or talking about it to the talk page. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I'm going to post a message on the wikiproject hockey to invite editors to come so we can get a consensus. PS the problem wasn't you not disagreeing with me after, it's not alerting me at all.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one replied so WP:REDACT doesn't really apply. No one quoted me on it or anything and making a big deal out of it is totally uncalled for. I have no clue why someone would bring it up.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote: No big deal. It's a guideline that's worth keeping in mind--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be reminding experience editors of policies that they haven't broken. It's uncalled for and inappropriate. I know the policies of wikipedia and I cross things out if someone has read my comment. I take offence when someone accuses me of doing something wrong when I clearly haven't. I have made mistake, but if I catch it before someone has read it I can erase it as most wikipedians would. If not, I do what I did here in a recent afd. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You shouldn't be reminding experience editors of policies that they haven't broken. It's uncalled for and inappropriate." Like you did above?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear you had not one reliable source of his birthplace until I gave you the link of no original research. You were reverting edits for a year when you had NO reliable source. Sorry hometown doesn't count. You clearly violated that. So don't say to my face that you didn't and I had every right to remind you of wikipedia policy that you have broken. The reason I gave you that was to avoid an edit war, and tell you that you were wrong. This is completely different when I did not break a single rule.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that is original research?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this again then, you had no sources. Therefore, it's original research.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is incorrect. Simply being unattributed does not make material original research.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you didn't read the link I have you the most important part was "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source."--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the verifiability policy. If you think that is the most important part of the No original research policy, you have misunderstood it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First is that all you have to say. You were in the wrong yet you still have yet to admit it and continue to try to argue with me at every opportunity you get. Seriously, do you like getting into arguments over trivial stuff. I do have a rebuke, but I refuse to say it because I'm done arguing with you. All I did was give you some constructive criticism. Instead of looking and seeing if you were wrong you jumped to the conclusion I was wrong. If your going to post something that will cause an argument don't bother because I'm done here.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I was wrong about? I haven't said you are wrong (except for your logic about original research).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted every edit a user did and went against wikipedia policy for over a year. You ignored sources even though you couldn't name one real Swift Current source and you reverted edits when someone changed it to Aneroid. The reason why I gave you that quote was because it was being reverted by other editors for a reason and that's the reason. The second quote in bold is the Original Research where it clearly says "this includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". You were making reverts when there was no published facts for Swift Current.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those reversions were not based on original research.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly violated Wikipedia:No original research end of story. There is no point arguing in that. You clearly violated that. Read the first sentence of the policy.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated Wikipedia:No original research. Why did you believe it was original research?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the first sentence of the page "this includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas"--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no one read it either. Except for you who probably learnt it from the search history since it was gone shortly after my edit to it and and hour and a half before you brought it up.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SS, you seem to have violated the 3RR policy at NOR. Please see WP:3RR for future reference. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you check again I think you'll find only three reverts. Could you please engage in discussion on the talk page so we can try to reach a consensus?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, WP:3RR also states "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". If you continue edit warring as you have been on WP:NOR, you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing important parts of the existing policy in that context, such as the introduction to the reliable sources section explaining that any material challenged requires a reliable source. But the main point is that you need to gain consensus for substantive changes to a core policy. Crum375 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that my proposal removes important parts of the existing policy please address that on the talk page. That is the appropriate place to discuss changes to the policy. There has been no oppostion to the proposal.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in one of my edit comments, talk page silence is no indication of support or consensus. And your talk page posts are spread out in a way that makes it hard to respond there. Crum375 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a form of consensus, although a very weak form. I don't understand why you think it is hard to discuss this on the talk page. Just explain your reasons for opposing the changes at the bottom of the Duplication of Verifiability section and we can try to reach a consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Silence on a policy talk page normally means people are uninterested, which is not consensus or support. And as I explained above, your talk page posts are too spread out to post on. Crum375 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Silence and consensus. We should discuss the policy on the policy's talk page to try to build a consensus. If you are unable to respond in the current section please start a new section to discuss your concerns--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Silence and consensus is an essay. This means it's somebody's idea, without community consensus. So it's essentially a random point of view. On Wikipedia policy talk pages you need consensus to make significant changes. Silence is not consensus. All the essays in the world can't change that. Crum375 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Silence and consensus is a supplemental essay, meaning there is a well-established consensus at WP:Consensus to link to the essay. This is different from most essays. Anyway, it sounds like there may not be consensus on the changes I have proposed. The only way we can resolve this is to discuss it on the No original research policy's talk page to try to build a consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after you've been reverted by experienced editors, many times in your case, it's safe to assume there is no "silent consensus". And as I noted many times here and in my edit comments, unless you gain consensus on the talk page, you should not make substantive changes to a core policy. Crum375 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone suggests a reason that the proposal should not be implemented, on the talk page, there appears to be consensus.[Perhaps I was misunderstood] I don't think those are substantive changes, but I would be interested in discussing your opinion on the talk page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk)08:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Crum375 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing your more recent post. Even though you made one comment on the 27th, the discussion seems to be otherwise inactive, with no other comments since the 21st. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's a pleasure dealing with a polite editor. You are right, the discussion has stalled and should be closed. Would you close it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By close, do you mean re-archive the wp:cent listing, or close in the sense of judge consensus on the talk page? If it's the latter, I don't think I should do it, I have often disagreed with with Crum and Slimvirgin on policy wording in the past, and my closure would probably be dismissed as biased. Gigs (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the latter. I understand why it might be better to find someone else to close it. Is WP:RFC the right place to ask?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask on WP:VPP. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one rose to the challenge. Do you have any other ideas?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George William Herbert I'm sorry for the late reply in regard to Audley Harrison, I was unaware of your response in regards to my relationship with Audley. I am not related to Audley Harrison or his team in any way. I am supporter of his and have written emails to his office about the inaccuracies I found on Wikipedia (email posted below), so felt the need to correct them. Audley is subjected to unfair criticism by the media and it seems only fair that the information on Wikipedia is fair, balanced and factual. I am sorry for implying any legal recourse, just seems someone has it in for Audley by putting Fraudly in the infobox, when you agreed it can be removed. It was agreed in previous talks that Fraudley would be removed from Infobox and Nickname would be its own subject. This was changed, so I removed it once more from Infobox.

Audley was unbeaten in 17 fights when his deal with the BBC ended in 2004, so the information posted was factually incorrect as the BBC deal did not end due to losses to Williams and Guinn.; In fact Danny Williams contest took place on ITV in December 2005.

Audley had surgery after his contest with Sprott, so his statement made after the fight about the injury has substance. Hence, I inserted information from an article concerning his operation. The positive press Audley received after his performance was in contrast to some of the negative press he has received in the past. One journalist, who has been very critical of Audley in the past, praised Audley and called him brave and courageous, so this was highlighted.

I believe the changes are fair and balanced and reflect correct information. I do hope you concur with my comments. I sent the below email to Audley’s Office last year, but decided to continue to monitor his page myself.

Hi guys Just wanted to congratulate Audley for an impressive display in the Prizefighter tournament. His patience in the final to wait for that destructive knock out punch was impressive to see. Following the win I went onto wikipedia to read about what Audley had planned for the future and to read on his previous career. Unfortunately some of the information had been deleted and modified by someone on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audley_Harrison I just wanted to let you know so that you can edit the information so that it tells the truth. Best of luck in the future Audley - keep the faith!! Cheers Stuart MacDonald

I look forward to your response, but hope my edits can remain on the page, which correct the mis-information submited by the last editor on the page.

Aforceone (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)(talk) 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any errors in the chronology of events surrounding the end of the BBC contract should be corrected, but I don't think Audley "left England for good." Audley's statements about the BBC can be included in the article, but they are not important enough to be in the lead paragraph.

The nickname section is overly negative and should be rewritten in a more balanced tone, but the Daily Mail quotation you added isn't directly relevant to his nicknames and shouldn't be in that section. I'm not aware of the agreement you write about above. Regardless, past decisions are not binding. Cheers--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames section was removed by previous editors. A discussion page was created and it was agreed to leave one other nickname in infobox only. This has now been restored!Aforceone (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Can you stop re inserting the Nick name section![reply]

The discussion on Talk:Audley Harrison seems to indicate that there is consensus to include reliably sourced nicknames in the 'Nickname' section of the article. Can you show me the discussion you're thinking of?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for taking up the challenge of closing the discussion on the rewrite of the lead of the No original research policy.

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your conclusions. Changes to policy pages should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus that the proposed changes are an improvement, they should not be made.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes happens that a discussion has points of dispute so that when closing, somebody is not going to be happy - as when a page is protected, for somebody it will be m:The Wrong Version. My summary of the discussion indicated that in general the principle of rewriting the lead was accepted, and the initial move toward the rewrite can be found here, which - if looking back at what initially propelled it - can be seen to be a little more involved than what currently appears on the talkpage. However, while in general the principle of a rewrite was seen as positive and needed, I did note that there were particular concerns with the actual wording of the rewrite and I highlighted some of those. Given that there is no clear support for either version, and putting the page back to before the rewrite would not be advancing the situation, and would in principle be stiffling attempts at improvement, it seemed to be appropriate to suggest that people continue to work on improving the lead along the lines suggested. My recommendation is that you make some of the ammendments that I highlighted, and if there are objections, that you discuss those on the talkpage. If you need further assistance on this, please get in touch. If it's urgent, please use my email, as I am not currently spending much time on-Wiki. SilkTork *^YES! 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in the summary that "it may not be fully clear what overall advantage has been gained by the rewrite given the concerns raised;" Doesn't that mean there is no consensus for the rewrite?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were designed to indicate that there was no prefered version, but that it would be more positive to move forward on the existing version than to roll back to the previous. I had hoped to encourage and support people in moving forward on improving the current version along the lines indicated. As there is potential dispute and I got involved as an impartial commentator it would be inappropriate for me to directly edit the page and retain the role of impartial commentator in case of the need to arbitrate a dispute. I would again recommend that you edit the page along the lines suggested and refer to the discussion and my closing comments. That might be a progressive use of your time. I would be willing to comment on any dispute arising from such editing. SilkTork *^YES! 08:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from simply reverting the page and declaring that there are neutrality violations. Please READ the introduction and please identify specifically the non neutral portions of the introduction. The only portion that seemed to violate the neutrality would be the "heavyweight divison at Tyson's knees" however that has been changed to "to the boxing world, at the time, Tyson seemed undefeatable" which is a FACT, that the general concensus believed Tyson was unbeatable. Also the head butting explanations are very valid in explaining the holyfield fights and are NOT written in a non neutral fashion and are particular in saying that tyson "CLAIMED" he was being head butted, NOT" tyson was BEING headbutted. however if you see any more errors please INFORM ME, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Collin Anorue (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Several other editors have indicated that there are/were neutrality problems with some of your edits and have identified some of the specifics in their edit summaries and on your talk page. The only time I mentioned neutrality issues was in an edit of the Professional boxing record section. The section is currently tagged indicating its neutrality is disputed.

One of my concerns with your most recent edit is that you are inserting many opinions into the lead. Things like: "pinnacle of his career", "Some boxing historians feel...", "it seemed, to the boxing world at the time, that was undefeatable." We have to be careful about stating opinions. Please read WP:ASSERT. Some of these opinions can be included in the article if they are attributed to a person rather than "Some boxing historians " or "the boxing world at the time", and a reliable source is provided.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that I am unable to directly reference the opinions. However some boxing historians refers to the announcers, as well as in the ESPN series about Tyson. In that fight it was quite commonly thought that Tyson was truely unbeatable because Spinks, who was known for his excellent outfighting and footwork and undefeated with a very respectable fighting history, was beaten in just 91 seconds. Also "pinnacle of his career," is simply stating the height of Tyson's career. Thank you for your concern. Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't attribute the opinions to a specific person, they can't be used in Wikipedia.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM REVERTING THE PAGE UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY READ IT AND FIND DIRECT VIOLATIONS, I HAVE EDITED MY OWN PAGE AND THERE IS NO VANDALISM OR UNSOURCED OPINION, THIS IS MY PORTION OF THE EDIT, PLEASE FIND THE ERROR AND IDENTIFY AND INFORM ME BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THIS EDIT IS TRUTHFUL AND FACTUAL: "Tyson would reach his pinnacle of his career when he quickly knocked out Michael Spinks, who prior to the fight was also undefeated, in 91 seconds of the first round. Spinks fell to a quick hard right to the chin. However, fame, fortune, marital troubles, and Don King would cause the champ to lose focus and eventually cause Tyson to engage in his ill-prepared fight with Buster Douglas. Nevertheless, Tyson lost his title to 42-to-1 underdog, Buster Douglas on February 11, 1990, in Tokyo, Japan, by KO in round 10, in one of the biggest upsets in heavyweight boxing.

In 1992, Tyson was convicted of sexually assaulting Desiree Washington, for which he served three years in prison. After being released from prison in 1995, he engaged in a series of comeback fights. He regained a portion of the heavyweight title; the WBC title by knocking out Frank Bruno by TKO in the 3rd round. Next, fell Bruce Seldon, in the first round by TKO thus making Tyson the WBA champion as well. Tyson would lose his two titles to Evander Holyfield in a 1996 fight by an 11th round TKO after Tyson claimed to receiving several head-butts from Holyfield that cut Tyson under the eye and caused him to black out several times. Their 1997 rematch ended in shocking fashion as Tyson was disqualified for biting off part of Holyfield's ear. Tyson who made Holyfield's alleged head-butting apparent to the referee, Mills Lane, was irrate after he claimed the same head-butting was occurring, and reacted outrageously by biting Holyfield in the ear twice, this resulting in Tyson's disqualification and loss to that match." Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are keen to include Paul Bernardo in the list of notable alumni of PwC. I am interested to understand your thinking about this.

I have a few reasons as to why I object to his inclusion. Firstly, his notability is completely unrelated not just to his time at PwC but to his professional career in its entirety; he is known purely for criminal acts. Secondly, he is not actually that well known, he is certainly completely unknown in the UK and I would guess most other countries outside of North America. His infamy even in North America is likely to fade fast with the passing of time. The purpose of the alumni section is to list the most notable examples, and not merely anyone who worked at PwC at some time who has a wikipedia article. Thirdly, his notability is related purely to having been a serial murderer. Although I can accept that there is a case for such people having an article on wikipedia, I believe that they should generally be afforded as little attention as possible, since fame, or infamy, is in some strange way a reward for their crimes. Recognition of this sort also may offer some sort of an incentive to others to copy them. Fourthly, I think that there is the real possibility of a relative or someone connected with one of his victims seeing his name in this article and being grossly offended and upset. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the clear explanation of your thoughts.

1 & 2) The section is Notable current and former employees. He is notable per WP:N.

3 & 4) Finding content objectionable or offensive is not a valid reason to remove it. See WP:NOTCENSORED.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What is the source of this opinion?" Common sense. Now please don't contribute to WP's famous systemic bias by reverting it. And I'm sure there are sources for this fact. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You may have seen that I placed a message on east718's talkpage. Even if it says that he will be away for an undefinite amount of time, normally, he checks out his messages at least every second week or so. So please, let's wait one more week if you don't mind... Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Will you agree to abide by the majority opinion, if east718 doesn't enter the discussion within a week of your message (Dec. 1)?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so... And will you agree to let me do it myself? We could also use different colours... We'll see... ;-) claudevsq (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "I think so..." worries me. Do you agree to what I proposed?

It's okay with me for you to make the changes. Why?

Colours? I'd like to see what you have in mind, but it could work.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The subject list (promoted to featured status in August 2006) is showing its age somewhat and no longer meets the current standards. An initial list of issues has been left on the article's talkpage which should be addressed in the next ten days to prevent the list being nominated for demotion at WP:FLRC. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick play with merging and so on, have a look at the top of my sandbox for the result. It's pretty good actually. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of current world boxing champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits you made regarding his nationality and presented 3 sources in the talk page that outline his self identification as british, i have also argued that precedent already set in other sports (the example i gave is football) demonstrates the passport a person holds is irrelevant to the manner in which they selfidentify or how wiki should list them. Id be happy to carry on the debate on the lennox lewis discussion pageZaq12wsx (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your re-adding of the nicknames to this article has generated a legal complaint to the Foundation. Please do not re-add them until advised via the talk page that the complaint is resolved. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose did you create, on March 2nd, the following templates?

• Template:Fb team Malaysia
• Template:Fb team Australia
• Template:Fb team Mexico
• Template:Fb team United States
• Template:Fb team Canada

Onthegogo (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To use in Template:Fb match in a couple articles. I haven't had time yet to make the changes I was planning.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for this note on my talk page. Can you provide an update on the status of this complaint?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint currently sits with the WMF's legal team. I do not have any update on it. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it usually take for the legal team to make a determination on a complaint of this nature?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, sorry. You can contact them at legal-enwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you please give me the ticket number on this complaint?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2011012710010022. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article called Referee technical decision still exists although sources that RTD stands for "Retired" have been mentioned here. Are online sources required for the article's title to be corrected?--Emaster82 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are accessible via the Internet aren't required by Wikipedia. Have you viewed the sources mentioned in the BoxRec.com forum?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to those sources myself but the editor who listed them certainly has. However, I think the mentioned record books, from which a lot of BoxRec records have been compiled -- records wiki articles on boxers often link to -- should be deemed more credible than the internet source [2], which doesn't even exist any more. Anyway, if the proposed change was approved, the Template:Combat sports decisions and the page entitled RTD would also have to be updated accordingly.--Emaster82 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor with access to those sources can provide a full citation, we should consider it. I'm still not sure. Sources like this [3] imply that it is a referee's decision.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to ABC rules "the referee is the sole arbiter of a bout and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest." [4] (see #2). Nonetheless, RTD stands for "Retired" according to the BoxRec editors who voiced their opinions (see this post and the second quotation in the following one). It is used instead of TKO if the stoppage occurs between rounds irrespective of who initially wants the fight stopped.--Emaster82 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider posts on the BoxRec forum to be a reliable source.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert the Bradley and Donaire edits, but all the other ones, like the WBA "regular" heavyweight title for example which is vacant. Povetkin and Chagaev will fight for it on August 27 in Germany... Many greetings, and keep up the great work! claudevsq (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for fixing the line break I accidentally deleted. Greetings to you too and thanks for all the work you do on the list.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaskatchewenSenator,

I have taken your advice; I’ve ignored it. ‘If you haven't edited before please ignore this advice.’ I happen to agree with what the other editors are saying so naturally there will be some overlap in style. This is not a basis for threatening that my account will be blocked. On the advice of a professional colleague, I decided to open an account to better facilitate dialogue in light of recent geopolitical events. I’d be happy to use my IP address and simply sign my name at the bottom of my contributions.

I think everybody needs to start looking at the substance of the arguments being made versus the trivial semantics.

That being said, I’d like to find a solution to the raging debate about Canada’s classification of Hamas. What if the wording was changed from ‘under the Anti-terrorism Act’ to ‘pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Act, Canada has classified Hamas as a terrorist organisation,’ or something to that effect? I think that would pacify everyone’s concerns while still being reflective of reality.[5]

I think Wayne’s personal interpretations are unhelpful and most harmful to this article. Counter points are made to their opinion and, in response, they go fishing for more unhelpful interpretations. Although the semantics of this ‘debate’ appear to be heated, I believe the vast majority of counterarguments made against Wayne's are valid and sourced correctly. I'm a relatively new user so am unfamiliar with the process from here on in, but can anything be done to prevent one user from hijacking discourse on account of user’s opinion? Mediation perhaps? Kind Regards,

Sandy Dickens. Sandy.Dickens (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposed wording.

Wayne has made a request for comment so I think we should let that take its course. If it doesn't help, you could try the dispute resolution noticeboard before requesting mediation.

I suggest you read WP:COMPROMISED.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaskatchewanSenator. Putting the requested move up at the top of the Link rot? section made it look as if the other comments there were responses to it, whereas those comments are around 4 years old. Please can you let it have its own section, to avoid confusion? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I have been targeted as I have provided sources for my edit and am also telling the truth, regardless of what you think I prefer but very well, I shall open a discussion on the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowsssowss (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been targeted. You were just the first one to revert without discussing the issue, after I started the Ricky Burns section on the talk page. You may have noticed that Claude has been editing your source [6]. There must be better sources out there.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know what you mean, and you are right, but for the moment, at super welterweight, the WBA has got Saúl Álvarez as Unified champion and Floyd Mayweather Jr as Super champion. So, how do you want to make the difference? On May 25th, there will be the same situation at super middleweight, with the winner of Froch vs. Kessler and Andre Ward. Once this is not the case anymore, we may call them all "Super" again. But for the moment? Do you have a better solution? claudevsq (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow the sources. The best source I've found is the WBA's ratings ([7]). Viloria is the only unified champion on that list (Álvarez won after it was released). Klitschko, Garcia etc. are super champions. Is there another source we should look at? --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I knew of, but you are right, although it's not logical: In the latest rankings, Juan Francisco Estrada is named "unified" and Guillermo Rigondeaux is named "Super" champion, although both of them do hold exactly the two very same titles in their respective divisions: (Super) WBA and WBO titles... I mean, do you have a better idea to differ from Álvarez and Mayweather? Rumors are that Mayweather has been or will be stripped by the WBA anyway for not defending his title, so let's wait for the next rankings (probably in a week), and then, we'll see... OK? claudevsq (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the WBA has done with Álvarez and Estrada's titles. I assumed you did. I do know what they have done for Klitschko, Garcia etc. They are super champions and that's what the list should show. If the WBA changes that next week we can change the list then.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the WBA makes the difference between Super and Unified champions: http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBA_RATING_APIRL_2013.pdf claudevsq (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now we know who is a super champion and who is a unified champion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noticed you have regularly dealt with the article on the list of current world boxing champions. The reason I'm getting in touch is because my interactions with User:Claudevsq have been particularly tiresome, since for the past year he has outright refused to discuss my gripes with the inconsistent naming conventions used throughout the article. Would you be able to pipe in with a third opinion to get him say something.. anything at all? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that Claude has started discussing the issues on your talk page. He is stubborn, but with a lot of persistence I've been able to get him to discuss things. It can be frustrating but try not to make comments about him. Discuss his actions and reasons.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I doubt he'll be discussing anything in this lifetime. It's pretty hilarious. Whatever few words he's written on my talk page have nothing to do with actually discussing the numerous inconsistencies and poor grammar within the article. I've written near-essays on both his and the article's talk pages explaining my gripes, but all he does is undo my edits every day without a single word. I must ask, how on Earth has anyone managed to deal with him rationally in the past? At this point I might as well be talking to a robot or something. Baffling stuff.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senator, you asked me about Povetkin some time ago, here's proof that he is not champion anymore, just like Shumenov has been elevated, Uchiyama has not (yet), andd González relinquished his title, see these 2 different links from WBA page: http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/news/Video_WBA_Champions.shtml and http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/news/Video_Rom_n_Chocolatico_Gonz_lez_abandona_las_108_libras.shtml claudevsq (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I didn't know that the WBA took away the regular champion titles when they lose to super champions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, but what's the problem? The article for Miguel Vázquez includes the accent, just like Yoan Pablo Hernández, Sergio Martínez, Danny García (are we supposed leave out the disambiguation, just because it redirects?), Bryan Vásquez, etc. This was the problem with User:claudevsq, in that he kept making pointless and inconsistent redirects. There is nothing wrong with having Miguel Vázquez as it is, seeing as the entire boxing champions article makes consistent use of accents wherever they apply. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with leaving it as Miguel Vazquez either. To quote WP:NOTBROKEN, changing "it is generally an unhelpful and time-wasting exercise, and it can actually be detrimental." And yes, we should take out the unecessary piped disambig for Danny Garcia.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is plenty wrong with leaving it as Miguel Vazquez without the accent. Not only was it originally Miguel Vázquez (with the accent) before you went and changed it for no reason (comically, you're not even doing what the WP:NOTBROKEN quote says!), but there are already plenty of boxers within the article who have accents in their names (as I already pointed out above), so breaking consistency just to adhere to some loosely-interpreted WP policy is ludicrous. If they have accents in their names per their WP article title, it is certainly not "time-wasting" nor "detrimental" to correct them for the sake of accuracy. Deliberately introducing redirects was something brought up by User:The Rambling Man when he had to get involved with User:Claudevsq's edit warring recently. Must we start that bullshit again? However, in the case of removing the disambiguation for Danny García, I only just noticed that. I still remembered it as being "Danny García (boxer)", but that seems to have changed in October 2012. I've gone ahead and done that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is perfectly acceptable to use redirects like Miguel Vazquez. That's one of the reasons they exist. I did not change the text of the list - I merely removed an unnecessary piped link.
• What part of WP:NOTBROKEN do you think I'm not following?
• Well spotted on Danny García.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this edit is frankly absurd. Introducing a dab link for the sake of removing a pipe, why on earth isn't the correct title name being used given the choice, particularly if you're editing the page? Sometimes I think some editors of these pages are deliberately trying to make life difficult. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What dab link do you think I introduced?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant deliberate introduction of a redirect. You could have removed the redirect rather than the direct link. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using redirects. The editor who used the piped link obviously wanted the list to read "Miguel Vazquez" with no accent. Changing that simply because it's a redirect is contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That they changed it to read Miguel Vazquez without the accent—piped or not, redirected or not—is pointless anyway. The whole article, as well as that of Miguel Vázquez, employs an accurate use of accents, so introducing a redirect just for the sake of sticking to WP:NOTBROKEN, all whilst breaking consistency within the boxing champions article (as User:Claudevsq tried to do), is utterly ridiculous. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of accents in the English Wikipedia is a controversial issue. If you'd like to develop consensus about how they should be used in that list you should discuss it on its talk page, but you shouldn't remove redirects simply because they're redirects.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you shouldn't introduce redirects for the sake of it either. Get some perspective please, there may be a guideline suggesting that a redirect is fine, but actively seeking to add redirects is odd in extremis. Perhaps we need a something that says WP:COMMONSENSE.... oh, wait...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you removed the correct title to keep the redirect is utterly bizarre. Please keep some consistency in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a piped link as advised by MOS:NOPIPE. If you want to impose some type of consistency on the list, I suggest building consensus on the talk page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'll just use common sense and not deliberately introduce redirects. And consistency within a page is implicit, you don't need consensus for that! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful for you to discuss your ideas on consistency at the list's talk page. It's not clear to me what you want to be consistent. If it's consistently avoid using redirects, that goes against guidelines. If it's about using accents, that is a controversial issue that is dealt with in a variety of ways throughout Wikipedia.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be helpful if you and other editors stop deliberately introducing redirects. Quite why there's such a drive to make such a dog's dinner of the boxing pages, I'm uncertain. I think I'll leave you all to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the redirect guidelines you can try to change them.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall reading in the guidelines that you should deliberately introduce redirects. Perhaps apply some common sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made, that you seem to be obsessed with, is recommended by MOS:NOPIPE. Changing the text of the list simply because there is a redirect, as you think I should have, is against WP:NOTBROKEN. What is it about redirects that you dislike so strongly?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the nonsense of removing a pipe to deliberately introduce a redirect, little hope remains. Perhaps a good job you make very few mainspace edits since there's an abundant lack of common sense. Good luck to you and Claude progressively wrecking such boxing pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think that redirect, or redirects in general, are a problem?

Bear in mind this part of WP:COMMONSENSE:

Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance.

--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to point me to the part of the guideline you're using to deliberately introduce redirects. You didn't do that, you just kept asking me what's so bad about redirects. I want to know why you would deliberately introduce redirects. Seriously, if you think your edit was made using common sense then this discussion is over, further edits like that will simply be corrected without further debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately removed a piped link without changing the text of the list. The redirect was incidental. If you are unable to explain your objection to this redirect (or redirects in general), there is nothing to discuss.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a source, with info about doping case in 1996. Thnx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEZPREDELIUS (talk • contribs) 09:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Vitali Klitschko#cite note-12--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent "move" at 2022 FIFA World Cup, you also "removed" content and references. Please be more careful in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving that material to the Bidding corruption allegations section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kraft Dinner. This is getting disruptive. I don't object to the information being added to the article, but it must be properly sourced first. Statements such as "There have been allegations that Yellow 5 and 6 may be associated with health issues." are not acceptable. What are the claims, who made the claims, and are the claims credible? The food writer blog that the refs are discussing is not a WP:RS. As I said on the talk page, if you want to use the refs that are cited in the news coverage, then cite them, but make sure you don't claim that they support things that they don't explicitly state. Your earlier version of this edit, "Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 have been linked to certain health issues such as asthma, skin rashes and hyperactivity in children" was very definitely WP:synthesis even if you cite the research reports since none of them even come close to saying that. Meters (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editing and discussion that we are involved in regarding the Kraft Dinner article is a normal process as described by WP:BRD. I hope and expect, as it continues, some sort of consensus will be reached.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but don't keep reinserting the same, or variations of the same, vague statements without addressing the concerns. My concerns are on the talk page, and you have not addressed them. Meters (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have expressed concerns with your edit. I'm watching the article's talk page, but you have not proposed any significant alteration to your original unacceptable edit. Until you do there is no point in me adding anything to what we have already said there. BRD does not mean you can ignore the concerns, wait a while, and repost something with the same problems. Meters (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On November 26th I made some suggestions on the article's talk page about how your concerns could be addressed. You did not reply so I went ahead and made edits that I thought you might find acceptable.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and after I removed that edit and reiterated the concerns on the talk page you ignored it and made a similar edit again. You never proposed any particular wording, and I've spent enough time explaining this on the talk page. Your original talk page post said only One of the cited sources does say that yellow 6 has been associated with health issues (the tumors you mentioned above). If you are concerned that readers may be confused and want to specify which dye has been linked with which issue, that can be done. As I had already pointed out, that source is not cited in the Wikipedia article, and it only says that there is a possible connection to tumors in rats, so I saw no need to reply to that. As for specifying which issue is associated with which dye, I didn't reply since I had already told you that not doing that was WP:synthesis. Obviously I was concerned, and I expected any change you made to address that. But you edit did not address that problem.

Vague hand-waving statements about health problems associated with Yellow Dyes 5 and 6 sourced to news coverage of a food blog are not acceptable. Synthesis based on that is even worse. Large-scale testing has not shown these supposed health problems. As I've said, I'm not against including the information, but not unless it is accurate, credible, and sourced to reliable sources. Meters (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you disagree with something that someone has written on an article's talk page, a more productive way to deal with it is to reply and say that you disagree. That way discussion can continue to try to establish consensus.

I did not ignore your concerns. Please assume good faith. I thought my reply and edits addressed those concerns, you've now made it clear that you disagree and reverted and the WP:BRD cycle continues.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've invested too much time in this. Please propose a wording on the talk page that is sourced to reliable references and that does not contain any synthesis. In fact, these claims would fall under medical information and thus would need to satisfy the WP:MEDRS guideline. You would probably be better off attempting to include this information in the articles on the dyes themselves (Yellow 5 and Yellow 6) rather than the article on Kraft dinner. Meters (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this revert. I was reluctant to use the MMA infobox at first and also dismissed it as "They're a boxer, so use that one", but is it really so bad? There's a lot of extra stuff that can be added using the MMA fields, compared to the boxer infobox. Amateur records, a BoxRec link, trainers, residence, etc. I think a "losses by KO" field in infobox boxer is long overdue, or even "losses by DQ" in the case of Tyson and Golota. Would like to hear your views on it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The martial artist infobox has some good stuff in it. It doesn't have a nickname field, though.

I don't think boxer's articles should be switched to use that template one by one. Using the martial artist infobox could be discussed at WikiProject Boxing.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have notice your reversion on the results by country table to reflect on the previous format. I have fixed it with accuracy every editions including the totals that were devided by the total points from the number of games. I would not accpet a lazy solution if there were any results that were "not accurate" and I was more than willingly have taken an hour to make sure that the results were correct and also to have the graph to truly show results by country and not exluding any country at all. Thank you for letting me make sure that the United States column shows results accurately.

Thanks for making the effort. Many editors have simply changed the column heading from MLS to USA, ignoring the Canadian MLS teams' results in those totals. Adding a United States column is an improvement, but I still have some concerns about the accuracy of the numbers in the new column. Can you please discuss this at Talk:CONCACAF Champions League?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Can you please explain what this means? Is there something I've done that you are you concerned about?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was concerned about this edit and its summary. This is not correct on a BLP and I need you to be aware that it is not. It is for you to attain consensus to restore the material, not for Collect to attain consensus to remove it. If you look at the link in the template you'll see it explained in more detail, but it's basically to ensure that Wikipedia does no harm to living people. --John (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you assumed that was a good-faith BLP objection. With the current editing environment at that article, I should have acted as if it was.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back the last 500 edits, you'll see that this is merely the latest user of what I would deem to be socks of someone really persistent over years in trying to get soccer changed to association football on that page. I would advise that you get an administrators assistance in this matter.

Ray1892 Raybean1892 Lucas1892

This doesn't even count the IPs that have tried to change the page. 78.147.37.213 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaskatchewanSenator. 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]

Greetings. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:WikiProject Boxing regarding the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino, and how it should be specified in MOS:BOXING. To form a consensus on this, your opinion as an active member of the Project is essential and highly welcome. The current discussion can be found here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaskatchewanSenator. 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]

Feel free to answer the fight card question at Talk:Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury. Naue7 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal into 2002 Winter Olympics. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I'm not sure what you think I copied from that page. I see that the Bid scandal section is much the same as the lead of the 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal, but it was like that before my recent edits. See: [8] from April 13. I'm not sure which came first.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you moved it from one section to another and the bot mistook it for a new addition? Regardless you can ignore this report as it appears to be a false positive. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7 and 32, but not ages were five, seven and 32." Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'd forgotten about that one.  Self-trout--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You will notice that I didn't revert your edit that restored the wiki link for 'chin'. I had thought I had seen it earlier in the article but was mistaken. I accept that the term 'chin' could potentially need disambiguation. The word 'biting', however, does not need a link explaining what 'biting' means. It's preposterous. I find excessive dictionary links absurd. Not only do they take away from the legibility of the text but you also get in the situation that every word is linked. If we link 'biting', why don't we link every single word? The answer is because it is ridiculous. Restoring such a link is silly. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I guess I just saw the edit summary and assumed that you removed the same wikilink, without even looking at it. I'm sorry for that and the unnecessary note on your talk page. I should be more careful.

You are right. Biting should not be linked.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Tyson Fury is the current reigning lineal heavyweight champion per linealboxingchampion.com and we cannot ignore that fact. Sadako (Ringu) (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a full discussion about calling Tyson Fury the lineal champion at Talk:Tyson Fury#RfC - Tyson Fury lineal champion. Please review it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That unsourced paragraph has been there for 14 years. Almost a decade and a half seems like ample time for someone to find a reliable source, and no one has. That's why I've removed it. Again. Please stop re-adding unsourced and unreliably-sourced material. This is supposed to an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for things people think they've heard of and can't source. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every sentence in Wikipedia requires a citation, so I doubt anyone was looking for one until you removed the paragraph. Remember this part of the verifiability policy:

Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

This is the ideal situation to use a citation needed tag.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. I decided that 14 years of that original research being present in the article was more than long enough, and if someone had a reliable source, they could re-add the material on their own with that source. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]