Talk:Maksim Chmerkovskiy

Name pronunciation

To any interested editor: the Wikipedia standard for the written phonetic pronunciation of names is to use Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key, so for information sake and to provide a sourced reference, in People (magazine), April 11, 2011, page 32, Time, Inc., "Say What??: Scoop's handy pronunciation guide to today's tricky celebrity names" Maksim Chmerkovskiy's name is written out as "MAX-sim SHMER-kov-skee." 5Q5 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this article for 3 days for excessive abuse of multiple accounts and edit-warring. One account per person please, don't ask your friends to create accounts to support your arguments, don't blindly revert to your preferred version, and come to a consensus on the talk page regarding the changes you would like made to the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing tables

Can someone please collapse the DWTS performances tables? I think the page would be easier to navigate with the tables collapsed. I've tried and failed to do it myself.Knope7 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The tables are no longer appearing collapsed for me. I can see the headings and that's about it. I know editors have put a lot of work into these performance tables, but are they necessary? Even collapsed, Chmerkovskiy is in his 15th season of DWTS and that takes up a lot of space. Are the names of the songs danced to and the scores from judges really that significant? Would there be interest in bringing this issue to a project or building consensus on this since it is an issue on several articles? Knope7 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The tables are now hidden, but for now they are still there in case anyone makes a strong argument they should be restored. Knope7 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

Knope7 has begun edit-warring after an edit was trimmed for wildly inappropriate WP:TONE. Per WP:BRD, when one's edit is reverted, protocol is to go to the article talk page and try to reach consensus with other editors. I have asked this editor to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I made an edit. You made an edit. I then reverted. That is not edit warring and I will ask you kindly not to level such accusations. Starting with an accusation of edit warring is not likely to facilitate resolution. Knope7 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Season 24

It appears @Tenebrae: and I have a disagreement over what language to use in describing the announcement that Chmerkovskiy will return for Season 24. I prefer to give a bit more detail to distinguish this announcement from other announcements (there have been 24, it gets pretty repetitive) and to avoid the formulaic construction of starting with the date (In February 2017...). Knope7 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is Knope7's edit:

After his season 23 elimination, Chmerkovskiy publicly said that although he loved participated in the show, he had no interest in returning for season 24 when he would have a newborn son at home. [cited] Nevertheless, Chmerkovskiy and his fiance, Peta Murgatroyd, were the first two professional dancers announced for the season 24 cast with a joint appearance on Good Morning America and an Us Weekly cover story. [cited]

Here is my trimmed version:

After his season 23 elimination, Chmerkovskiy said he did not plan to return for season 24. [cited] Nevertheless, in February 2017, Chmerkovskiy and his fiancee Peta Murgatroyd announced they both would return. [cited]

"Chmerkovskiy publicly said" — Everything is Wikipedia is said publicly. If an anonymous, unattributed "source" had claimed he said it privately, then it's a rumor. We don't publish rumors.

"although he loved participated in the show" — Unless someone states otherwise, it is non-notable that a performer loves performing and being highly paid for it on a nationally televised program. That's simply press-release speak and not encyclopedic WP:TONE.

"had no interest in" — Vague and unspecific. Lots of people do things they have no interest in. More specific to say he had no plan to return.

"when he would have a newborn son at home" — Again, inappropriate tone. Reads like one is making excuses for him. Just state the neutral fact. His stated rationale is irrelevant.

"were the first two professional dancers announced" — First, they announced it themselves. Second the fact that they were the first two has nothing to do with the pertinent fact, which is that he is returning.

"with a joint appearance on Good Morning America and an Us Weekly cover story" — That's just fannish WP:PUFFERY. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I paraphrased Chmerkovskiy's words from the source material. Here's what he said:

"First of all, like I've already said, I'm having the best time of my life on "Dancing with the Stars," Chmerkovskiy, who's paired up with Amber Rose this season, says. "It's a known fact. I've said it. I was quoted as saying the production is on point. I feel the love. I feel like everybody's so friendly [and] we all work for the same goal, [which] is to keep dancing in television and produce a beautiful show."

"Having said that, I'm telling you right now I have zero interest in coming back as a dancer [next season]," he adds.http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/15/maksim-chmerkovskiy-says-has-zero-interest-in-returning-to-dwts.html

Chmerkovskiy is expecting his first child with his fiancee, fellow DWTS pro Peta Murgatroyd, in January. The dancer says his new role as a father is definitely a factor in his current feelings.

"I'm going to have a newborn baby. I have zero want to do this. I promise you that," he explains. "It's been it for me two years ago. I never thought I'd be back here in this position. I'm glad I am. I promise, I'm so glad that I made this decision."

He said "I have zero interest in" which I paraphrased to "had no interest in." I think it captures what he was saying. The point was to convey that he both expressed that he did not want to return for season 24 but also expressed his affection for the show. Chmerkovskiy had in the past been critical of the show and it's not unheard of for someone to say they disliked a job as they are quitting it. Some people do quit without platitudes. He mentioned his desire to not return was tied expecting a child. It's relevant. It also is notable that his return was announced on GMA and Us Weekly. It's atypical for two pros to get special announcements, especially a weekly magazine cover. Knope7 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, we've each presented our case. Now we let fellow editors weigh in and try to reach a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to either try to request comment. As you can see, I have left comments on this talk page before and received no input from other editors. Furthermore, opening the discussion by making a false accusation of edit warring is not conducive to starting an open discussion and I don't blaming others for being hesitant to join where accusations are being thrown around. Making one revert with an edit summary explaining the reasoning, which is what I did, is not edit warring. ("BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." WP:BRD) Calling the tone of my additions, which was fully supported by the reliable sources cited, "wildly inappropriate" is also inaccurate and not conducive to facilitating compromise. I will also cite WP:PRESERVE and WP:AOBF as supporting my position here. Knope7 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for an RfC. These have been done before where two versions of a paragraph or a passage are part of the RfC question and editors decide which they like better. For an example, see Talk:Superman/Archive 5#Request for comment. And believe it or not, while we may disagree in this instance of wording, I respect your efforts and any help I can give regarding setting up an RfC, just ask. I've helped many editors in the past, and some with whom I've disagreed ending up becoming good colleagues. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added the following into the article:

After his season 23 elimination, Chmerkovskiy publicly said that although he loved participated in the show, he had no interest in returning for season 24 when he would have a newborn son at home. [cited] Nevertheless, Chmerkovskiy and his fiance, Peta Murgatroyd, were the first two professional dancers announced for the season 24 cast with a joint appearance on Good Morning America and an Us Weekly cover story. [cited]

@Tenebrae: objected to the tone and changed the content to the following:

After his season 23 elimination, Chmerkovskiy said he did not plan to return for season 24. [cited] Nevertheless, in February 2017, Chmerkovskiy and his fiancee Peta Murgatroyd announced they both would return. [cited]

As stated, Tenebrae has objected to the tone of my contribution and cited WP:TONE. I believe the tone of the content I added is appropriate, supported by the reliable sources cited, and the details are helpful distinguish the 24th season of the show (and somewhere around Chmerkovskiy's 16th season of the show) from any generic season. I also believe my contribution should have been kept under WP:Preserve. Knope7 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are the reasons for the trims I made:

"Chmerkovskiy publicly said" — Everything is Wikipedia is said publicly, so it's redundant to say "publicly said." Just say "said." If an anonymous, unattributed "source" had claimed he said it privately, then it's a rumor ande don't publish rumors.

"although he loved participated in the show" — Unless someone states otherwise, it is non-notable that a performer loves performing and being highly paid for it on a nationally televised program. That's simply press-release speak and not encyclopedic WP:TONE.

"had no interest in" — Vague and unspecific. Lots of people do things they have no interest in. More specific to say he had no plan to return.

"when he would have a newborn son at home" — Again, inappropriate tone. Reads like one is making excuses for him. Just state the neutral fact. His stated rationale is irrelevant.

"were the first two professional dancers announced" — First, they announced it themselves. Second the fact that they were the first two has nothing to do with the pertinent fact, which is that he is returning.

"with a joint appearance on Good Morning America and an Us Weekly cover story" — That's just fannish WP:PUFFERY. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was avoiding giving a point by point breakdown as we already went through that, but I will respond to some of the new points. 1) I see no reason to always assume a performer loves performing on a show. Chmerkovskiy has quit this particular show 3 times previously and over several years complained in the media about various aspects of the show. Assuming he has always loved the show or would only express his love for the show no matter what would be inaccurate in this case, so stating he did speak highly of the show at his planned departure is notable. 2) Deleting the word "publicly" would be a much smaller change, I still think that he made the statements publicly or to the media is noteworthy because it makes it clear it was said outside of the show and not simply an overheard statement either, he made his comments to the press. 3) The announcement was made with GMA and US Weekly, and the forum changes the nature of the announcement. Announcing something on a top rated morning show and national magazine is different from posting something on Instagram, and stating people made an appearance on a show is a fact. I did not add every television appearance but added this one because it came with a significant announcement. This definition of "fannish puffery" would require scrubbing hundreds of celebrity Wikipedia pages. Knope7 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally concur the long version is unencyclopedic. "Publicly" is indeed redundant. It does not add anything. "He said/wrote it publicly" is already a given or we could not include it. It's not like we can include material that hackers stole from his cell phone and supplied to us through the DarkNet. We (i.e., our readers) don't care if he said he loved the show or not; it's not encyclopedic information (but per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE; the guideline WP:Notability has nothing to do with this, and is only about whether a subject can have a separate article here or not). His "love" for the show is obviously contradicted by other sources and facts, so it would get the axe anyway. Agree on "has no plans to return" versus "has no interest in returning", though "will not return" is even more concise. Agreed that the newborn and first-two-[self!]-announced stuff is chaff and should be deleted. The "with a joint appearance on ..." is definitely non-neutral, promotional puffery. If they have a already been on the show and in the magazine, and something encyclopedically relevant was said and is quotable therefrom, then these can be cited as sources; if it's already happened and nothing encyclopedic transpired, no one cares; if it has not happened yet, we do not include predictions of the future, per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Same goes for expecting a baby. Kids that do exist can be mentioned in a section on personal life, but are not pertinent to the material in question (is he or is not going to be on the show). "It came with a significant announcement" is meaningless when the announcement is from the subject (not an independent source, but self-publication by press release). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't a properly written RfC. See WP:RFC for how they should be written generally (the prompt should be neutral and succinct, and arguments should be put in the discussion section). In any event, I generally agree with Tenebrae's version. It sounds to me that Knope7's version is not written with a WP:NPOV, as it tries to make the conclusion that Chmerkovskiy was misleading viewers. Let the facts speak for themselves. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not !voting because of above comment, but I too am mostly leaning towards Tenebrae's version. However, I don't see that the part with a joint appearance on Good Morning America and an Us Weekly cover story as Puffery. Wikipedia write about what others write about subjects. I think including this phrase is ok. L3X1 (distant write) 14:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• I !vote for the shorter version. The tone of the longer version makes it sound as though it has come from the gossip pages (maybe it did!). And for the record, I am in favour of "scrubbing hundreds of celebrity Wikipedia pages" to eliminate fancruft. Jschnur (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maksim Chmerkovskiy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324194300/http://showbiz.delfi.ua/news/dossier/dose-maksim-chmerkovskij.d?id=1479743 to http://showbiz.delfi.ua/news/dossier/dose-maksim-chmerkovskij.d?id=1479743
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419163633/http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272631362.shtml to http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272631362.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)