User talk:Aktsu/Archives/2008/August

Forrest Griffin

Should I go ahead and make the changes to the controversial victory over Rampage on Forrest Griffin's page as per our discussion? I only ask because Swampfire, apparently bitter over the fact that he was wrong, has formed a sort of personal vendetta against me. Someone blanked the page earlier and I reverted it and Swampfire actually tried to give me a warning for reverting this vandalism based on the 3 revert rule. I think an admin may need to deal with him if he keeps this up. --Xander756 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please bring an admin in because all I have did was enforce policies, which you choose to violate wheteher intentional or not. including making personal attacks. Also on breaking WP:3RR as it clearly states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period" If there is an exclusion than 3RR is only one you did not break But an encyclopedic article should not include controversial decision when only a small faction around one man says it is controversial WP:DUE .Swampfire (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the last part of how I worded the article. Ibarra no longer plas on filing a protest. Because based on his only complaint the head of the NSAC informed him Griffin still wins.Swampfire (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can intergrate yours and mineSwampfire (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the links I found on spiketv.com that states Silva vs Irvin was in fact a Fight Night?Swampfire (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just combined your rewrite with what I had added.Swampfire (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think the UFC and Spike are beginning to do now is Instead of naming the fights, Fight Night bouts such as UFC Fight NIght Silva vs Irvin. They are just saying UFC Silva vs Irvin was on Fight Night Live on Spike. That way Spike owns the name Fight Night instead of UFC. But anyway thats just my opinion. But they are still Fight Night fights. I agree, So we start with Ortiz vs Shamrock and name them the way I listed them on the project page because that is the exact wording on UFC.com all i did was copy and paste.Swampfire (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking the Fedor approach would be to write as little about a single fight as possible. The proposed re-write is not needed and writes a lot more than is necessary. There has yet been a valid reason given why the current information needs to be changed at all but for one user on here disagreeing with it. --Xander756 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I need you help gain with Xander, Because now since we rewrote the article to proper wording with valid citation. He wants to revert still trying to say it is controversial. Striking out what both you and I added including removing the references.Swampfire (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you both should have known better than 2 people cannot reach a general consensus. As I said in my last message here, I thought you wanted to take the Fedor approach, Aktsu? With this recent re-write you are completely doing the opposite. Almost 25% of the entire article would not be devoted to one single fight. There is also no need to talk about Quinton Jackson's personal trainer on FORREST GRIFFIN'S page now is there? I think the fact that Swampfire is trying to hide the fact that this was a controversial decision should raise some red flags. The article does not need to be more in-depth just to satisfy his notion of hiding information he disagrees with. You have even admitted that the fight was controversial as had nate1481. This evidence cannot be ignored. The only basis Swampfire has disagreed with this on is because the decision as unanimous, he believes that it by definition cannot be controversial when in fact these things have nothing to do with one another. --Xander756 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Xander all of you stuff is based on info immediately after the fight, and statements made by an angry Ibarra. Once the dust settled Ibarra realized how wrong he was, and that what he was going to prtest held no merit. As Ibarra was not even saying it should be a draw. He was saying Jackson won. When the head of NSAC informed him that even if the first round was switched not only would jackson still not win, but it would not be a draw either. Griffin won the fight either way. Aktsu himself did the rewrite of the article. I helped implement it along with valid sources you are trying to remove. It will be reverted as this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, blog, or news siteSwampfire (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Its seems as though Xander just doesnt understand the whole NPOV thing. The way you worded it was exactly neutral while stating the facts. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the wording. In fact he removed all the stuff about the NSAC, because it goes against what he is trying to say. The way you left it yesterday was perfect as both sides were includedSwampfire (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I am going to do is create a seperate subsection of Forrest winning the title. Called "Championship controversy" in which both sides can be presented and everything added in it.Swampfire (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have already started renaming UFC Fight Nights. I have did all of the fight nights see what you think. I have also changed the names on List of UFC events page. Swampfire (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Drop by Forrest's page to see the rewrite tell me what you think. the Light Heavyweight champ section, now has a subsection called championship controversy which is written from a NPOV. I did not even include all the info from Dave Meltzer of Yahoo Sports, because I thought it would take it a lil bit away from NPOV, but it is in one of the footnotes.Swampfire (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Griffin Continued

It seems that Swampfire has taken the liberty upon himself to completely rewrite the article as he sees fit without further discussing the issue. Based on his sole message in the discussion it would seem that nate1481 disagreed with him. Swampfire has continually toted that you are completely on his side and I see he has been spamming your talk page requesting your backing here. I haven't seen any consensus reached on the discussion page so if you would take the liberty of reverting his edits until other users can weigh in or an admin arbitrate the issue, I think it would be for the best here. His re-write seems to be in bad faith as he has distorted references to cite things they have nothing to do with and when I reverted them he continually repeated them, while when this happened with you, you agreed to discuss rather than try to keep your information on by brute force. --Xander756 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I replied on my talk page. Did it kinda backwards but go look, lol. --Xander756 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the backing now but it may be a little too late. Swampfire has already tricked admins into removing my rollback powers which I had used to revert dozens if not hundreds of instances of rollback for years. He has continually went around stating how you agree with him on this issue which obviously was a lie. He has lied about reaching a consensus, lied about things I have done, told me I needed reading lessons, accused me of sock-puppetry without evidence, and has stalked me on nearly every edit I have made. You can seven see he starts responding to my edits on User:Nufy8 which have completely nothing to do with it. Realizing he was doing this, he deleted his edits but this just goes to show how he is harassing me. He is taking this personally and has created such an entanglement that I don't believe the admins will sort it out. On my talk page you posted that you agreed that it should simply be noted as controversial until something can be discussed later on. If you would take the liberty of restoring it to the page that it was before Swampfire got a hold of it, I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Swampfire is back at it again. As per your statement on my talk page stating that for the time being you will be backing the fact that it should simply be stated and not gone into depth I have reverted his edits. I would appreciate if you help me here now. Perhaps if you revert, he will stop. --Xander756 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. Unfortunately some valid information actually was added to the article this time so it's a shame he had to try to add that in with his stubborn repeated edits as well. It would be a plus if you could add back the info that was on there aside from that little section. --Xander756 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Headings

That policy you linked to in your edit note didn't work, could you find the link and show me? I am unfamiliar with it...I typically see all headings capitalized. --Xander756 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Juanito Ibarra

Hey can you please take a look at Juanito Ibarra's article? I made an edit to it and Swampfire strangely changed it and in the edit note says I am stalking him...As it stands now though I don't think it makes sense. It lists two fighters that Ibarra trains then says after his loss at UFC 86, he was fired by Jackson. Jackson who? It doesn't say so it's kind of confusing to me at least. --Xander756 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

I have just declined at least half a dozen incorrectly tagged speedy deletion requests from you in a row. Please read WP:CSD before you tag any more articles. This is disruptive, wastes the time of the declining admin who has to review your taggings, and potentially discourages newcomers from continuing to contribute. – iridescent 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if I see any more idiocy like this from you I'm going to block you as you're clearly being disruptive. "Use of an automated tool" is not an excuse; responsibility for automated edits rests with the user when they're abused/misused. – iridescent 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain in what way they fail to meet criteria? Also please see another admin's request for the user who have created the articles in question to stop creating them here. Sorry, but I honestly believed they were OK to speedy because of the lack of context (CSD-A1, and failure to asses the notability of the subject (CSD-A7)). I should probably only have nominated a few first. Sorry again. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm NOT requesting deletion because they are not notable, per WP:ATHLETE they clearly are. I'm requesting deletion because the articles does nothing to specify that it is about a professional athlete. Some of the articles created by JoeMcKim had been expanded to stubs (two of them by me) - and those I have no problems with. Also, I now realize you were denying them as I were tagging - something I didn't notice. I'm very sorry, and would of course have stopped had I seen it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The very first line of all of them is "Professional record", which I would have thought makes it clear that they're professional athletes. I agree, these certainly need cleaning up – and, as you'll notice, some of them have been tagged by assorted patrollers – but "needs cleaning up" is not a deletion reason. Satyr's post is about a specific concern that the professional league to which they belong is notable enough to make its participants notable (for the record, I think he's clearly wrong about speedy deletion; the place for a discussion like that is AFD). If you have a concern about the articles, feel free to set up a mass-AFD (see here for how to do it) which may well agree that they're deletable. Speedy deletion is based on the assertion of notability, not the actual fact of it. – iridescent 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are totally speediable articles, under "no substantive meaningful content" if nothing else. They may be notable, but if the Barak Obama article only had his voting record in the Senate, that would be speediable as well. Furthermore, the creator has made no effort to expand any of the articles, nor even respond to a request for information. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Barak Obama article had only his record in the Senate, then the proper thing to do would be to add a sentence along the lines of "Barak Obama is a Senator in the United States Senate" at the beginning (note that this is enough to make it not be covered by A7), and tag it with tags such as {{uncategorized}}, {{bio-stub}} (or some more specific stub type), and clearly NOT speedy delete it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

About House M.D.

Well, I did not know that, sorry. If you had put that in you edit summary then I would not have undone it. User:Miagirljmw14 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Miagirljmw14 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee Hasdell

You changed Lee Hasdell record for the one on that is known on most websites. This record is uncorrect. It would be much appreciated if you dont change it again thank you. Claudioproductions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.132.49 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have his complete record personally. the only access it via a translated page from RINGS itself. That is the only website that holds every RINGS event on the internet. Sherdog is incomplete.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://kok.s8.xrea.com/rings.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFIGHTING%2BNETWORK%2BRINGS%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2006-39,GGLR:en%26sa%3DX —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioProductions (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing Lee Hasdell's page. i have spent so much time on it and worked so hard to gather information on his record. No one knows as much as me on Lee Hasdell so just please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioProductions (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are changing a correct record and replacing it for an incomplete one. why? i gave you the link for RINGS check yourself. stop undoing my work. Are you determind to ruin it or something ?. Im going to keep changing it back so give up now. CP —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudioProductions (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah im totally kool with the changes. As long as the record stays then its good mate. thank you. ClaudioProductions (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just added minor things to your edit, i hope thats ok so check it out and see what you think. ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!

Dear Aktsu,

I appreciate your edits. I am trying to make my updates as useful for Wikipedia users as well. Believe me, I refer to Wikipedia for all things and any contribution I make is always intended to be relevant.

That being said, I feel I probably shouldn't have used a general link to the different TV programs but rather direct links to their page within this blinkx Remote service instead. For example, for House, I should have provided this link instead: http://tv.blinkx.com/show/house/SHfSFa_Av-p_XuyE.

What do you think? This is clearly the path other accepted links have taken - e.g. Yahoo! TV, etc. (http://tv.yahoo.com/house/show/36106)

Look forward to your thoughts!

Coolbeans81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbeans81 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also - You might not be able to view episodes of House, M.D. for example if you're not in the U.S.? Oftentimes, our networks prohibit access to programming based on your location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbeans81 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)