User talk:Aktsu/Archives/2009/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cookie
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
198.254.16.201
Hi. 198.254.16.201 is actually right about the grammar - the correct possessive of a name ending in S is s's. I admit the guy seems a bit shouty currently, but I'll see if I can get him to calm down. Calling him a vandal doesn't help though. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I was pretty sure "my way" was correct so I looked it up: Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound. Seems like both are OK if I'm interpreting that right ;) Good job keeping an eye out though. --aktsu (t / c) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Help
Do you help new people on this site? BTW, how do i put my name on a page?
Thanks! You see I want to incresase the quality of college football on here. So, thanks man! College Football Expert (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) PS 4 tildes right?
.Ski jumping hill infobox
Ok. Thanks! The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks, i have now used the new template on my new article Jested A. It was perfect! The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Leaving relevant comments on others' talk pages; Jackal4
Please point me to the relevant Wiki guideline that suggests that leaving appropriate comments on others' talk pages is a Wiki violation if they request that you not do it.
I am aware that the person with a talk page has the right to delete material. Even if it is relevant and appropriate material. Although I note that the relevant Wiki guideline says that instead of editiors removing comments from their own talk pages, archiving is preferred. Jackal4 has not followed the preferred path, and I didn't see you explain to him that that was set forth by the Wiki Guideline as the preferred path.
I can't say I'm aware of a guideline that prohibits one from leaving such comments, even in the face of requests along those lines from the person himself.
There are, of course, benefits to being able to leave comments in a location that is central to all those who have problems with the editor, as in the case of Jackal4 where a number of editors who share similar problems with his edits have met and discussed those problems there. It would of course become much more difficult to determine who they are if they were never allowed to leave comments on his talk page. That would be a disservice in cases such as Jackal4, who has recently been blocked because of his disruptive editing.
Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- As to WP:HUSH, which is all I have time for tonight, that of course is inapposite in that it relates to "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page [that did not take place], restoring such comments after a user has removed them [that did not take place], placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors [that did not take place], and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space [I find your comments to be annoying, and if they have validity I will find them to be embarassing, but I doubt they meant that you therefore can't comment on my talk page]."
- It goes on to say "user talk pages are to facilitate communication." Well, that's precisely what I am seeking to do, and you would like to quell. His talk page is the one central place that other editors who find his edits to be disruptive can meet.
- His account has also been blocked as a result of these issues -- please note the exception in any event that applies in such cases.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- As to WP:UP#CMT, that policy, as I mentioned before, indicates that archiving is preferred over Jackal4 deleting my comments. You might wish to discuss that with him.
- Beyond that, the guideline says nothing about restoring deleted material other than warnings. Or in whether a person can prohibit you from leavin comments on his talk page. That is what Jackal4 suggests is the case, and what your "warning" suggests, but it certainly is not supported by what you have cited. I am not leaving comments on his page to antagonize him, but rather for the reasons that I have cited. And I notice that his disruption has not stopped since I raised it to you, but has instead increased resulting in a block.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You sent me two guidelines. Neither said that Jackal4 can prohibit me from making relevant comments on his talk page. You spoke up as an apologist for Jackal4 in the past, but he has since been blocked for his continued Wiki violations. Your opinion does not accord with a host of other editors who have left similar comments on his talk page, complaining about his edits. I expect that other admins will see things as the majority of those who have written on his talk page have seen them, and as the blocking admin saw them. To cite guidelines as supporting the notion that he can prohibity me from making relevant comments on his talk page -- when they do no such thing -- is misleading, and IMHO it is not wikilawyering to point this out. I'm not sure about what your saying with regard to logs is, but the relevant one here would be to suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that Jackal4 has just been blocked (again) for a month for disruptive editing. I'm at a loss as to why you have continued to defend what are clear Wiki guideline abuses on his part, or ask for shorter blocks, while at the same time you have threatened me with a block when there was absolutely no support for it in Wiki guidelines.
I will also suggest that your defense of his use of the word f*ck in the past certainly did not help chill his use of profanity, as evidenced by his more recent use of it. This is of course clearly in itself a wiki violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
MMA Barnstar, yet another
|
The MMA Barnstar | |
| I, Floodo1 (talk), hereby award Aktsu the The MMA Barnstar for his valued contributions to WikiProject MMA. |
I already added it to your user page. You probably need to reformat it, since that part of your page is messed up.
In any case thanks so much for the collaboration BJ Penn & Anderson Silva and the rest of your contributions to MMA Project. It's great to have the feeling of cooperation and mutual care about a common subject. You and 2008Olympian keep me motivated to make things better (even if I have only a little bit of time to constribute lately)! Floodo1 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles Lewis, Jr.
I am not concerned with the "bare references" but I reverted because the "undo" could not be undone due to "intermediate conflicting edits." I suggest that it is better to do one edit at a time, because there are points that we agree on.
Ryoung122 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to report you for abusive editing if you continue reverting the date for this article.Ryoung122 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
SUCI Page regarding
Dear Friend, Thanks for the 3RR message. I was not reverting the changes of any genuine editor. I was only changing the edits of a sockpuppet of User: Kuntan. I did not delete any of the content, just moved it down. I see that most of the editors including me wish to keep the content in Critisim page while this IP address user with ip address starting 59 seems to have some personal vengance to this party. I was dragged into it as he started abusing me. Please read his comments. I pasted the 3RR warning on his page and also the Sockpuppet user warning; but he keeps removing it. If you are an admin, I request you to address this. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Future fights
Good technique in commenting out the future fights rather that deleting them. I'll do that from now on--2008Olympianchitchat 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
Copyright
Thanks for the bogus warning. I asked for Jay Hart's permission to use the article. Happy editing.(Planecrash111 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
I just re-created it myself. Now there should be no reason to remove it.(Planecrash111 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
Daily show
Hey, I happend to notice on your user page, the box that says that you watch "The Daily Show". I put a comment on Jon Stewart talk page. In my opinion, the recent shows about CNBC are typical of his style, and do not deserve a special mention on his page. But you may disagree. Closetindex (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)closetindex
JustSomeRandomGuy
Hi there,
I gave the user the block since they've been blocked twice in the past month or so already for disruptive editing. Hopefully a bit more of a severe block will get their attention, although I have offered to unblock if the person agrees voluntarily to step back and not edit in anger.
The copyvio thing is interesting - I had a look on that site but I wasn't able to find any direct text lifted there that was being added by User:Planecrash111. My usual method of taking sentence fragments and plugging them into Google is drawing a blank as well. Can you direct me to where the copyvio is coming from? Obviously, if they are copyvios, then Planecrash should not be unblocked, but otherwise I'm happy to make him the same offer that I made to JSRG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC).
- Ah, good catch. I concur with you, such a thing is really unacceptable and I'm struggling to think of any possible explanation that could justify that! I've also unblocked JSRG, as he's agreed to play nice and stick to 1RR (which is good, because he appears quite knowledgeable and prolific on the subject). Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support Aktsu - I didn't even consider the copyvio problem he was creating.... (honestly it wouldn't have affected my approach at the time, but it's something I'll be considering in the future in a situation like this - I notice you've warned him elsewhere of it..) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Good catch
Hi, good catch regarding the File:Roger Huerta at UFC Fight Night.jpg image, I totaly didn't think to Google the image since the uploader had explicitly stated that he took it himself during the fight :( --Sherool (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Brock Lensar
To be honest, I was reverting more because they removed his birthdate from the lead, so I didn't really look at the ref. I see your point though, the ref isn't adding anything to the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What copyright violation ?
An image may be copyrighted yet have certain enabling attributes which allow its posting with certain restrictions as long as the source is attributed ... you need to TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THESE TYPES OF DETAILS AND NOT DELETE MY CONTRIBUTIONS AGAIN. The current image is not relevant to the the theme and purpose of the article " MMA " which seeks to distinguish the topic of MMA from that of " Martial Arts " by crediting the original existence of MMA soley to that of ancient practice of Greco-Wrestling. An image which pertains to Jiu Jitsu technique is thus more or less irrelevant towards regarding the purpose of the introduction and may be replaced by a image which emphasizes the theme to a better extent.
I am going to double check the copyright context by emailing the administrator of the website. Are you able to suggest a better image? If not do not meddle in my endeavor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werger777 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The Image is not copyrighted , just got a reply from the owner of the website
" Nice article.......no we have no copyrights to this, feel free to use it. If you could find a way to link to us it would be nice but not required. "
Any more deletions of my content on your part are unnecessary from this point and will be deemed to be malicious in nature .
The email to the owner of the site is
"Jack Bratcher" jackiebratcher@mchsi.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werger777 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Zuffa
I am going to contact Zuffa about this , PROMMA had no problems using it on their site so their should be no problems with its usage too bad the owner never indicated this to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werger777 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have written the following to UFC/Zuffa
I am currently in the process of editing the Wikipedia article on " MMA " and endeavoring on posting the following image as the introductory " cover " image for the article http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=MultiMedia.GalleryImgDetail&gid=0&aid=19006&return=fa%3DMultiMedia.GalleryImgList%26gid%3D0&search=1&SearchString=jon%20jones I am in need of permission to post this image on the following page and the following page alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts I am requesting the usage of this image because I sense that it best portrays the theme and purpose of the article itself which is to convey the notion that MMA originated in the practice of Greco-Wrestling in distinction of the topic of " Martial Arts " which actually involves more eastern origins. I am in need of written permission for the usage of the image on this site. Prompt reply would be appreciated as the image is about to be deleted according to Wikipedia standards. Werger777 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly
The article emphasizes Greco-Wrestling as the sole original contributor to the existence of MMA ; an image displaying a Jiu Jitsu technique disregards all of that. This is not in line with the theme of what the article is conveying. Jiu Jitsu is mentioned plenty of times within the Martial Arts article Wikipedia page and plenty of times by commentators on live broadcasts on UFC and other MMA organizations. Plenty of sites have employed this image and so exactly why are you so against it? The image is awesome and magnifies the Greco-Wrestling theme of the article. The previous image simply does not fit in. Werger777 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
MMA versus Martial Arts
Unforunately that is the distingushing factor between MMA and Martial Arts ; the essence of MMA is that there is no holds barred . The Wikipedia article " MMA " deserves to separate itself from the " Martial Arts " article by emphasizing Greco-Wrestling as the original contributors of MMA. In this respect an image of a Jiu Jitsu technique does not deserve placement within the MMA article which seeks to reinforce the notion of Greco-Wrestling in connection with MMA.
Should " MMA " have a independent article within of itself apart from " Martial Arts " - that is should the two not be considered the same - the MMA article needs to focus on distinguishing itself from Martial Arts which is dominated by the prevalence of Eastern practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werger777 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you are still watching my talk page on this topic so I'll come over here. We have an IP back changing flags for one of the fighters (from South Vietnam to USA). I've gotten them to start discussing it on the article talk page, but they still insist on changing the flag. I've used up my 3 reverts (and warned them for their 3 reverts). My being able to revert it again without getting dinged for the 3RR is uncertain (is it "clear vandalism"?). So when you get on, perhaps you can go change it back. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)