Talk:Shinya Aoki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jumping Locks?

I think flying submissions would be a much more accurate translation for this English based article, so I'm gonna go ahead and change it. We call them flying submissions over here, so may as well. Also, the Masakazu Imanari page translated Judan to master for similar reasons(better translation to English speaking readers) so I've changed that as well. -Anonymous

Aoki's Page

i have changed "shocked the bjj world with the use of rubber guard" to "use of the de la riva guard to deliver multiple heel kicks to calvantes head" the person who changed it before had no idea what they were talking about. aoki has frequently used rubber guard before and gotten submissions from it. His use of it in that match was expected not shocking. however the use of the de la riva guard for striking from the ground is very novel, as techniques like this cannot be used in bjj competition, only in mma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.21 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not what the reference says"? I'm sick of the disgusting bias on MMA fighters pages due to fans of theirs being wiki addicts and making the pages whatever they feel like. During the HDnet dub of DREAM 1 Frank Trigg made those comments, so unless you can turn back time and change what Frank said, I'm afraid my point is valid, I'll be reverting the page now. Cyrus777 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the above message from my talk page to here where it belongs. Please do not accuse me of "disgusting bias". I do not have any bias; I am not a fan of Aoki nor any other MMA fighter; I have no idea what happened during that fight... I am just following Wikipedia policy regarding sourced statements. Someone modified a properly sourced statement to one that does not agree with the attached citation. That is totally unacceptable in the encyclopedia. You are perfectly welcome to add a statement to the the contrary or one that clarifies the situation and include an appropriate citation. However, I'm not aware of anywhere on the guidelines that welcomes additions to the encyclopedia based on the concept Cyrus says Frank said. (And please stay off my talk page if you can't be civil. Thank you.) David from Downunder (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm somehow supposed to believe a BJJ practitioner just so happens to revert an MMA page (of someone he's not a fan) back into biased nonsense based on Wikipedia policy? So Wikipedia policy is to leave unsourced biases such as "The great Aoki was simply too much with his great flexibility" and other nonsense which has questionable sources such as sherdog but using the announcer's comments is somehow not valid? Don't give me that shit about I said someone says, and then pretend you're being more civil somehow. You're being a weasel with words, you're being a complete jackass to me while using "civil" language. Anyone who can READ can clearly see how biased the page is in its current state. If you're simply "following Wikipedia policy" then tell me how can I use what the announcer said as a source? Cyrus777 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone just reverted the page and provided a link to the page which explains how to cite things, too bad it's ridiculously long and I don't have the time to read that all. Enjoy ruining this "encyclopedia" with absurd bias, I'll return some day when I have the time to read 100 pages in order to fix 1. Cyrus777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While policy can seem overwhelming at first, its value is derived from its consistent application. While you may only see this one article, familiarizing yourself with the policy will allow you to apply it to 100, 1'000 or 1'000'000 articles. If you want to discuss a particular policy, you can go to its talk page (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources). -- BenTrotsky (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm really biased like this edit here where I reverted an edit to change an article to US English. Problem is, I'm Australian. You may as well have also said that I must be Japanese due to my clear bias towards Aoki. Read the first three sentences here: WP:Verifiability...

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

You've already been told this by User:BenTrotsky and by User:Hateless today, and see form discussions on your talk page the you've deleted that others have been through this with you before, for example:

I'm open to constructive edits to Sylvia's page that meet Wikipedia's editing policies. However, if your intent is just to trash Sylvia, tell everyone how boring he is and that he sucks, etc., then your edits will keep getting reverted. --User:Gromlakh

Just stop and think about what you are insisting on: some person called Cyrus777 (I don't know who he is) claims that that someone called Frank Trigg (I never heard of him before) claims something or other happened that contradicts a cited source so he should be allowed to change the text. (And why should Frank's Trigg's (alleged) statement have more weight than the (cited) statement of the medical professional on a matter of observed injury?) If that's not bad enough, then think about what happens when everyone is allowed to edit ina similar manner. As to your quote: "The great Aoki was simply too much with his great flexibility" - the article does not use the words "The great Aoki" nor "was simply too much" - so please don't resort to straw-man arguments. I have added two sourced regarding the "flexibility" issue. To use what the announcer said as a source, find a reliable source and quote it. If you are unsure how to do that, mention to the source on the talk page and ask someone to add it for you. But ask nicely... calling other editors a "jackass" and accusing them of "absurd bias", "pretending to be more civil somehow" and "being a weasel with words" is not the way to go. P.S. If you see absurd bias in any article you are free to remove it. Just don't add your own uncited material that others might see as bias. David from Downunder (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're basically asking why the announcer's statement should have any value? It was rather clear what value it had as it repeatedly showed replays of the event as he spoke but I can't magically shove in a video clip of that, now can I? If you've never heard of this "Frank Trigg" you really shouldn't be touching any MMA article with a 10 foot pole let alone talking down to someone who's trying to turn a glorifying article into reality. If I ever find Frank's words written on a webpage I will use it as a source but google turns up nothing. As for "trash talking" Sylvia, I recall no such thing, but whatever. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know I wasn't the one who had written that stuff. You obviously have the time and no life so you can prance around in hopes of finding dirt, wow you must so proud. Take your elitist attitude and try to talk down to someone who cares what you think. I'll revert the page to exactly what I wrote before once I find a website which quotes what was announced in the event's dub Cyrus777 (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is broaching incivility. You'll really not accomplish anything by use of personal attacks. Per your estimation of Frank Trigg's notoriety: there is no reasonable expectation that someone reading an article on Shinya Aoki would know who this was, so it's irrelevent to the discussion (moreso due to lack of references). If you were to re-add "exactly what (you) wrote", it would likely be reverted again, citations or not, due to the tone of writing. Per Tim Sylvia, I'll refresh your memory with this link to the discussion on your talk page, concluded by you blanking the section. -- BenTrotsky (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You just brought up what David did previously. Accusing me of something I didn't write, what I did was revert it back to what someone else had written before since it was closer reality. If I had the time I could likely cite almost everything that was written there including what may sound biased and even then it wouldn't have been half as biased as this article was before it was changed. Regardless, Hatless has changed it so the tone of the article is somewhat less biased now. As for my "estimation" of Frank Trigg's fame, it's not too far fetched assume someone editing the page of Shinya Aoki would know the announcer at his fights. At this point the page has already been somewhat changed to be less biased so there isn't much more to discuss. I will delete this section afterwards for something more directly relevant than arguments over bias Cyrus777 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(a) Whether you wrote those words or reverted to them is irrelevant... it was still your edit. The version you reverted it to was totally unacceptable according to encyclopedic standards, as was pointed out to you by the other editors,

(b) Well, you make a lot of assumptions about my bias and my knowledge - all of them wrong. I have never even seen a Shinya Aoki fight.

(c) Your statement that "the page has already been somewhat changed to be less biased" is not true. There had been no edit made to this article until nine minutes after you wrote that. --David from Downunder (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit I was referring to was to the other page, not this one. You even went out of your way to try to find more info to add to the article, too bad it's from unreliable sources and far from the truth, but then again you already posted that the truth doesn't matter, just sources do, right? I'd explain more in detail so it would make more sense, but talking to you is a waste of time. And what I originally said stands, you're weasel with words, you say people "personally attack" you while you do the same, except in a more twisted manner. Regardless, I don't care how much you try to make me look bad with your weasel words, if you're going to edit articles in the future and fill it with information you get from random sources, at the very least try to find some reliable ones. Cyrus777 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus, I'm sorry but the only person making you look bad is yourself... and half a dozen editors (including at least two who are admins) have been telling you the same thing about what is and what is not acceptable in Wikipedia, but you won't accept it, nor will you take the time to read the guidelines. Where have I personally attacked you? What are my "weasel words"?

Yes, the truth matters, but you are trying to insert your unsourced version of what you see as the truth, attached to a citation that stated otherwise. By your actions, you are setting yourself up as the oracle of truth in Wikipedia whose unsourced statements should hold sway. How do we know, for example, whether you are biased or not? If a topic or event is contentious (e.g. Homeopathy) then the protocol is that all opposing points of view get expressed, but all with appropriate citations. If editors followed your practice, then the article's content would switch on a minute by minute basis between the versions favoured by the pro and the opposing camps. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? --David from Downunder (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not "asking why the announcer's statement should have any value" - Of course his statements have value, if you can cite them. I'm asking you to think about (a) why Triggg's statement about an injury should take precedence over that of a medical practitioner, (b) why an unsourced statement should take precedence over a sourced statement, and (c) why Cyrus777's uncited claims should have any value (or mine for that matter.) I'm not "taking down" to anyone and I have every right and ability to edit any article as I do so carefully according to Wikipedia policy. It's not a glorifying article - your misquote of the article was glorifying. If there is any glorification in the article that is not in your imagination just go ahead an delete it - you do not need to cite sources to so that. P.S. I already asked you before not to leave any more insulting messages on my talk page. David from Downunder (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all and no Frank Trigg never made any mention of his injury, you misinterpreted it but why should I bother to explain it to you since you'll just pull something new to question me about. Regardless, this discussion is done since I will not be reverting the page since I'd don't have the time right now to search around for a valid source, and also because one of the pages has had the bias somewhat toned down. Also, I removed the discussion from your page. Cyrus777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw in my two cents and say that I agree. "David from Downunder" is indeed twisting words and attempting to glorify the article, and to be honest, is just straight up being a douchebag trying to cram his opinion into wikipedia. Who DOES have the time to argue with a word twisting weasel? I don't and I don't think you should have wasted your time either. If you ever see this, don't bother respond, he's not worth the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.186.42 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)