User talk:Aktsu/Archives/2009/February

Thank you

This might seem a bit random, but thank you for getting Andrei Arlovski's page locked. I had petitioned for it to be locked a bit earlier, but my request was denied. Thanks for getting a lock approved. Paulish (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson

Hi, I was wondering how I could improve this article to get it to B status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bad intentionz (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll request an assessment for the article now.Bad intentionz (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision of article

Please see my complete rewrite of Alexander Fiske-Harrison and comments on the AfD page. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Comment I feel I should explain what has happened with these articles as you proposed the AfD. I suggested to Fisheharrison, on the one and only time I have met him, that he should put up a piece on his play, which I thought excellent, and himself as a source for journalists etc. (he had been complaining that a feature on him in Tatler magazine had been badly researched - it is not online, though). He did this, then the one for his play was put up for Speedy Deletion and the one of himself had a COI. He blanked his autobiog and dropped me an email explaining the problem and said if I thought there should be a page for the play, maybe I should do it myself. Blowdart, who has obviously been watching this, leapt in and put it up for AfD. It was unanimously kept. Fiskeharrison then obviously thought to put up his own page again, and once again wrote it badly - it seems he has no talent for writing about his own material, failures of objectivity being obviously to the detriment of quality. I have since rewritten it.

It seems to me that, ignoring what cannot be found on the net like the Tatler piece, the breadth of publication, the massive reaction to his Prospect (magazine) piece (the most commented piece on the entire Prospect blog First Drafts and on a dozen other blogs around the world) taken in combination with the creation of the play, warrants a hybridised notoriety - NB Michael Billington (critic), our most noted critic in the UK, ranked this first play as highly as Michael Frayn's Afterlife, which was on at the same time (as did the Sunday Times).

As I have said elsewhere, my only COI is with my conscience, as I instigated this rather uncomfortable episode, obviously causing Fiskeharrison some distress, and now am trying to make amends and support two articles which deserve to be there. Taking this into account, I ask you to revise your judgement.

James E --Bigjimedge (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jackal4's violations of Wiki Guidelines

I'm moving this to your talk page, as it concerns us.

You write "(cur) (prev) 01:48, January 24, 2009 Aktsu (Talk | contribs) m (11,197 bytes) (Rv, I think he's made it clear he's tired of this, and you should respect his wish for you to stay away from this page. Take it somewhere else if you really want to keep beating that poor horse.)"

I don't, I'm afraid, share your view. I do not understand Jackal4 as having made it clear that he is tired of this. In fact, his Wiki violations persist, as reflected in my comments, to the past 24 hours.

Further, we are encouraged to dialogue with vandals and the like, so as to give them an opportunity to stop violating Wiki rules. He just engaged in two new violations in the past few hours. Dialogue on his talk page is a means of doing that.

The "poor horse" that is being beaten is Wikipedia. The guidelines against vandalism and profanity and dishonesty and the like are meant to protect against that. Jackal4 has engaged in repeated and random Wiki violations, as detailed, and in protecting the poor horse of Wikipedia -- which he has been flaying for some time now -- we use words; both directed to him, to seek to have him change his ways, and to Administrators if he does not.

You can respond on this page ... I will keep on eye on your talkpage in case you choose to respond.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert of Jackal4's editing, but it seems to me like you just keep bringing up minor points and are refusing to let them go. He's certainly no vandal, and I can't fault him for some of his comment to you seeing how you simply refuses to let even minor things like a little profanity go, instead continuously asking him to "desist" when I can't see that he's done anything wrong in (at least, not looked very far back) days. I would recommend you go back to improving the encyclopedia instead of fighting over this BS. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And, just so you don't have to reply telling me about his "dishonesty" when reverting you on his talk page. WHO CARES? He's obviously tired of you banging on about all his "violations" and just wants to move on. Just let it go and it'll be fine. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that from what you are saying you are familiar with his dozens of incidents of vandalism, but that lack of information on your part does limit the effectiveness of your judgment that he is not a vandal. As I've pointed out in the past, the half dozen incidents that I've detailed are representative of a host of such innapropriate revisions. And no, Wikipedia doesn't suggest that a "fuck" here and there is appropriate -- its not. And his most recent lies were within the past 24 hours -- little evidence that if I just let it go, it'll be fine. Finally, he has made innappropriate revisions to dozens of articles, and refuses to fix them. His response to a half dozen of us complaining to him about months of violations has been rude comments, profanity, and lies. "It'll be fine," you say. Unless you are closer to him than you would appear to be, that is an odd statement based on the evidence before us.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no expert on his editing so I can't be completely sure that there isn't any major problems - but my quick look didn't reveal any. The only persistent issue I've seen you claim (other than minor etiquette, which I find understandable if he's been put through the same kind of whining as I see now before) is the "Replace this image"-issue which is IMO just silly. I get the impression his hostile responses come from continuously being presented with something it seems like he's put behind him. I might be wrong, but it's what it looks like to me - and from what I've seen letting it go would in fact be the best course of action. Please point out any of his wrongdoings I've missed, as all I've seen so far is you complaining over minor issues most likely stemming from a misunderstanding and possibly him being tired of your complaints. Again, I can't speak for him but that's what it looks like. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we agree. You simply aren't familiar enough with his dozens of blatant violations of various Wiki guidelines of at least half a dozen types, so its not worth either of our time discussing it. Your suggestion that his failure to follow Wiki guidelines on honesty are simply the poor beleaguered fellow's attempts to deal with "whining" about months of innapropriate behavior -- something you curiously divine, in stark conflict with the evidence he has put behind him -- are simply not reflected in the least by what he has done. In fact, he has been warned by a half dozen editors over the past months of various violations, and has simply reacted with refusal to clean up his vandalism, commission of additional vandalism, profanity, and now blatant lies ... behavior that has continued as recently as the past 24 hours. Your reaction under the circumstances is peculiar, your characterizations of Wiki Guidelines as minor is both subjective and peculiar, and your suggestion as to your understanding his state of mind is not borne out in the least by his most recent behavior. In fact, he is the poster boy for half a dozen Wiki Guideline violations -- and while you might think them silly, and a desire to stop him from vandalizing dozens more articles to be "whining," your opinions as to the meaninglessness of the Guidelines is your own subjective one and not in line with the Wiki Guidelines themselves.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I can understand you saying this is an issue over time that I'm not familiar enough with. Maybe more diffs would be helpful to me and the people at ANI? You only posted about one case of profanity, two minor content disputes (over inclusion of "replace this image"-image and inclusion of a quote) and the only major violations I saw - one case of removing your comment to someone. Hardly a film study of the classic vandal. You gave no diffs of edit warring, so that might be something I'm missing - but with no blocks since his account creating in 12 July 2006 I get the impression we're talking about minor content disputes here. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on his contribs for a while and help out if I see anything. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasdell

It is apart of the same source, so why are you taking it out ? ClaudioProductions (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're doing so many controversial edits it's hard to keep track. Please clarify what you're talking about. And I guess it's no use telling you this since you don't bother listening anyway, but stop reverting without explanation and instead discuss your edits on the talk page! Please recognize you have a COI and stop being disruptive. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to get a bit suspicious with your edits. As you keep removing anything that states hasdell as the first to do something. I do not understand why you remove only some of the information found on the source and then claim it is unreialble. You then keep the rest. ClaudioProductions (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? If you're inserting something from a magazine, then how am I supposed to know that's where it's from unless you indicate what the source is? If we're thinking of the same line, I can't know that the existing ref five lines down is intended to be the source for your newly inserted claim. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jens Pulver

Yeah, I noticed I reverted to the wrong version. Good job catching it. Trusilver 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it happens :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hasdell

Yes, you are right. The reason I changed the lede without reverting to the older version is because Claudio makes so many changes, it's hard to keep track. The real issue, besides his original research and bad sources, is that he just shouldn't be editing the article. Perhaps it's time to see the COI noticeboard? Theserialcomma (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely know that feeling... I've already posted on the COI noticeboard once, which brought the article to the attention of a few more users. Posted on WP:ANI as well without much response (probably because of my wall-of-text post, but whatever). I've asked admin User:Orangemike to keep an eye on the article, so hopefully he can help out and take action if needed. Not sure what would be the next step except another trip to ANI, but might as well give it a week before taking action in case Claudio takes the hint now that more editors are involved. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Lee Hasdell and User:ClaudioProductions, latest round --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem at International Sport Combat Federation

Hello Aktsu. I noticed the report that you made at WP:COIN#International Sport Combat Federation. It appears that User talk:75.32.76.181 tried communicating with you here on your Talk page and his comments got removed. Since sometimes IPs don't read their own talk pages, I wonder if you'd consider restoring his comments and giving him at least a brief answer here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Didn't actually intent to remove them, but when Majorly's Huggle took action I figured I might as well get rid of the single remaining message as well. Posted a link to his talk page when reverting his latest edit too, so he should be aware of it by know. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

International Sport Combat Federation, Steve Fossum

AKTSU! WHY are you blocing my editing on OUR SITE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sport_Combat_Federation

I am the president of the organization, ISCF, Please Allow me to finish the editing and site additions!

my number in USA is 916-663-2467 Steve Fossum

AKTSU!!!

WHO ARE YOU TO SEND ME THIS MESSAGE:

"This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --aktsu"

WHAT has been "disruptive?!?!" WHERE did we "vandalize" Wikipedia?????

What "COPYRIGHTED" material did we copy!?!?!?

The only thing close to this was we did not know how to add the title box, so we went to one of our promoters sites, IFL and copied theirs, and then put our info in it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS?

Once again, PLEASE release the BLOCK you placed on our IP and allow us to post the changes we have worked hard to place on our ISCF Site!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Sport_Combat_Federation

Thank you, Steve Fossum

Reply - I did not block you but instead gave you warnings as you were editing in violation of Wikipedia policies. If you take a look at your talk page (link), Arakunem explained the issues better than I probably could and gave you some helpful suggestions as well. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Award

I can't believe you are moving all of the PRIDE articles to Pride articles and changing all the links. I have considered doing it, but it was too daunting a task for me. For your efforts, and many others, you deserve:

		The MMA Barnstar
		I, 2008Olympianchitchat, hereby award Aktsu the The MMA Barnstar for his valued contributions to WikiProject MMA. Awarded 08:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add to your userpage if you wish!--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and nice barnstar :) Haven't really gotten to moving the articles yet as I saw TJ Spyke looking for a bot to move them automatically. I made a script to automatically change PRIDE to Pride, but I'm not proficient enough in JS and Regex to make it create piped wikilinks so I'll have to wait until they're moved before putting it into action. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

First of all, thanks for all your answers... it basically looks like you've been following my contributions and answering all my questions. I just have a couple more questions about notability that hopefully you can clarify for me. I noticed that you were the one who deleted both Mark Epstein and Marcus Hicks in the first place, so you're probably the right person to ask. Is MMAjunkie a reliable source? I've found some more information on their site about Marcus Hicks that would probably qualify him for an article. Is there a way to un-delete an article as opposed to rewriting it with the same information? I'm not a Marcus Hicks fanboy or anything, I'm just a new Wikipedian trying to help out. Also, if I can't find anything on Marcus Hicks or Mark Epstein to qualify them for an article, should I remove their names from the list of fighters needing articles? Thanks for your help. --jhanCRUSH 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help out :) I think it was east718 and SchuminWeb who deleted them, but it very well might've been me who nominated them for deletion. I think the Hicks article was deleted because it was simply an infobox and a record table (= no assertion of notability, CSD A7), while the Epstein one was PROD-ed meaning nobody opposed deletion for five days. You can request an admin restore them, either to the article-space or in your userspace so you can work on them in peace. As you probably noticed, there's very little activity on the MMA Wikiproject-pages, so to be honest it really doesn't matter what's listed on those pages seeing no one use them anymore (sadly enough) :P MMAJunkie should definitely be OK as a source. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Can you please fix this article a little bit? [1] The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Rolling Camel (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallout 3 reception

You removed the mention of the abrupt ending from the following "The AI and stiff character animations are another common point of criticism, as is the games rather abrupt ending." and I'm wondering why? I'm going to add back in mention of it with proper sourcing (I'm guessing that's the reason for removal). If there's still a problem I suggest we remove it and discuss it on the Fallout 3 talk page and see if it's felt that it belongs there. Cheers, UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sourcing was basically it. I may have been a bit to quick to revert (especially since what you're adding is true :D), but I see a lot of fanboys randomly adding stuff so it's hard to assume good faith sometimes. Sorry about that. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it's perfectly legitimate. I had looked at the links when it was first added and debated fixing the sources for it but decided not to. You're removal of it prompted me to fix it and the page gets vandalized pretty often so it's all good. UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Remigijus Morkevičius

Here is an article in Lithuanian daily about Morkevičius arrest: here. You can use google translate for translation. In any case I wasn't vandalizing his page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.101.236 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted my removal and added the source :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages for deletion

Whats up Aktsu, anyway i wanted to ask how do you nominate something for deletion, i did it once before but failed coz it was not correctly done. pages like this Joseph Brooks Feldman, Wilver (Rio) Johnson, Bernardo Jua, Nenad Pagonis, Robert Duttman. specially this guy Feldman who claims he fought with Mark Hunt. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey :) When I find articles like those I usually tag them for proposed deletion (PROD) (unless they have been tagged before). It's no use requesting speedy deletion since they in most cases assert the subject is notable. If the PROD is uncontested it'll be deleted after five days. If they have been tagged before or someone contested the PROD, you'll have to take them to AFD (as you tried on a few of them). I took a look and agree that none of them seems notable, so I PROD'ed the ones not tagged before and AFD'd the rest of them on the basis of notability. Not sure all of them will be deleted though. WP:ATHLETE basically says if you've competed professionally you're notable enough, which doesn't really work for MMA and kickboxing :\ Subject should also meet the general notability guideline though, meaning there should exist significant independent coverage - which those guys doesn't seem to have, so we'll see... One tip to make it easier to request deletion is to use twinkle which does all the required steps to nominate for AFD and PROD-ing articles btw. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

thx a lot for all those tips. and i gotta say your hard work on Lee Hasdell page to keep it clean is much appreciated as well.Marty Rockatansky (talk)

MMA notability, thought?

I can see your point having looked back and realised that Labasanov's last fight was in 2002, if it had been 2008 the rational that they had potenial to fight again would be there. Do you think is would be worth drawing up an some WP:MMA notability critera, that could be used more broadly? It could list, what were high level orgs, mention sherdog etc. as guides, and state 1 loss =/= notable, where as 2 wins probalby is. --Nate1481 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking official to start with but if it's based round the project we can get something tidyer and agreed upon to point at and say, "look we've had this discussion, and lots of people thought this was a good answer", Then we start talking about the policies & guidelines when whe have definate thought through suggesions that work. Have a look as WP:WPMAN, it's only an essay but it is a good frame work to help in borderline cases. --Nate1481 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Yes, the picture are mine. All the photos I upload yesterday are mine, Efrain is one that I did find though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justastud15 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Feldman

There are plenty of articles citing the legitimacy of Mr. Feldman. I have created various biographies of not only mixed martial artists, but figures in American history as well. I will not accept your purposed deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.218.183 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an AFD not proposed deletion, but OK. Thanks for sharing your view. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson

You have wiped off all the reference, wiki does not just use reference that are from the internet, the article has passed ADF and had good sources until you stuck your beak in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

Hi, nice to meet you too :) Was there anything specific you was wondering about? --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please revert all your edits, please undo all your work, next time you wish to wipe things off an article and remove good sourced references please do say so on the discussion page first. I hope we can work together in the future with regards to MMA artciles, the main problem with the Darren Jackson page is the that most things were sourced from books, like most Gypsy people or fights, there is not much on the internet, however we did source good info from papers, book and magazines such as fighters magazine.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All avoid making the joke that undoing all my 7,261 edits to Wikipedia are going to be difficult, and assume you meant at the Jackson-article ;) As far as I can remember what I removed was either not encyclopedic, or not up to WP's NPOV and/or verifiability policies, or similar. If there's anything specific you think I wrongly removed please point it out on the articles talkpage or something and I'll comment on it there. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right you removed all the reference that were sourced from fighters magazine, also you removed Jackson un-licenced boxing fight, the ref was one of a gangsters DVD which listed Jackson as a fighter, You really should of contacted me first or other editors, just because you can't find many sources online, it does not mean he was not a notable fighter, take Jimmy Stockins for example he was a top gypsy bare knuckle figher as is Jackson, but you can only find one book online, just dont go deleting others good work, make friends, we both have a intersest in fighting and mma, stick together, not p*ss each other off lol--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't think that I want anything else than for WP to have quality articles about MMA and it's fighters. If the article was properly sourced in the first place none of the changes you're complaining about now would've been done as I would have no reason to doubt the claims legitimacy/notability. To quickly comment on some of the changes; the Caesars Palace fight was IMO unreliably sourced and to be honest, when I looked at the page I didn't get the impression that there was anything notable about it. The bit about his black belts was unsourced and I also doubt there is such as thing as a 4th Dan "freestyle street defense" black belt of any legitimacy (at least not one that people outside the one gym where it's awarded or something would know about). Other than that, I removed the thing about him writing boxing article, which was sources to this and is thus not notable at all. The rest was general cleanup and improvements as far as I can remember. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

comment about free style check out freestyle street defense if you dont know about it, most of wiki do.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the ADf you put up, myself along with other editors, spent a long time sourcing all artciles and sources, it was put up for adf months and months ago, we cleaned it up and it was passed, you then game along,, with no regard to others work, delted all the reference that we had spent time on, you became judge !!! and jury, sorry it is not your right to remove it, you also put up for another ADF, which was declined, so why don't you just undo the bad work and lets all be best buddies again and wipe our face on this so to speak.--86.11.100.50 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous AFD was a no consensus, not a keep. I did not regard the subject as notable, so I put it for AFD. The offline sources was then vouched for by Mayalld and I trusted his judgment and withdrew the AFD. I did not "delete all the references" as you claim, please read my comment above. I've also restored some of the text to the article, so how about you stop demanding stuff and referring to my edits as "bad work". I do not see a reason for me to undo any of them. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

when other edits including Mayalld spent time on sourcing and writing the artcile, it is pretty bad work to remove all the good work done, please also put back the fight table, which was sources from various magazine article, Jackson is not only just a MMA, that was a small part, he is a gypy bare knuckle fighter, also a un-licenced boxer, these fights apart from one cant be sourced on line, however you did remove the gangster DVD source which showed Jackson as un-licenced boxer, Jackson is notable in the uk, maybe just not in Norway. Im not trying to put a wedge between us, but im trying to work with you, problem being, I think you are now taking personal.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I take it personally when people are accusing me of "removing all the good work" when I was clearly not and was rather following Wikipedia policies. The majority fight record was unsourced and was thus removed per WP:V. If you want it back up then go ahead and source it. You're allowed to edit the article yourself you know. --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The fight record was sourced through magazine article, I know I can edit thank you, as I was the creator of the article, I'm not going to spend hours again sourcing magazines and I also scanned them and sent to other editors, the article was fine and has been so for over year !!! why change it ? no can you please put back what you have removed thank you. It's no good spouting rules to me, I have a very clear understanding of wikipedia thank you, all i'm asking is that it was fine before adf, now you have withdrawn, please undo any edits. ie fight record. Thanks again--86.11.100.50 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm, per WP:V, not prepared to take you word for the fight record. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". If you're not prepared to to do the required work digging up the sources, then you shouldn't expect the claims to be accepted here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have along with mayalld done a lot of hard work, all the fight record was sourced from a magazine called fighters, which is a main stream mag in the uk, you deleted, it's simple, what you did is vandalism plan and simple my friend, I dont want to start getting all wiki spouting rules, so just revert your edits thank you, no more said, again just because you cant source it via online, does not mean it is not notable.. again to make it clear the fight record was sourced by a reliable source ie 'fighters magazine' a published source.--86.11.100.50 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope it wasn't vandalism. If you go ahead and source the fights in the fight record then there's no problem. Not sure why you keep asking me to revert my edits when I've made it clear why they were done. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to revert some thing because you were clearly wrong, not to worry now Ive made good your work now, just thought you may want to help, all done, in furture please play some where else, thanks.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I can play wherever I want. I wasn't "clearly wrong" at any time. I don't have a crystal ball to tell me what sources goes where in the article, so how about you assume some good faith for a change and stop demanding people do things just because you don't like it? --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

good faith does not come from deleting others work, and putting it up for ADF, you should of talked about it first on the discussion page, also you should of read the prevous ADF log. Sorry you can't play where you like, your find your self banned before long with that attidude, I will accept good faith this time, next time feel free to contact me first.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sure I can play wherever I want. You're the one with the block log. I won't contact you either, I'm free to do as I see fit. Nothing wrong with being bold and deleting unsourced claims, see WP:V and WP:BLP. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

about the non-electronic sources: since this is a BLP, should we really just accept the vague claim of another editor that these are legitimate sources? i haven't seen the magazine articles, and i don't think you have either. some other guys claims to have, but he's not around. is this an acceptable way to treat sources in a BLP article? Theserialcomma (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid point. I just re-read WP:BLP (which I actually didn't realize was a policy before now :S), and it seems at least some of the material might not be fit for inclusion. I'm thinking WP:BLPN it the right place for this. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

if you look again I archived the talk page. --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

and I have archived again, no less than 3 times.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please stop, no reason to archive an ongoing discussion. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

state of DMJ artcile

It was fine all ref correctly 6 months ago, now look at it. please spend some time on it be my guess--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say it seems any better sourced then it's now... --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

you don't need to send links about archiving, I archived the page due to the talk page being to long, do we agree on that, also the discussion is over, it may just be one sided, im now stepping away from the article. I have not broken any rules by archiving as im sure your aware.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfft, that wasn't long by any standards. Also, as I said archiving an active thread makes no sense. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Record

8 of the fights are cover by the fighter mag article 2004, and the others are cover in other issues.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then we need to source those issues before including the fights. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry Jackson

does not need to be notable to be mentioned, are MJ & SJ notable ? aslo HJ is mention wiki as king of gypsys--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I rufuse to play any more, I have better things to do.

MJ and SJ who? What has being mentioned somewhere, without a source no less, have to do with anything? Who's "playing"? We're writing a biography about a living person and thus need to take great care of what's included and that content is properly sourced. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bare knuckle

This ref shows he was/is a bare knuckle fighter also we are not writing the artcile, the article is not new, I think it may be a year old , I will check that.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The romany routes shows Jackson as a bare knuckle fighter, bare knuckle fighting is illegal, so I would imagin that ref is ok.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

afd for Darren M. Jackson

i'm thinking about nominating the article for deletion. the notability of the subject is questionable, and the sources are questionable, and the only other guy really editing the article insists on edit warring and doing other non constructive things like archiving the talk page in the middle of the conversation. if i stop arguing with him, and you stop arguing with him, and his edit warring continues, then we will be left with an article that isn't very good. a bad article is probably better than no article at all, but this type of 'bad article' involves information that is unverifiable, which is terrible for a BLP article, and that is not acceptable for me. so, unless you think it's worth arguing and edit warring over, i am thinking about nominating it. what do you think? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

should you not ask other editors that worked on the article first, I say go for it, put up for ADF, for the 3 time.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, good catch! :P --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

MMABay.co.uk

Do you have a link to the consneus discussion about this site?--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was almost hoping no one would ask because I can't remember the page where it was brought up, and I can't find it again :\ It's pretty obvious from both looking and the site and reading the content that it's all a bunch of rumors (see for example another one of their "exclusive revealings" - Evans vs Jackson for UFC 100 - from January 11). You think we should just bring this up at WT:MMA and be done with it? --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted on WT:MMA -_- --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BJ Penn page

I had no idea that talk pages could get archived. I would have done this instead of organizing it :) I kinda got on a roll after I organized someone else talk page that had 28 sections. Anyway, thanks for the advice, and lets get BJ Penn page to good status. Just want to say thanks for collaborating! Floodo1 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, basically right after the lock on BJ Penn gets removed we get some non-malicious vandalism :(

Fedor

I have nominated Fedor Emelianenko for a featured article candidacy here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. .--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spamming Link

Hey Aktsu,

Sorry for the spamming, but I'm confused as to how this works. If I have an interview with a person, shouldn't that interview be included within that person's wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPhillips (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Input on ML

Thanks. If you want to do some work on LeVesseur's page, I don't mind. Wikipedia is all about collaborating. Calebrw (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow...that's a lot of edits...I was working a bit...but that was okay...I just replaced my opening text...for the order of fights, is it in reverse chronological order? I would have figured it would be in chronologicalCalebrw (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) order. Thanks,

Yeah, we use reverse chronological though don't ask me why. I'll try to dig up some MMA-material about him though I'm not sure how much I'll find. Outside of Adrenaline MMA he's only fought in smaller regional promotions. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NCIS articles

Hi there fellow NCIS fan. I noticed you edited the NCIS article and I came by to ask for further help with those articles. There are few interested editors, so I was maintaining most of them for a long time. If you have time and feel like it, you might want to look at List of NCIS episodes. It would be great if you could provide complete plot summaries for those episodes that have only teaser text (season 6 mainly). Regards SoWhy 11:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. I haven't done much writing on fiction, but I gave it a shot for 6x11. Does it seem OK? I found full recaps of the episodes from S6 here if that's helpful for you as well. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. Thanks for that. You have a good style :-)

And yeah, I know that wiki, but unfortunately it has an incompatible license compared to Wikipedia, so we cannot copy+paste their contributions but need to write our own. And although I manage to convey my thoughts quite well on talk pages, I am a lousy article writer, which is why I asked ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not to mention their recaps are far to long. I'll try to find the time to do a few summaries once in a while then. :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackal4

It wasn't "already there." It wasn't on what appeared to the reader at all in Jackal4's version. It was in mine. It is in yours. I have no problem with yours. But his had the effect of deleting the reference to won/lost; mine had the impact of including it, and there was nothing wrong with mine. And his was clearly inferior. Your apologizing for him is peculiar, especially given his rampant edits that have the effect of lowering the quality of baseball articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Maybe if the complains you brought to his talkpage had any validity then he wouldn't ignore them. If anyone should apologize it should probably be you for wrongly accusing him of vandalism and for edit warring over messages on his talk page. I have no opinion on his other edits as I haven't looked at them and don't plan to. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My complaints did have validity. I don't think you were correct in your blanket apologist statement above. He continued his activity. You will note that he has been blocked as a result.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This specific one didn't so my point stands. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

John Decyk

Hey, I saw I put a speedy tag on John Decyk while there was already an AfD running. Sorry about that, I missed that one. Thanks for staying sharp and doing the proper thing. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, at least you noticed there was something off with the page which is more than I can say for the editors stopping by the page during the one and a half years it was up... I'll request a semi-protection even though the AFD will probably be closed any minute now. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

a shiny

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work with all your reverts! J.delanoygabsadds 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcus LeVesseur

I've done quite a bit of work since you last edited. Thought you might want to check it out. (User:Calebrw/Marcus LeVesseur) Calebrw (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Satoru Kitaoka

On February 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Satoru Kitaoka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar, atsku. It was very special to be bestowed with such a high honour, considering I had to look it up to figure out what the heck it was lol. Thanks again. Bad intentionz (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Strikeforce

Hey Aktsu. I'm new to Wikipedia but I'm a big fan of Strikeforce so I plan on doing a lot of editing/creating on Strikeforce related articles and was wondering if you could glance over them from time to time since I'm still new to wikipedia and bound to make some mistakes. Thanks! Mmafan420 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)