User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changing MMA fighters record details

What source? Do you even watch or understand MMA? Or just copy and paste? You are ruining all MMA fighters pages especially with changing the D’arce choke to Brabo choke in mma fighters pages like tony ferguson,woodley and other pages,i literally have never seen it ufc history from the commentators like joe rogan,Goldberg,Anik or play by play commentator when they called the action or Bruce Buffer who announces the official result from the referee himself or the commission mentioned Brabo choke in any of those fights,even in other promotions,you are literally changing results from body kick to kick to the body,what the hell is the difference between body kick and kick to the body? You are changing fights that happened decades ago,Tapology which is the biggest MMA encyclopedia has it as a D’arce choke on the record also the Official UFC website has it as a d’arce choke,nobody puts the name of the commission in the result of a fight,we have notes on fighters records that doesn’t have anything to do with the sherdog page like fighters missing weight,fined,testing positive for certain substances,which weight division was the fight at and many other things Tony Ferguson: all have it as a d’arce choke https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/tony-ferguson-el-cucuy http://www.ufcstats.com/fighter-details/22a92d7f62195791

Brock lesnar: overturned to no contest https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/brock-lesnar http://www.ufcstats.com/fighter-details/513c6f1715e547a8 Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have explained on your talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok if that’s the case i will take sherdog off as a source from the source page and i will use tapology or the offical ufc website,it’s crazy that you treat Sherdog as a bible to the degree of changinf results from body kick to kick the body and small stuff like that,do you have any idea who are the people that run or post in that website? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

They are just normal reporters that no one knows about,they are literally banned from UFC from covering ufc events Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have anything constructive to add, please do so on your talk page. If you have an issue with the source used for every MMA fight record in Wikipedia, I suggest you take that up elsewhere. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not gonna change it for every mma fighter page,just the brock lesnar page also maybe woodley and tony ferguson,do what you want with every other pages,no other editor on wikipedia has changed or touched these fights that happened years ago and sherdog was still the source but you are the one who decided to change all mma pages recently in 2021,not all mma fighters,boxers or kickboxers use the same source any way,same in ppv buys,this isn’t constructive,i will use the offical ufc page or tapology Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you change sourced information and the WP project guidelines without discussion or consensus you will be reported.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I said i will change the source itself from brock lesnar’s page not just editing it and keep sherdog as source,how it that a problem? there is nothing in Wikipedia that mentions that you have to use fighters’ records from Sherdog and sherdog only,sherdog doesn’t even have kickboxers,boxers and Muay thai fighters’ records on their Website,Tapology is literally used as a source for PPV buys and other things on wikipedia Andrewnageh123 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have quoted the relevant WP project verbatim on your talkpage. I would remind you that you have not been CIVIL and are displaying BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I am not interested in anything other than displaying info that can be verified easily. The edit you have an issue with is not even different, it just echoes the wording in the source. If you carry out what you suggest you are going to, I will reluctantly go to ANI. As a new editor who's already got in many disputes, it doesn't bode well. Please cooperate and understand. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The edits are making a difference,if that’s not the case,why are you insisting to change it? you are changing fights from obvious KOs to TKO like you just did with Fedor,removing all the d’arce chokes from all fighters pages to brabo chokes,i have seen many tweets with thousands of likes on twitter and instagram questioning what is a brabo choke? We have never seen it get mentioned in any of those fights when the fighters won from the commentators,the fighters,the referee and the judges,brabo chokes are only used term when both competitors are in a Gi in jiujitsu but it’s all good Andrewnageh123 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The only thing that's obvious is what the source says.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sherdog literally has so many mistakes in the results of many fights and you are literally copying everything they put! For example: Bigfoot Silva VS Mark Hunt was overtuned to a no contest for bigfoot silva because he tested positive and they still have at as a Majority Draw on their website,why not make it a draw on wikipedia too since ‘Sherdog’ is a your source and can’t be wrong?? https://m.sherdog.com/fighter/record/Antonio-Silva-12354 That website has people as ‘fanboys’ on their website,i literally have an account on it Andrewnageh123 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Why didn’t you respond to me? Why don’t you change the Antonio Bigfoot silva fight on his record to a draw since it’s a draw on sherdog? Andrewnageh123 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss individual articles, start a conversation on those articles' talk pages. The official result is as listed. If you'd like to discuss sourcing, read WP:VERIFY. I would appreciate your not repeating the same unfounded points ad nauseum on my page. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zabit Magomedsharipov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanda. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sherdog as MMA infobox source

Hi. Sherdog provides info for MMA records, I agree with that part. Never in these years was I told that Sherdog is to be to only source for all other information on infoboxes. Was this agreed by the community somewhere? Also, how can the UFC be a non-reliable source for fighters' stats such as height and reach?Psycho-Krillin (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, we source height, weight and nicknames to Sherdog, as it's the most comprehensive and reliable 3rd party source and it's the source in the infobox itself. Reach has to be sourced separately, so ESPN is best.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Psycho-Krillin, NEDOCHAN is well aware that the WP:RS/N has already ruled that ESPN is a reliable source and that Sherdog can't be the sole source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conor McGregor. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 09:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS

In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we still have the three-revert rule. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 09:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which I didn't break, either. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:FormalDude (Result: ). Thank you. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi sir , need little help.

I read that you can correct grammar. So, can you correct grammar and tone of Jalgaon district, Jalgaon, Maharashtra article. It will be good if you did. Huge Earth (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to take a look. Leave with me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Edit Warring

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period, as you did on Conor McGregor. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
Note: The article contradicts itself under your edit, listing the 1/24/21 fight as a TKO under Conor_McGregor#2021 and as a KO under Conor_McGregor#Mixed_martial_arts_record. One of them must be changed in order to eliminate the contradiction. The source (cbssports.com/mma/news/ufc-257-results-highlights-dustin-poirier-stuns-conor-mcgregor-with-second-round-knockout/live) says the result is a TKO. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If you continue to HOUND and HARRASS me you'll go to ANI. NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. This isn't harassment, this is a justified warning, as you continue to break Wikipedia policy. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave me alone, please. Please read WP:HOUND and WP:HARRASS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Conor McGregor) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Chris (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I just want to make clear that I am almost certain you will be sanctioned for your ANI report of User:Bastun. You may want to read Wikipedia:ANI advice and reconsider taking your concern to ANI. I know you didn't expect to be blocked for your edits on Conor McGregor so I assume you don't expect that to happen for this either, but it is a high possibility. If you'd like me to explain more I can. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a more experienced editor than you are with significantly more edits. And I don't get involved in personal attacks, as you do. So please leave me alone.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bastun has loads more experience over you than you have over me. That's fine though, I won't keep messaging someone who clearly doesn't want to hear from me. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Bastun. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the changes to Fedor Emelianeko

Hi, I'm not too wikipedia savvy & do not know how to mention someone on a talk page, or else I would have put this on the talk page of Fedor Emelianeko. I put him in the category of Mixed Martial Artists utilizing boxing & Mixed martial artists utilizing Muay Thai. I put him in these categories because in his infobox, it lists his trainers that train him in those arts. "Boxing: Alexander Michkov Muay Thai: Peter Teijsse". Because he has trained in these, he does utilize them in MMA. Your logic makes sense, as he hasn't competed in either, so if the categories were "Mixed Martial Artists who compete in boxing", or "Mixed martial artists who compete in Muay Thai", he would not belong in them. But he does utilize them. I agree with you, his style is defintley based in Sambo & Judo, but since he trains in boxing & Muay Thai, he uses aspects of them in his fighting style. --Rfkatz2005 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't get involved in categories so I don't know the protocol. I think it's misleading to the reader, however, to suggest that Fedor is a Muay Thai fighter.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree he's not a Muay Thai Fighter or Boxer, he's a Sambist, & he would probably say so himself. But, he learned these styles to make him a more well rounded fighter, which shows his smarts & adaptability, & by including him in these categories we acknowledge this. But I agree, he's a Judoka & Sambist above anything else. Rfkatz2005 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Robbie Lawler, hip or knee injury.

Several different sources indicates that it was a hip injury, plus I believe that Bloody Elbow is also a reliable source, and they put it as a hip injury... I don't wanna make bad edits, I just wanna make the most correct edits as much as it possible... Take care and have a nice day. 👍 7random (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's about the actual listed result. We go by Sherdog or ESPN or both for fight results. Please don't make the edit again and read the warnings on your talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Bloody Elbow is also a reliable source,but here is another source: . I think that the most correct would be TKO (submission to hip injury) or just TKO (hip injury)... There are several different sources indicates that it was a hip injury and that Lawler submitted because of it. I think that we should take a look at other sources as well. 7random (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It has to be an official fight record. Not an article. ESPN or Sherdog.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, NEDOCHAN... This is from UFC, it's stated that Lawler suffered a dislocated hip. 7random (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This is the official record.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think that TKO (hip injury) makes more sense, but if you and Cassiopeia both agreed to TKO (knee injury) then let it be like that... I'm always for improving Wiki pages... Wish you all the best, have a good one. 👍 7random (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Most sources I've come across have the result listed as Submission (injury), I think the article should just use TKO (injury) as the result. Also NEDOCHAN you are misunderstood on the policy, ESPN and Sherdog are NOT the only sources you can use for fight results, articles are perfectly acceptable if they display the result and they are considered reliable by Wikipedia. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The source must list the official result. Paraphrasing an as article is not fine.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Season’s Greetings

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Hi NEDOCHAN, Have an enjoyable holiday season! Cassiopeia talk 09:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I have seen the template placed on my talkpage, I would strongly suggest you didn't take this to edit-warring, as you have performed 3 reverts on that page, to my one. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment. I would have advised continuing to discuss and going with the sources, rather than continually restoring. I have posted the diffs to the edit warring page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Finding something in the Liverpool Echo doesn't warrant inclusion in a Project infobox. If you had let the discussion continue, I'm sure you would have uncovered longstanding consensus on issues like this.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your edit on Friends: defining relative clause

Hi, see the discussion: The relative clause is indeed defining. Let's discuss there. -- UKoch (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice one for opening a discussion. I have responded. It's not defining. There are indeed various options for American sitcoms by the writers, but they're not called Friends.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

André Galvão infobox

Hi @NEDOCHAN I’ve noticed that you have removed content from André Galvão's infobox without explanation, your change has been reverted per WP:BRD. As I wrote in the edit summary please “do not remove without consensus being reached on the topic”. As you know we had an RfC on the subject here, you are welcome to contribute to it before it formally closes. Thank you Lewolka (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Bisping

Hi NEDOCHAN, sorry for the late reply as I was away for several days. If such case happen again (seem the edits have stoped) then nominate the page for protection. a note: be aware of 3RR. Cassiopeia talk 06:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

US vs. U.S.

Please see MOS:US, where article consistency is the objective, and not to mix e.g. "U.S." and "USSR" in the same sentence. MOS:ENGVAR is something else and not related to this. FYI, --IHTS (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that US Eng Var articles tend to style U.S. And I was going for consistency. Perhaps instead of reverting attempts to make consistent, you could yourself try to make it consistent?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article *was* consistent, before you touched it. And, where does your "understanding" come from, since it is not in the MoS, not in MOS:US or MOS:ENGVAR. (Are you inventing your own WP Guideline here??) Please stop with the disruptive and MoS-contrary editing of the Bobby Fischer article, and how about being less presumptive too and falsely accusing too. --IHTS (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. Please be CIVIL. My understanding is based on years of editing. Most US Eng Var articles style U.S. as U.S. I also noticed a few instances in the Fischer article that style it that way. I haven't accused you of anything or presumed anything, either, and I haven't reinstated any edits that relate to your point. I was simply saying that I was attempting to make the article consistent, yet perhaps not in the way that you prefer. And I did 'stop'. So calm down.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is the version before I 'touched it'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1114045581&oldid=1114043590&title=Bobby_Fischer Check out THE SECOND LINE. How's that consistent?NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This was the old MOS guideline, I just didn't realise it had changed:

In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods) is the dominant abbreviation for United States. US (without periods) is more common in most other national forms of English. Some major American guides to style, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecate U.S. and prefer US. Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article, and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. In longer abbreviations (three letters or more) incorporating the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S., nor the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA), as these abbreviations are also used for United States Army and other names.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You: Perhaps instead of reverting attempts to make consistent, you could yourself try to make it consistent? Go back in the history of the article, and you'll see not only recently before your now-reverted edits that put the article into inconsistency, I made the article consistent recently, as well as worked on consistency years ago. So to suggest I start to do so is not only offensive but false and indirectly accusatory. So stop with your reprimand on "civility" please, I see you've developed your own form of same. p.s. If you were guided by an old obsolete MoS, then it w/ be simpler if you just admitted you were wrong rather than your lengthy dialogue of how you never were wrong. --IHTS (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, [1]. --IHTS (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, [2]. --IHTS (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was not consistent, as I have clearly shown. Line 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1114045581&oldid=1114043590&title=Bobby_FischerNEDOCHAN (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And this diff clearly shows that you took my advice. So seems odd to be so cross about it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I took your advice?!? (Is that some kind of sick joke?) The article was 99% consistent, as explained, before you touched it. I found one additional inconsistency and corrected it, now you like to claim credit for that, very amuising. Done w/ you. --IHTS (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The article *was* consistent, before you touched it. No it wasn't.

where does your "understanding" come from? The old MOS guideline, I just didn't realise it had changed.

I made the article consistent recently, as well as worked on consistency years ago. you missed line 2

If you were guided by an old obsolete MoS, then it w/ be simpler if you just admitted you were wrong rather than your lengthy dialogue of how you never were wrong. I was answering the question.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

IP editing at Michael Bisping

I've raised an incident report [3] about that roving IP you've been having trouble with at Michael Bisping - the problem spreads far. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems that this editor is extremely interested in two things: Islam in the Middle East and Michael Bisping. Takes all sorts :). Cheers mate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing things for no reason

Further doing this will result in your accounts deletion 192.208.124.18 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would only ever remove anything with good reason. Should you wish to discuss what that reason might be, I suggest you begin a discussion on the relevant talk page. If, however, your plan is to propose adding something that isn't sourced to an otherwise-sourced article or infobox, then I might, on the contrary, suggest not bothering.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think some IPs are hounding you, just FYI

I'm doing some vandalism patrol, and I've noticed a couple IPs stalking your edits and reverting every single edit you are making. Just thought to let you know, I'll try and get an admin involved. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I stumbled upon a highly committed sockpuppet who's taken umbrage against me. Thanks for the heads up and it does seem as if admins have taken care of it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Accidental reversion of a swathe of edits

Hi, I understand now why you reverted my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146140333&diffmode=source. My edits on 29 March 2023 were about the manuscripts used by Budge and the hypothesized neo-Persian version citing Monferrer-Sala's paper and other sources (see specifically my 3 edits there on 29 March 2023). Having seen your comments on the page of Bbb23 it seems that you actually meant to just revert a change made later the same day by an IP editor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1147274395&diffmode=source but you actually reverted edits by several users all the way back to 23 March 2023 (all the way back to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146140333&diffmode=source). Is it possible to undo your most recent reversions and then just revert or remove the edit you were intending to remove or is there something I can do? Thanks.Gamma737 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: I linked the wrong edit...Based on your comment to Bbb23 it looks like you just meant to undo this revision on 24 March 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146425186&diffmode=source where an IP user added back the thing removed by Bbb23 the previous day for sock puppetry. You can see that my 3 edits on 29 March about the manuscripts did not reinstate that change. It had already been put back by the IP user. So perhaps you can undo your reversions (which lost several good changes since 23 March) and then just delete that bit added by the IP user?Gamma737 (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the pages you're choosing to edit are firm favourites of a long term abuser. Look back at the edit history and you'll see. My advice would be not to edit these pages for a while. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll wait a few weeks and then if it's quiet there I will just add back my own edits that I made on 29 March 2023. Please don't remove this discussion from your talk page meanwhile so I can refer back to it, thanks.Gamma737 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Roger Gracie

@NEDOCHAN Please do not start edit warring over that edit, what is the point of reigniting the debate there? Like I suggested we should be collaborating and supporting each other instead. If you have anything new to add to the conversation I encourage you to contribute to the RfC concerned while still ongoing or if specific to this article please follow WP:BRD and bring the issue to the Roger Gracie's TP, thank you. Lewolka (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't close the RfC as I was involved. The outcome was very clear, as I think you know. I have stopped short of removing all colour boxes across BJJ, but that is a logical course of action. For MMA fighters, we don't use colour boxes.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You can make a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Hope that helps. Lewolka (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverts on Islamic holy books

I understand that edits by banned users may be reverted, but "may" isn't "must be". In this case, the edits do not need to be reverted. Did you actually look at the diffs? The content added is both relevant and referenced, and I checked the reference to ensure it supported the content which it did. That's not disruptive. The most disruption caused was a disagreement over whether "tafsir" should be capitalised, but that over even before the ban. Would you be more comfortable if I, a non-banned user, manually restored the page? – Scyrme (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think block evasion is a terrible thing that ruins Wikipedia.Look back at the page in question and you'll see that this editor has edited the page under at least ten different accounts. They're amazingly disruptive. If you're certain that the broken clock told the right time on this occasion, then of course I'd have no objection to adding the info manually (although of course, as an editor in good standing, you can do anything you like). But I don't think we should encourage this editor by supporting their absurdly obsessive socking.

We're talking literally hundreds of socks over many years.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that the very small body of material in question is more constructive than vice versa. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, Iskander, that doesn't surprise me. Tread carefully.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? I have literally supported you against disruptive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say that surprises me, not doesn't. Why you would restore an edit by the same user knowing what you do? NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding socking, but if a problematic editor decides to do something helpful for once there's no harm in letting it be. A banned editor has nothing left to lose, and indiscriminate reverts are only likely to provoke spiteful vandalism rather than anything constructive. Ordinarily you'd be right to revert, but in this case I think an exception can be made for this article for the particular changes in question (not necessarily for any future changes if they decide to return, of-course). – Scyrme (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Permanently banned users evading blocks shouldn't be 'let be'. Their edits should be reverted immediately. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that helpful additions should be kept. Why are you being argumentative when we clearly want the same thing here? You literally said you'd have "no objection" to keeping the content earlier. I'm not telling you to stop reverting disruptive edits by permanently banned editors. I obviously have no objection to that. – Scyrme (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I said I had no objection to your manually restoring. I have every objection to being reverted in favour of a troll. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

9 May 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Satanic verses. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kaalakaa (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not engage in sockpuppetry.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kaalakaa (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

S' vs S'S

It doesn’t have to be S'S. 75.99.184.202 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does. MOS:POSS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

There really is no reason for changing spellings using z to s in articles. See the article Oxford spelling. It is perfectly valid UK English spelling, and always has been. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency across articles is normally the reason.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Khamzat Chimaev

What does "Nickname as per infobox source only" mean?- Killashaw (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It means that the nickname in the infobox should be as per the infobox source only. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

His nickname "Borz" is not in the nickname field, but it probably should be. You removed both of the sources that supported it. You also removed the other name that the sources supported but have not given a reason.--Killashaw (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox, we source the info using Sherdog. Only the Sherdog nickname, if any, goes there. This is to prevent loads of silly nicknames being in there. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we want to prevent loads of silly nicknames being added the infobox, but it wasn't a nickname that you removed. WP:MMA/MOS doesn't say that you can only use info sourced from Sherdog in the infobox.--Killashaw (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's again the problem of Sherdog always being the preferred source, when there are several others just as good if not better. It just doesn't make sense to me. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

wrong place NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)