User talk:PRehse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Go no sen[edit]

The article is still a draft, this implies that I'll continue to write and extend it further. Thanks for attention. Judcosta (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article and correct whatever is necessary, because English is not my native language. It will be improved... Thanks. Judcosta (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Buugeng, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Muso Shinden-ryu[edit]

Sorry I did not get back fast enough. Take a look at [1] and [2]. The ryu has split, rejoined, been renamed, etc. The sixteenth Sokei of the Shimomura-ha was Nakayama Hakudo who changed the name (again) in 1933.

Article on Fa Jin[edit]

Dear Sir:

I recently edited the article on Fa jin, only to see my changes reverted by the a contributor that has done a lot of recent work. Unfortunately, the quality of his work leaves a lot to be desired. His edits were done using very poor English, and bad style, such as improper (self?)references, and the like. He has reverted contributions and corrections of myself and others.

Unfortunately, I did not have time to discuss the inappropriateness of his actions. I have now re-edited the article, improving the narrative in an attempt to begin to address this.

I see that you have just done some maintenance on the article, and seeing that you are a prolific contributor and experienced admin, I would like to ask for your advice on how to proceed with this, so this doesn't escalate any further. Shall I report this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts?

Best regards,

B Repetto, PhD Bruno talk 21:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has escalated. It is now officially an edit war. Can you help? Bruno talk 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed a single-topic user, but has been at this for several weeks. I gave it a rest for a while, but decided to take it up again today. He is participating as both Xeon2014 and user (sock puppet?). I left a message in the talk page of but has paid no heed to it. I don't know how to resolve this, but it blatantly goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! Bruno talk 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Jon Takagi AfD[edit]

Hello, thank you for your comments on my initial article on Jon Takagi. I would like your take on the AfD recommendation put on that page. I was probably too wordy in my comments, but I am new to Wikipedia and still trying to understand the "rules" (on a site with the rule "Ignore All Rules"). I'm concerned that if successful with this AfD, the editor could next take down most of the aikido person pages on wikipedia.
The AfD was put on with a user User:Mdtemp whose wikipedia contributions appear to be hundreds, if not thousands of deletion proposals. I've looked through most of the pages on the List of aikidoka page (I know many of them myself, and will try to improve their pages someday). Frankly, most of those would probably fail a strict test for notability. But, on the contrary, I feel that all those great teachers belong there, and that the list is too short. I think that an inclusive and comprehensive history of aikido is of benefit to the art, as many people are somewhat unfamiliar with it and would like to seek more information online. Obviously, today that means Wikipedia to a lot of people, and I'd like to help with that.
I see that you also started Toyoda-sensei's page - thank you very much! Your profile looks like you practice Tomiki, but it you must also be familiar with Aikikai and Ki society to have put that up. Thanks again for your work on documenting aikido on wikipedia. Joe Shuri (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huan Shiying Kune Do[edit]

Heya, I noticed that you nommed this article for speedy delete a few days ago. Thought I'd invite you to the AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huan Shiying Kune Do. Good catch noticing Kajukenbo--your edit inspired me to bring it to AfD instead of wasting my time trying to make it look nice. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I just replaced some improperly removed tags but generally what is happening with the article is entirely correct. AfD is the best route.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadokai Aikido[edit]

Hello Mr. Rehse.

I could really use some help getting our Wadokai Aikido organization documented. Forgive my spelling if I am not getting them right. I am sneaking an edit at work and doing it quick. Sensei Suenaka is a witness to Aikido history and Wadokai Aikido is the result of our sensie's training and life among many of the most influential post war martial artist in Japan and Hawaii. He trained with both Kohichi Tohei and O'sensei. HE was at the seminar when Tohei introduced aikido to Hawaii and at O'sensei's first first visit. His book "Complete Aikido" chronicles the split between Tohei and Doshu. Sensei visited Japan in the 80's or 90's and met with Doshu and he recognize Sensei Suenaka. (It's in his book and I have heard him tell the story many times) He started one of the first dojos in the main land US and the started the first successful dojo in Okinawa under constant challenge by locals. Sensei Suenaka was a Uchi Deshi of O'sensei and when he died he spent most of his time with Tohei Sensei since he studied with him as a child in Hawaii. When the split happen he went with him to start Ki Aikido and was the first Chief of Shihans. Shortly after the organization was started in like the first two years, he left over issues with Ki Aikido removing O'sensei Picture from dojos. Sensei Suenaka wrote in his book that he felt they had strayed from O'sensei's teachings and had a real detest for the politics and left.

In 1975 he start Wadokai. So we are coming up to our 50th anniversary. Sensei Suenaka tries the fly under the radar and we joke about Sensei being the best kept secret in martial arts. He he hates to market himself believing that students that want to learn will find him. Wadokai has grown mainly out of word of mouth and out of the love of his students. We are even growing in China! We are small on purpose in order to keep the student teacher dynamic alive. Our style is called "Complete" because it is both Martial and Spirit focused. There is a great article about out style at

I can send you if you would like to read it. It really points out why what we do is significant. We suggest that our style is street effective. We don't practice with stylized attacks we try to replicate the randomness of a street attack. We quote our sensei "stike before during and after the attack" use an atemi to create an opportunity to use our aikido. I believe that O'sensei's atemi was defined as a "stunning attack". This is probably where this comes from.

So I think the history of Wadokai is important and I could really use the help of someone that could help me get the correct information out there. I am the webmaster and I can work on my end to get the copyright paper work if I know what to get.

Sensei is pretty private and hates to promote himself. But I have made progress on getting Wadokai out there and was allowed to create the organizations website. I still manage it now. So I am but information on the site if needed.

- Joshua

Sumo - good article[edit]

Hi, I just saw your flattering and encouraging comment about my edits to the enwiki Sumo article made back in August 2013. I would love to get a Good Article rating for it, but am not sure how to go about it. Any advice? Thanks so much. FourTildes (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Igor Zinoviev[edit]


Could you clarify the arguments for the deltion of the article about MMA fighter Igor Zinoviev? He meets the notability requirements, so I can't see why it would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermanoarnoldo (talkcontribs) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

TWC/William Cheung and Wing Tsun/Leung Ting Merger Complete[edit]

Merged the respective groupings together. They probably still need some tweaking. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow that was fast - I was looking at them today and was feeling that it would not be that easy (or that I needed to be more clever).Peter Rehse (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Well each guy has their own "controversy" section, so I thought it kind of flowed well to merge in their respective versions of the art right after that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
True - I think a few things can be trimmed out of the Wing Tsun article such as the training dummy which is duplicated in the Wing Chun article but step by step.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniele Bolelli[edit]

Hi. I just made a user copy of this page as User:Gronk Oz/Daniele Bolelli, with the intention of improving it by adding missing citations, etc. I notice that you are recorded as making an update on this user page, but strangely the Compare tool does not show what has changed. And I don't think I understand your comment "please wait until moved into article space". Please reply to let me know if you have any concerns or plans for this page so we can co-ordinate. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No big thing - I just put a colon in front of each of the category statements so that the user page does not show up in the category trees which of course is reserved for articles. Easy enough to undo when you are ready with your updates. I came across your page when I searched for new martial arts articles. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you - I am still quite new to this and I wasn't aware there was such a process. I have added that to my own notes so I can do it in future. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Koji Oishi[edit]

I declined your speedy request because, while it was certainly appropriate, the article was moved to mainspace by The Bushranger with the assertion that the subject now meets the relevant notability requirements. You are welcome to create a third (procedural?) AFD if you wish. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Article for Deletion[edit]


I have read and understood that as an Entertainer the subject of my article meets the criteria of the Guidelines. In guidelines it is written that the Entertainers - Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: are notable if they •Has had a significant role in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. •Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. •Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Which means that the participant of ‘’Dancing with the Stars’’ can be considered as notable because it is a television show and performance was taking place on the stage of Tbilisi Philharmonia Concert Hall. The subject of my article have also had a leading role in film “Dark Side’’ produced and directed by him and has been a subject of two major TV Channels in Georgia which are Imedi TV and Rustavi 2. He became notable in Georgia because of his sport achievements and his role in the film, therefore he was invited in ‘’Dancing with the Stars’’ as a star – as a notable/famous person in Georgia. Usually they only invite notable people in such kind of TV shows: The stars are being chosen and it is by invitation not a casting: (I have provided with the episodes of Dancing with The Stars in reference list) He also has a large fan base or a significant "cult” I mean Official Facebook Fun Page I still don't understand why do you take it to AfD. After original AfD there was a big change in references which are articles published in official inter media and are far from blogs. I've seen many articles with only two references but even those articles are not Afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiamar (talkcontribs) 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss - on the AfD page. You can follow the link at the top of the article. Also the AfD debate is useful if your subject is found notable. Once the decision is Keep there wont be speedy deletion requests based on the first AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Morihei Ueshiba[edit]

Thanks for all your work on this article recently. I thought you'd like to know that I've put it up for GA review - the GA process is pretty backlogged, so I expect a wait of at least several weeks before anyone picks it up. Yunshui  12:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent - I will keep an eye on it.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Boxing gloves Bail 10-OZ (1).jpg The Boxing Barnstar
This is for all your countless assessments/reassessments within the scope of WikiProject Boxing. Thank you for all your contributions and hard work! (MaxPayne888 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

Moved Lomachenko[edit]

Actually I wanted to give the very name you have chosen. However reading other articles with the same name type I observed that they are mostly informative. In this specific article the focus is given on the controversy of the fight. That is why I have chosen eventually to add 'controversy' to the article name. I have nothing against the name you have chosen, just letting you know this for your consideration. Any of this two names is okey to me. Dmatteng (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I understood that but for me the biggest issue is where to fit the article in the various categories. It surely should not be in the top level boxing category (in my opinion that category should be even less populated than it is) but it does fit in the Boxing Fight category. The main thrust may be the controversy but it is in context of the fight. In the boxing fight category the new name is consistent. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that it may be in the top category. Not only Lomachenko is two times Olympic gold medalist, not only he holds the most impressive record 396-1, but the fight itself is notable for encyclopedic purposes as he attempted something that wasn't done in recent decades of boxing history. What are your thoughts please? Dmatteng (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Categories are just a way of organizing the different articles - it really has nothing to do with importance. More specifically some Categories are super-categories meaning that they should contain very few articles themselves and be mostly composed of Categories. The articles they do contain should be of a broad nature specific to the subject. I think Boxing is one of these, another good example is Martial arts by way of discussion. Personally I would like to see some of the remaining articles put in sub-categories but they are hard to place. I have no doubt of the the importance of Lomachenko and I am sure the fight but one sold also consider it in context of other major boxers and fights which are placed in their respective categories.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with what you have mentioned. But Lomachenko is considered but at least one reliable source as the greatest ever amateur boxer. If the category is Boxing, and not Professional Boxing, it would be due weight to include such a boxer there. And the fight itself is a record by itself. What do you think please? Dmatteng (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
All boxers are in the boxer pages sorted by country. This is a long standing convention throughout Wikipedia - people pages are kept in people categories.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just wanted to mention that it's good to avoid USA centrism on the Wikipedia. I'm refering to the quote: "one sold also consider it in context of other major boxers and fights". If we will consider Lomachenko among professional boxers, he is just a hot ticket with a lot of potential. But if we will consider him among boxers, he is on the top. Thank you for improving and correcting few things in my article btw. Dmatteng (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Boxing cats[edit]

What do you think about creating two more categories: 1) [Boxing] Championship fights; 2) [Boxing] Controversial Fights?

We would move all Championship fights from the Boxing Fights category. And then any fight that is deemed controversial (whether championship or not) would be added to the 2nd cat. Dmatteng (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you are perfectly free to create any category you want but I think the above would be sub-categories of Boxing Fights. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that you want to promote an article/fighter which is not really the purpose of the category system which is primarily to organize. Most major fights have some form of controversy - so I really don't see the point. That of course is only my opinion. You could ask the question at the Boxing Project talk page or just go ahead and see what happens. Please see the Boxing Fight Category - there are already some sub-categories that might give you guidance. I am traveling at the moment so I can't really look too much into it at the momment.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm not interested to promote a fighter. I'm interested to organize. Sub-category could be fine. We could have all championship fights in one [sub]category, and the rest in another [sub]category. I'm not sure how many fights would be considered controversial. Like Mayweather-Maidana fight, there were issues about the gloves and low blow[s], but I think they were minor. So unless the controversy is being noted by several reliable sources and in a major way, we wouldn't put the fights into the category. I don't think there is any hurry in doing [and if] anything of what I have proposed, so please let me know if you would like to implement them once you will have the free time. Dmatteng (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Well that is the nice thing about Wikipedia you can write, organize as much as you wish and of course change what you want also. Usually things are accepted because usually they are sensible. If you feel something is worth doing it probably is and you should just go ahead.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the thing is I'm not familiar much about the categories. An example would be is that I'm not sure if I'll create the categories, or sub-categories? And, I would like your opinion as well, would it be useful to organize the articles as per what I have proposed? IE: Title fights, non-title fights and controversial fights? Please take in account that all articles would have to be reviewed, however in the end we would have smaller number of articles per each [sub]category. Dmatteng (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. You hit the nail on the head. Categories that get too large are supposed to be broken down into subcategories so that each category ends naturally with a reasonable number of articles. Another thing is that all categories are sub-categories. For instance Boxing is a sub-category to the Martial arts category just as Martial arts category is sub-category to something else. I would assume that most if not all fight articles would be title fights (that usually is what makes them notable). If you want to take a stab at splitting up Boxing fights into the three sub-categories you have proposed go for it. Until it is done it is hard to say how efficient it would be in reducing the the number of articles in the Boxing fights category. One more thing is that you don't have to do everything at once. If each of the new sub-cats has lets say 4 articles than the full conversion can take time. For example my own little project to assess all unassessed Boxing articles is spread out over two months.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a few first articles in the alphabetical order:,, are not title fights. If this trend will continue, I think it might be efficient in reducing the number of articles per category. Should Championship Boxing fights (btw: should we call it instead Title Boxing fights?) be subcategory of Boxing fights? Dmatteng (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Either works for me.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Karate Baka Ichidai[edit]

Hi, I noticed you deleted the paragraph I added about the film adaptation of Karate Baka Ichidai. Since it was you who asked on the AfD that these sources be added to the piece, I was wondering why you cut the sourced information I added. Michitaro (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That is strange - I swear I only removed the tags since your additions took care of the problems. Somehow your additions were removed also but I claim ignorance on how that happened. I fixed it.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I figured it was something strange like that. But I thought it best to check with you before reverting. Michitaro (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dong Wenfei[edit]

Fyfw523 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Oh, no, he is a very famous athletes in Chinese. In Liver Kick, Sherdog, muaythaitv and other sites, can search to his news.

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Brandon Gonzalez[edit]

Wish I would have known it was up for deletion. I honestly think he's one of the best boxers I've seen in 20 years. I could source the article but Wiki hates the outlet where I cover boxing and blocks my links.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well he survived the AfD debate so he's safe I think but still tagged for sources. Good to see you again.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
He seems like a notable boxer. In the last fight he has fought with Thomas Oosthuizen to a draw. In the next fight Thomas Oosthuizen became IBO champion. That brings to initial impression that he is notable, but not one of the best boxers, because IBO isn't being considered as a major belt. However, I realize there could always be some nuances. Why do you think he is one of the best boxers? I'll try to add some sources to his article. Dmatteng (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That match up was interesting. Thomas Oosthuizen seems to fight almost exclusively for the the minor titles but is ranked very high by Ring magazine. If we went by title fights alone he would be at AfD risk also - but clearly Brandon held his own against a top level fighter in his prime. I also notice that Brandon will be fighting for an IBF eliminator final on May 31st - so clearly more can be expected.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's the way the guy just moves in the ring, The first time I saw him fight was about 5 years ago and I thought he was going to be the next Sugar Ray Leonard. He got into the game rather late, but without the 1 draw and the 1 NC, he's still never been beaten.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, movement is important, but the results are more so. I haven't seen his match with Thomas Oosthuizen, was the result controversial? And, how do you see his movement now, has it changed in the last 5 years? Dmatteng (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Aikido Kyogi / Tomiki Aikido / Shodokan Aikido[edit]

Hi Peter,

Lately I have been busy creating an article for Senta Yamada sensei, which I have submitted as draft, lets see how it goes. I would like to start changing the main Aikido Kyogi page ( tomiki aikido / shodokan aikido / ... ). My idea is to make the article brand agnostic and name the art Aikido Kyogi as Tomiki Sensei did in his articles. This would also imply changing the general name of the art to Aikido Kyogi on the grand scale and making the other two synonyms.

When we get to the historical section we can introduce the different names ( I will upload the scanned images from the J.A.A. board meetings that I showed you last time ) and afterwards indicate the split ( in a very polite and short manner) of organizations and the founding of the SFA (maybe there should be a separate article about the SFA and the JAA).

Let me know your thoughts on this.Vbosch1982 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of changing the name of the article to Aikido Kyogi - nor separate articles at this time. Separate articles would not survive on Wikipedia. What could be done at this time is to create a redirect for Aikido Kyogi to the current page. I will look at the Senta Yamada page - I actually thought there already was one.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Krzysztof Jotko[edit]

I know you are a bit strict :), but: The fighter entered to his last fight being undefeated; he received "Fight of the Night" honors, there are 7 seemingly reliable references on the article including Sherdog's. Dmatteng (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Its just an information tag letting people know there might be a problem. If I was truly strict I would submit it to an AfD debate but I never do if the fighter is current and he has two fights. The chance of him making third is reasonable. I admit to being a little reactionary to people ignoring WP:MMANOT but still in this case his record is not that spectacular. I won't fight over the tag (well just once).Peter Rehse (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So may I remove the tag meanwhile and we will reassess the situation in the future? The article looks nice so far. Dmatteng (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't need my permission but personally I would just leave it. The tag does not trigger any action just indicates a problem. It should be removed when the issue is solved.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I thought by saying "I won't fight over the tag" you meant I can remove it. Dmatteng (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It meant that if you remove it I wont put it back. But again I personally would just leave it there.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove it. If someone else will add it, I won't be fighting for it either though. Dmatteng (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:EPON related to Category:Martial arts by type[edit]

I read that and it seems the 3rd option of the guidelines fits best for this situation. There are only a few so far (and I could easily change them back) but right now its seem superfluous to have both articles and subcategories listed. By the way the Mixed martial arts styles are martial arts in their own right - they are not sub styles of Mixed martial arts.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Gold D&B Corps[edit]

All current and up-to-date articles about active corps are rated in the WikiProject Drum Corps as at least c class... Please do not change... GWFrog (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Some advice needed[edit]

A while back I had set up a wiki account and forgotten about it when I set up my current account. I'm guessing there's a way to consolidate the personal information on the two accounts and, perhaps, to revert back to my full name (I actually don't like using shorthand abbreviations or noms de plume on-line because of the anonymity issue i.e., anonymity encourages bad Internet behavior so it's better, in general, that folks be identifiable with what they say on the Internet). Can you give me some guidance on how to consolidate the two pages and user names? Here is the link to my older "page":

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

S. W. Mirsky 15:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talkcontribs)

My advice is to use your current account but alter your signature so that it gives your full name. Then when you add the four tildas to your posts (as described in the Welcome on your talk page) we see who you are. I also don't believe in hiding behind a cloud of anonymity but please remember that full disclosure (email addresses, phone numbers) is not a good idea and against policy. Since your old account only seems to have one edit - I would ask that one to be deleted or just ignore it. One thing you can do is copy the content to your new page and leave a redirect. It is important to retain edit history. Let me know if you need help.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for good advice. On reviewing that info. I realize it's a bit dated (I originally wrote it for another, more local venue and just copy-and-pasted it into the wiki page). I suspect what I have on the current page is sufficient now. I'll try to alter the name on my current account as you suggest and forget about the older one. Maybe, at some point, I'll just remove the older text. That shouldn't be a problem, right? Thanks again. S. W. Mirsky 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of creating a redirect from your old page to the new. Just revert it if you don't like that.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, wiki novice that I am. Thanks for the assist. S. W. Mirsky 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmirsky (talkcontribs)

Speedy deletion declined: Glen Sparv[edit]

Hello PRehse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Glen Sparv, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant hoax. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that[edit]

I don't know what came over me to make that edit. Second time today I felt like I've got a bad case of admin dementia. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Puig Carreón[edit]

Hello, PRehse. So what's the next move with Juan Manuel Puig Carreón's article? Will it just have the template until he gets three fights for the UFC (or another top tier promotion), or will the article be deleted? The sourcing, in my opinion, is pretty good. And I thought that his fights at Jungle Fight counted as top tier MMA bouts. But this is my first MMA article I've ever written, so I trust your call on this one. Sorry for the inconvenience. ComputerJA () 17:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No inconvenience. The notability tag is just that - it means there is a question but does not automatically lead to deletion. My personal opinion is that if a primarily MMA article does not meet WP:MMANOT it should be tagged but I am not so anal that all articles that don't meet the criteria should be deleted. If there is a reasonable chance that they are on the way to meet the requirement most editors are willing to wait a bit. So to answer your question - leave the tag until the criteria are met. No harm in that. Small secret - if it really bothers you delete the tag after a week. Its off my radar then and I would not put if back unless the article comes back into view.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. My only concern is that the article was nominated for DYK, and I'm not sure if it will pass with the tag. If anything, the tag would probably last a year (his next fight will probably be in at least 5-6 months, and he'll need another one to meet the 3-top tier fight threshold for WP:MMANOT). Thanks again, ComputerJA () 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If CorenSearchBot is in error: Simply note so on this article's discussion page.[edit]


Regarding the bio on my page Gianluca Di Caro and that it is very similar to a press release dated June this year posted by my business partner Al Low.

This is because it is my official bio, as such I can't see how it can be modified further than it has been without actually changing the facts.

Please read both as you will see it has been edited down from the original

Kindest regards

Gianluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talkcontribs) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Malta Boxing Commission International[edit]


I noticed that the page has been logged for possible deletion.

I noted that you had said that it is a new championship with no upcoming events - for reference the first titles will be competed for on Saturday August 2nd in London and

I hope that you can understand that this is a new championship and that you will allow us the time to develop the wiki page fully


Gianluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talkcontribs) 17:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your response on the Malta Boxing Commission International title.

For reference the title is actually promoted as the MBC International - perhaps how I've listed it should be changed to that to make that clear (not sure, just a thought)

I can now confirm that Mark Prince will be fighting Simas Svacina for the MBC International Cruiserweight title at York Hall on August 2nd

I can also confirm that Antonio Counihan will be challenging for the MBC International Lightweight title in Birmingham on September 13th and Marianne Marston will now be challenging Marianna Gulyas for the vacant MBC International Female Super Bantamweight title in London on October 25th

Plus we are in discussion with other promoters and expect at least another three titles contested for in 2014

So you can see it will not take long to be able to fully establish the page (-;

Kindest regards

Gianluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talkcontribs) 11:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your response on the Malta Boxing Commission International title.

For reference the title is actually promoted as the MBC International - perhaps how I've listed it should be changed to that to make that clear (not sure, just a thought)

I can now confirm that Mark Prince will be fighting Simas Svacina for the MBC International Cruiserweight title at York Hall on August 2nd

I can also confirm that Antonio Counihan will be challenging for the MBC International Lightweight title in Birmingham on September 13th and Marianne Marston will now be challenging Marianna Gulyas for the vacant MBC International Female Super Bantamweight title in London on October 25th

Plus we are in discussion with other promoters and expect at least another three titles contested for in 2014

So you can see it will not take long to be able to fully establish the page (-;

Kindest regards


Speedy deletion declined: Nhung Kate[edit]

Hello PRehse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nhung Kate, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm declining this mainly because there are a number of sources, though I can't read them. They probably need an investigation at AfD, but I'm going to take their existance as an indication of notability sufficient for A7. Thank you. GedUK  11:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarjubala Devi[edit]

Hey! I would like to discuss, if we can remove the template indicating multiple issues on the article Sarjubala Devi. You can verify the sources they are reliable. CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were more sources and I would wait until AfD is done before removing the notability tag. There is no rush.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As you wish, and it is requested that please don't use WP:talkback next time. I monitor my edits. CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way I usually like AfDs to run to completion once started. A Keep decision offers protection against later attempts to delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You are really doing appreciable job and I respect your decision, maybe that's why I wanted to discuss. Thank you! CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 06:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Song Ga Yeon[edit]

I'm letting you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request because the article has not been deleted through a deletion discussion. If the same content was created under a different title, please let me know and I'd be glad to take a look. Mike VTalk 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it has. I missed a hyphen in the name when I entered the Old deletion template on its talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've deleted the page. Mike VTalk 20:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

National Boxing Union[edit]

As you say, "It's wrong on so many levels", it might as well be Dante's Inferno, e.g. how can you resurrect the World Colored Heavyweight Championship, and make it available to boxers of any race or nationality? And who would want to resurrect a colo(u)r bar title anyway? Well, a quick look at Caporook says all that is required; "looks forward to signing an exclusive deal", "has a television deal in the work's", "wants Cinemax to bring", "plans to bring", "hopes to become", etc. **sarcasm alert** I want to win the lotto next week, but as I don't buy a ticket, it's somewhat unlikely :) Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Morihei Ueshiba again[edit]

Hi Peter. Just though you might be interested to know that the article on Morihei Ueshiba is currently being reviewed for GA; feel free to pitch in if you want to assist. All the best, Yunshui  09:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching it - looks good and doesn't need interference from my part. Not related but this week I will be volunteering at Wikimania which is being held in my building.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Shame I can't be there - I have an aikido summer school which clashes. I always seem to miss the physical meet-ups... Hope you enjoy it! Yunshui  09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You missed a great event - I volunteered and met the most interesting people doing the same. Hard to get too interested in the talks but huge cross-section of people.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Danny Roberts[edit]

Hey Peter. I agree that the article can't be sourced to GNG standards just now, so I won't oppose the AfD. Thanks for bringing WP:MMANOT to my attention - useful stuff! Isaelie (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg they are all over the reception desk! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I don't see why you removed Julio's "Family" section as that was one of the reasons the page was created. And it makes the page more variety, hence why I threw it in. It also details how he was the son of a professional boxer. I don't mean to sound rude, if I wanted to protest it I would've undid the revision, but I want to talk about it one on one with you. WikiPassionate (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't get why you put that the page needs more sources? It's just like Lohanthony's and Trevor Morans. A simple YouTube stub page for a popular YouTuber. WikiPassionate (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@WikiPassionate. The family connection was already mentioned in the lead - it was a bit redundant and considering the size of the article undue weight especially since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources are simple enough - there is no coverage of him by reliable third party sources. The two pages you mention above do. By the way tags are not a bad thing - they are just notices of shortcomings that can and should be fixed. I hope this helps.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Larry Hartsell's entry...[edit]

I saw one of the discussions that states that he is not a notable author of merit; however, this 4 books are, in many peoples opinion, required reading on the subject of Jeet Kune Do and integrating grappling in all ranges. Specifically, the book title Entering to Trapping to Grappling is a book that ALL martial artists should own. His book on conditioning should be read by all MMA coaches, regardless of preferred style. As the "premier JKD fighter", he also holds a distinction that no other Jeet Kune Do practitioner (of direct Bruce Lee lineage) can hold. I see that Erik Paulson has a page; Larry Hartsell is one of his primary instructors, whom Erik lived with as a young adult for many years. He is also one of three instructors who can be credited with martial arts training in the NFL that, if not directly related, definitely occurred during the prime period of the 49ers and Cowboys. Again, he is also one of the primary martial arts instructors to Dallas Cowboy's HOF Randy White... Chai Sirisute, Dan Inosanto, etc. all still have pages; one notable difference between Dan Inosanto (regarding being an author of note) is that most of his books are out-of-print... Larry Hartsell's books continue to be in print. (I mention Dan Inosanto since Larry Hartsell and he were best friends for over 40 years, since their days with Ed Parker and the transition to Bruce Lee.) I really am dumbfounded as to why his page would have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corygenesmith (talkcontribs) 04:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Ramos (boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Debian[edit] (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


I was answering two posts at once, and getting interrupted by phone calls. I think it's sorted now. The last poster started in the sig of the poster before, which threw me... The one I've moved twice is really an artiste, only people don't use that e much. The other subject is more of an artist with another short word in front of it, I feel. Although those can be notably sometimes, I can't see this one being on the present showing. Once again, thanks for pointing out my mess... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No sweat Peridon I understand confusion all too well. I was shocked by "they other type of artist" enough to follow the lines of editing and just saw the need for a little interference. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Luta Livre[edit]

You are free to do it. I am not trying to pass the buck, just not that good with merging and the sort. I am not good with references, I am better at external links. I am more of a researcher. I don't want to make things look bad.. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Florin Sandu (lawyer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <br /> '''Religion''' Christian]]
  • From 2006 he is also and lawyer in the Bucharest Bar]{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Seoul Final 16 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | RD2-team06={{flagicon|HUN}} Attila Karacs]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Eggink talk page[edit]

It may interest you to participate in the deletion discussion at Stephanie Eggink since you helped in creating the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dwanyewes I saw that and was waiting to see what Papaursa says if anything. Your contest should be fine as is - you did point out how she meets WP:MMANOT and it could be that he just missed that nuance - I almost did when considering the same action.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Cheers for the support with some of my work. Mpasqualy (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

EFC Africa[edit]

EFC Africa has the largest TV sports audience it has a network deal with Fight Network. Surely some of the sources below should make the organisation notable? I ask this so I don't get nominated again and the article is deleted. So I wanna make sure that at least some of the articles are considered good you can see for yourself some are from national South Africa newspapers saying that EFC has large TV ratings and is growing. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dwanyewest You might have noticed I did not comment on the original AfD mainly because I did not feel strongly one way or the other. On the one hand I think regional representation is a good thing - on he other hand that representation was not very strong. That said I can not stop anyone from proposing a Speedy Delete (Repost) or a new AfD but I could suggest that you list the above (not already in the references) as other sources. Lots of sources equals survivability and the biggest defense against both AfD and Repost is that and significant difference.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)