Awards and tokens of appreciation

If anyone wishes to hand out any awards or tokens of appreciation for my editing and anti-vandal work, then below is the place to do so. This section was inspired by my first award given out by Glen for anti-vandalism work. All awards are appreciated and if anyone wishes to give one, then keep it in this relevant section of my talk page. Thanks!

Small token of thanks and appreciation for you :)

		Glen's Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!
		Glen is thrilled to award Paralympiakos with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, cruft elimination and for ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption... You are a legend, please keep up the great work! Glen 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Issues/Discussion

UFC 108

Thank you for pointing out the IP problem at UFC 108 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have left the IP a note (can't really block without a warning) and will keep an eye on the article.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 109

All of the fights are rumours and none of them have been confirmed by the ufc; just by websites. I gave you a credible website as a source so whatever the problem is with it, i'm not sure. Please reconsider because I gave you a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogofdeath (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of readers, this comment was left after I removed a good faith, yet incorrect edit. The problem was resolved when a source was found to back up my edit. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBST

Hello there and thank you for your anti vandal efforts. This is just a friendly reminder to remind you to substitute templates. {{subst:uw-vandal3}}. Thanks :) A8 UDI 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't wanna confuse you and I don't entirely understand it myself (although I get the gist), whenever you use a template (i.e. {{example}}), be sure to substitute it by simply putting "subst:" in the front, so you have {{subst:example}}. Why do we do this? It deters vandals from vandalizing the template by "changing" the contents so that when another user utilizes the template they accidentally do not send a vandalized template. Click here to see an example. :) Tom A8 UDI 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstate NYer 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! :) A8 UDI 03:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers bro! Paralympiakos (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you'll see how fast it is when you use it in the sandbox A8 UDI 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on joining the rollbacker ranks i look forward to seeing you in recent changes. ZooPro 04:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note about usage - I know it's tempting but please only use it for vandalism; this wasn't vandalism, though I happen to agree with you on the reversion - it's best to use undo and change the edit summary. Thanks matey Glen 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sometimes it's tough to tell. You can see by his previous edits, like this one that his removal of info was "good faith" in that - in his mind, he is trying to improve the article. General rule of thumb is that even if in your view the edits are misguided (and in my view also in this case) if they are an attempt to improve the article (in this case he felt the rumours section was unfounded) then it's not considered vandalism. Even as an administrator sometimes it's hard for me to tell - though in this case it's very clear when you look at his edit pattern. When in doubt just use undo and write a quick summary of why you disagree.

I'm actually semi retired from wikipedia - but I'm going to UFC 110 (already booked flights from NZ and the hotel next to the stadium!) and so keep a close eye on this article. I just wanna say I really appreciate the edits you make - and do keep up the great work! It hasn't gone unnoticed. And if you do ever find anyone vandalising UFC articles (or any articles for that matetr) and need admin back up let me know :) Glen 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

105? That was a great event - probably the worst fight was the main event! I'm actually not a big Bisping fan so I hope he is on the card at 110. I especially love the headline in this article - though I apologise in advance if you're a fan. I was a fan until TUF 9, he was unbearable to watch on that show! :) Glen 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RPP

Hi, I saw your requests on WP:RPP. Just for future reference, admins rarely ever grant indefinite semi-protection as that prevents any unregistered editor from every contributing to the page. There are some exceptions, but only when the page gets constant vandalism whenever it's not protected (like Wii, which would get vandalized by multiple IP's within minutes of being unprotected). For those UFC events, vandalism (and editing in general) will die down after the event (at least that's how it usually happens). I am not saying you can't ask for indefinite, I am just saying that there is almost no chance an admin will do it and will instead do temporary semi-protection. TJ Spyke 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for longer protection. Plus, if vandalism happens after the protection ends, request it again and an admin will more than likely put a longer protection on it. Wrestling PPV articles are frequent vandalism targets too, so I know how annoying it is and have a lot of experience requesting protection for pages. TJ Spyke 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUF 10

Fair compromise, although I'd think the episodes would help readers. Mollica93 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is such a problem for the episodes to be displayed on the bracket? It is much easier for reader to see it on the bracket and then go up to the episode section. Mollica93 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes season 9 bracket is like that because you just changed it and it was my idea to switch in bracket style and just because you beat me posting it doesnt mean that your way is the prefered way. ps look at season 6 Mollica93 (talk)

why is it that the brackets had seeding before I stepped in so you let it go. Mollica93 (talk)

What the hell does that even mean? Paralympiakos (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these types of brackets are meant to have something above the matchup like the date and the locations so your agrument about the bracket being to cluttered makes no sense. Mollica93 (talk)

TUF: Heavyweights final episode titles

(Again, I haven't seen the final episodes so I'm not looking at the article :). Was the final episode aired in Austrailia a 2hour episode? Or are they getting it as two 1 hour episodes (one last week and the other this week)? I just looked at the TV guide and it shows a 2hr episode titled "Road to the Finale". Just checking to see how much of a difference in airings there are for noting in the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket help

Hey, Iam here to apoligize for my acts and was wondering if you could help me I have updated TUF 8 light heavyweight bracket bout not the lightweight i was wondering if you could do that -- User:Mollica93

TUF title changes

Now that you have changed the article titles for most (if not all) of the TUF articles are you going to go fix all of the links that point to the old title? --TreyGeek (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(From TreyGeek's talk page) Changed 3 or 4, I think, not all. Didn't realise it would have that effect, nor do I know what exactly to do with regards the redirecting. Could do with some advice on that one Paralympiakos (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading of WP:REDIRECT it appears there may not need to be as much work as I initially thought. Wiki-links to a redirected article is okay (so links to "vs" that redirect to the "vs." article are okay). Any double redirects would need to be resolved. So if there is a link to "The Ultimate Fighter 9" that redirects to the "vs" article that now redirects to the "vs." article, that would need to be resolved. On the left side there is an option for "What links here." That page shows all other pages that link to the current one. That will give you a guide as to what is being redirected. For example, the what links here page for The_Ultimate_Fighter:_Team_Hughes_vs._Team_Serra shows a long list of articles that result in redirects through "The Ultimate Fighter 6" -> "The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs Team Serra" -> "The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra" path.

On another note, it's best to keep talk page conversations on the same page. It helps any outsiders understand conversations when it's not broken up on different pages. Thanks for your help --TreyGeek (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough, the only bit of redirection I've had to do was each TUF page had to have the full stop added (e.g. previous series to TUF 8 being TUF 7). Also made sure that TUF 7 actually goes to that page now. Other than that, it all appears to be working. I've looked at 2 dozen pages and none have errors. With this whole thing, I didn't mean to piss you off or anything. Simply put, I changed the titles as I'm quite fussy with regards language. May seem picky or pathetic to some, but not to me. Since it now seems to be working, no harm done? Paralympiakos (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the fussiness with language, the manual of sytle in regards to abbreviations (MOS:ABBR) allows for both "vs" and "vs." as appropriate abbreviations as it relates to sports. As for the double redirects, don't forget to check those what links here pages, particularly for Serra vs Hughes and Rampage vs Forrest, both of those article have double-redirects going to them. If you don't get to it, I'll try to do it later. For now, I have to go do more work. --TreyGeek (talk)

UFC Fight Night: Maynard vs. Diaz

24.206.200.98 and 66.201.44.122 are reeking havoc to UFC Fight Night: Maynard vs. Diaz. Just letting you know so you can watch it, cause that's what you say you do. --ProdigySportsman (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night 21 redirects

I have done the deletes you requested here. One of them had a talk page, but it seemed to be all discussion about the rename, so I zapped that too. Let me know if any problems: I'll watch this talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks very much John. That's a big help. The page NOW called UFC Fight Night 21 is correct, so there's no need for further action with that page, however, it was formerly called UFC Fight Night 22, for which the redirect is still sadly remaining (that is, that Fight Night 22 leads to the new 21 page) UPDATE, I've removed the redirect to 21, but now it's just a blank page.

Would you recommend leaving that page until 22 need be created, or delete it immediately? I'm not sure, so I'll leave that judgement up to you. Also, a page remains for Ufc fight night 21, I think it's called, which could do with a delete if you wouldn't mind.

Once again, thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted both - seemed no point having UFC Fight Night 22 hanging around as a redirect, it can be created again when needed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Thanks very much for the help. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Carwin

The Sherdog source claiming 6'4 is recent, however, it is also ridiculous with as much credibility as a WWE bio (at least in this fighter's case). The NFL combine is extremely reliable and measured him at 6'1+ (at an age after which very,very little growing will still be done). And the fighter himself only claims to be slightly under 6'2. 6'4 is a typo or utter nonsense. (See Discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Carwin) Senor Vergara (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What??

What do you mean with "do not attack other users"? I was joking about the YOUTUBE guy who posted that fake video about that game who tricked me in thinking it was for real. Besides, I was just explaining my mistake for the guy who called me an IDIOT!! Do you warned him either or was that just with me? Was that you? If so, sorry. I'm just trying to improve an article about a fighting game, not get in a "writen fight". Oss.200.222.58.148 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, man. You're a very good user who seems to be a responsable person, and you're also a fan of Clay Guida!! I'm a fan of this fighter not just because of his skill, but also because he's personality is similar to mine. So I don't like others calling me stupid and sometimes I say a lof of shit, but I will try to "control my attitude" to prevent further screw ups.

By the way, do you practice some kind of martial art? Because you don't mention that on your page but a lot of UFC fans do. Oss. 200.222.58.148 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List Of UFC events

UFC 8 was held in Puerto Rico .--HerrDalton (talk) 03:00, 03 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism templates

Hello, regarding my edit to Georges St. Pierre, I realize that wrestling and MMA are entirely different things, but I'm not sure if it needs an individual section because he's only considering it. If he does make the switch, then a section would be needed. I also removed a sentence that had been added to the title of the reference that looked like it was just added there by a user who wasn't sure where to put it. I don't know why you re-added it, because it was not part of the article title.

Also, I noticed that when you leave warnings for users, you add in "For vandalism to [insert article]." at the end. [1] It is possible to adjust the template so it authomatically includes the article. Just add "|UFC 112}}" to the end, for {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|UFC 112}}. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Discussion

Also note that you have clearly been misusing the purpose of WP:ROLLBACK. I've removed it due to continued misuse. You were warned about marking edits and use of rollback for edits that were not vandalism just days after being assigned the feature. NJA (t/c) 08:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^ I've not. Any vandalism warrants the use of rollback. Please give me examples of misuse. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is not worth a level 3 warning when they have never been warned before. This undo is not a reversion of vandalism. This is not a reversion of vandalism. Although more3 of an WP:NPOV issue, this is not a reversion of vandalism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=UFC_Undisputed_2010&diff=prev&oldid=343028490 This] is not the reversion of vandalism. Shall I continue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the warning number matter? It was serious vandalism and so warranted such a response, not that the WARNING has ANYTHING to do with rollback.

The second one, that's not rollback, so that point is invalid too. The edit wasn't labelled as vandalism. All I did was undo it and tell the user to read the source provided as that said that the fight in question was not finalised. Therefore, I did EXACTLY what was required.

The UFC 111 edit, it was! There's no good source for it whatsoever.

Removing "Coleman is legend" - If that's not vandalism, then what is?

The final reversion quoted, again, that IS vandalism. There was no good need to remove that. No discussion as to why, it was just an IP causing trouble. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paralympiakos. Please note that he was probably assuming good faith while making the reverts. The warning and the undo has nothing to do with rollback. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator Season 2

Hey, I need your help with the tournament brackets for Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Two. Just take a look at the talk page. Trunks8719 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone ahead and made a suggestion on the talk page of the article. I think for the purpose of helping others, we should keep further conversation in the relevant talk page. Cheers for letting me know about this though. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 113 Poster

Hello sir,

I'm writing in regards to the size of UFC posters. Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images Minimal usage, copyrighted works utilized under fair use should be as low resolution as possible. If they get too big they might get hit with those "reduction request" tags as seen here: [2] [3] So I just make them as small as possible to keep everybody happy. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to revert back to that original one I posted. Thanks a lot! Bad intentionz (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 117

Just so you know, I can't speedy UFC 117 for the reason you gave, nor can I find any speedy deletion criteria that would fit it. If you would like to see the article go up for deletion (and I think your rationale is probably sound), you will need to list it at AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping that you've got this talk page under watchlist so I don't have to scatter the discussion. First of all, thank you for the explanation; was much appreciated. I am just wondering though why it couldn't be speedily deleted. I'm not trying to argue with you by any means, so please don't interpret this as such, but I have had other UFC event pages deleted for the same reason, in the past, simply because they weren't properly sourced to suggest that an event in "X city" will be UFC insert number here

UFC 116 WAS deleted for the same reason, i.e. someone claiming that an August event would be this number. The page was deleted before I restored it (and it's now correct), so I'm just wondering why this page is different. Any help would be appreciated because then I won't speedy delete template these pages in the future. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually for these kinds of things, I usually cite WP:CRYSTAL in my deletion rationale for an AFD. In this case for speedying, it didn't meet A7 (as not a person, band, club, company, or Web content), it didn't meet G11 (not blatant advertising), and while short, did not meet A1 for no context. Those were the speedy criteria I rated it against. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting these IPs for sockpuppetry and harassment

Dear Paralympiakos, obviously your attitude has not changed and you are not showing true signs of repentance as you should after being punished for your misconduct. Therefore I'll keep an extra eye on you, and if you still misbehave, I won't hesitate to use administrative power again to restrain you. Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation. (^What admin powers? You're a kid from Helsinki, not an admin)

P.s. You have been stripped off of your rollback rights. Please update your user page accordingly. Thanks. 194.157.59.85 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral observer, I can't think that you could have just spoke a little bit nicer, not like some school teacher reprimanding a child. I'm not even sure what the user had done, but please be civil! Acather96 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and I think it may be worth taking this to WP:DRR to prevent the 3RR.Acather96 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredibly amusing that an IP is pretending to be an admin and thinking that they have the powers to warn me, over an issue, incidentally, which isn't even a problem.

I have already explained to you about teh flag usage on wiki and my method is the standard for WP:MMA. By reverting it, you are incorrect. Now, please, stop harrassing me. You're doing it over multiple IPs, some in Uni of Helsinki, some not. I'm bored of you.

Should also point out that the IP you've been using has been warned multiple times for vandalism. I have not (Except your stupid, deluded warnings, which do not count).

Good day. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this "warning" comes from a sockpuppet individual based at the Uni of Helsinki.

194.157.59.85 is the IP above and has also had many warnings for vandalism, including unneeded edits regarding homosexuality at Georges St-Pierre. Other IPs from the same person that have been harrassing me include:

[4] (128.214.205.63) [5] (82.181.152.218) [6] (128.214.177.234) [7] (128.214.205.5) [8] (128.214.205.4)

There are some others, but I can't find them right now.

However, this user has harassed my talk page many times; not following talk page guidelines by reverting, after only listening to their own opinions, despite being proved wrong and also backed himself up (sockpuppetry) as seen here: [9]. You will notice threats and the usage of self-support. This IP is a joke and they all come from Helsinki. I would like an indefinite ban to this harasser, sockpuppet and threatening individual. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be at least worth filing a report at WP:SOCK. Also, the IP user continually mentions his 'admin friend', I would like to know which admin this is!Acather96 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I took a look at that link earlier, but after reading, found this link which I thought would be for reporting of sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations

However, I can't make any such report, hence I've placed a mini-report here for now so that if admin see it, they can hopefully take action without me having to go through the trouble of placing a report at WP:SOCK, since I can't work it out at present. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent disruptive IP (194.157.59.85) has been blocked for 24 hours for BLP and civility concerns. NJA (t/c) 11:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

In response to your request:

Essentially there wouldn't be much utility in a sock report, as the IP user is clearly the same person, and in fact admits to being so in most cases. Therefore no need for a report. The question becomes, is their editing against the policy, ie is there an abuse? To me, not recently. On the 9th there was clearly an abuse of two of the IPs on UFC 110 during an edit war, though one was blocked for 3RR and the other one didn't continue to edit war. As noted above, I also blocked the IP (194.157.59.85) for disruption, but in terms of socking, it doesn't appear that another IP was used during that time to evade the block or do anything else that clearly strikes me as a violation for sock purposes. Admittedly it's difficult when we have multiple IPs by the same user, and the user should create an account so their edit history is attributed to them clearly, however for there to be sanctions there needs to be a demonstrative pattern of policy violations across multiple IPs/accounts. What I gather is there's a dispute on the flag issue, something that would likely be best dealt with according to the step-by-step guidance offered at WP:DR. Let me know if I missed anything. NJA (t/c) 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query, would you like your user page semi-protected so anon vandals can't edit it? NJA (t/c) 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I actually find the vandalism quite amusing. The word "fag" crops up a lot, which I find quite funny because of cultural differences ("fag" being slang for cigarette in this country). However, it does create a little extra work for the kind people who revert the vandalism, so I suppose it would be for the best. Much appreciated (in advance). Paralympiakos (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record Removal

How is it a useful thing to have on there? I would really like to know, give me one good reason it should be included. TreyGeek told me awhile back to start removing them because they were redundant and irrelevant. I will continue to remove them. RapidSpin33 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are useful. If someone wants to see what a person's record is after a certain fight, they don't have to count from the bottom to find out. Also, as I said, they are on WP:MMA, so that is what is to be used. I don't give a damn what stories you are making up about TreyGeek, it's not happening. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Paralympiakos. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Ortiz

I was just reverting vandalism by others. Your anti vandalism bot blows 66.65.76.10 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]