Jump to content

User talk:JonnyBonesJones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bjelleklang (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 16 December 2012 (→‎I understand policy now: not removing edit access after all, only a few hours left of the block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, JonnyBonesJones! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Mtking (edits) 00:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Site to Check Out

If you are interested in working on MMA articles in a Wiki type format, visit MMA Wikia --Boston2austin (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm gunna join. Just let me know what you guys need help with. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, JonnyBonesJones. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower ChatOffline 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Nomination of UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mtking (edits) 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha, what are you talking about, what edit? I've been reverting vandalism, get off my case. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake, there was IP vandalism mixed in with your edits. I removed the vandalism warning. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool :-) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current UFC fighters

It's fine to delete Sarafian's nickname if you feel strongly about it. As I said, my stance on nicknames is if they've ever used them over a period of time they are open for inclusion with the most recent one (or the one from UFC.com) taking priority. I don't think of it as a particularly important part of the article, and I certainly wouldn't use UFC.com exclusively for it, as they tend to list nicknames sparingly. If you feel more strongly about this I'd be happy to make a discussion out of it in order to come to a stronger conclusion, but it's probably the only part of the article that I feel is fair game for anything reasonably reference-able.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I just never heard of him going by that nickname, it's not listed on Sherdog, or UFC, and he's one of the few fighters from TUF Brazil that opted to not use a nickname. Chael Sonnen although not listed on the UFC yet openly uses the nick name "The American Gangster" in almost every UFC related interview he does. But yea I have not found one single source saying Daniel Sarafian goes by the name "Tanque". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I looked as well and couldn't find anything, but he also had almost no publicity for most of his career, so it's hard to tell what he might have been announced by while fighting on the brazilian regional circuit. I'm fine with it either way, I just want to make it clear that it's not something I consider overly important beyond vandalism prevention.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chins

Hi Bones. I don't disagree with putting Chris Leben on the list, but to answer your question, some people doubt his chin because of his fight with Anderson... Of course, it's not like getting KTFO by him isn't a norm or anything. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson can KO anyone... Chris Leben has shown an iron chin in many fights. And btw why is Chuck Liddell on both lists. His chin is clearly one of the weak ones! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I said. And Liddell used to have an iron chin. It's a good example of how damage can affect a fighter's chin. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what fights did he show an iron chin in? I'm curious. I wanna see them. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, Landi-Jons, Metzger, Vitor, Overeem, and in the first Rampage fight he got hit hard on the chin at least 8-9 times, was staggered but never went down. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, nice! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce Heavyweight Title

Thanks for the link. Glad to see that have publicly mentioned it now, not that it makes it any less of a mess. Appreciate all of the work you've been doing on the MMA pages. Keep it up! Udar55 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hey, I see that you do a lot of edits of the ufc event pages. I just want to ask you if you do edit a page, you type in the summary what you changed exactly. Then others can see what has changed. Thanks in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Well it does show what was changed anyway. But I try to put summary in everytime I can. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

I am just asking why you have taken the original birth place of Jimi Manuwa to replaced them with mistakes by the UFC. You have made the article contradict itself, there is no reference to him being from Sacramento e.g 'Jimi, who moved to England from Nigeria when he was ten, says he has been frustrated and angry ever since he was young.' You can see you have made the article contradict itself. Also considering the fact they have spelled his name 'Poster Boiy' wrong on the website, doesn't help the credibility. Please don't everything that the UFC says for gosppel. Revert the 'vandalism' you made please.

First of all, you didnt sign your post, so I dont know who you are. Second, the UFC site itself says thats where he was born, thats a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source that says he's born in Nigeria please. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

I took a look at the History of many UFC articles, and I saw that you are one of the most prominent contributors.

The MMA Barnstar
I, Miufus (talk), hereby award JonnyBonesJones
the The MMA Barnstar for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject MMA.
Awarded 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Bellator 78

The fight was announced as a TKO by the announcer, please do not change it. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The announcer made a mistake, Joe Rogan and Mike GOldberg make mistakes all the time. This reliable source says a KO.

http://www.sherdog.com/events/BFC-Bellator-Fighting-Championships-78-25211

Plus watching the fight you could tell it was a KO. You also failed to leave a method. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on tape. He wasn't completely out. The announcer went nuts but if you watch it on replay, he wasn't out, he had his hands up trying to block the punches. The ref and announcer said it was a TKO so the official stoppage is TKO. Thanks for your concern, but I have this under control. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should provide a reliable source saying so instead of engaging in an edit war. I am using this as a reliable source: http://www.sherdog.com/events/BFC-Bellator-Fighting-Championships-78-25211

Also this looks like it's not the 1st time you have been warned about edit warring. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have this all under control. I was putting the results in as I watched the show and putting in what they announced, which is what is official. I appreciate you trying to help, but I've got this under control. Please leave my entries alone. Thanks. Trying to correct vandalism on my entries isn't an editing war. It looks like you were warned about it. You are supposed to use the user talk page for the article, which I did after I saw the vandalism of my entries but nobody said anything. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I cannot do that, I am trying to keep wikipedia accurate, and also avoid edit wars. I have a reliable source so my edits are not vandalism. You will need a reliable source to say what you are saying is true, otherwise it is just basically heresay. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were trying to keep it accurate, then you would quit vandalizing my entries. I have a video to back up what I'm saying. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please present the link. I have commented on the Bellator pages talk section. Until then we shall go off the reliable source of sherdog.com JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFasLXEyAY Look at the 2:02 mark.

http://www.mmafighting.com/2012/10/26/3559896/bellator-78-results-tsarev-vs-good

It was a TKO, thanks.--Willdawg111 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That youtube video would not be considered a reliable source. However mmafighting.com is. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You left out the method of TKO, so I put that in there for you. Make sure to always include the method and use reliable sources like the one you just gave me. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the fighters records. If I came off as rude or anything, I appologize. I was watching it and clearly heard the ref and announcer say TKO. If you were watching the fights, I hoped you enjoyed them. I thought it was a very good card, plus I've trained with Jorge Gurgel up in Cincinnatti so this was a really exciting card for me. --Willdawg111 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and yes it was enjoyable! :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

I am sorry but the UFC is not a WP:RS, it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in this case it has a vested interest in bending reality to help it's marketing. If you disagree feel free to take it to the WP:RS/N. Mtking (edits) 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They hired and background checked the guy, I'd think they'd know if he's from Vietnam or not... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least a strong degree of doubt as to his nationality so then before making any claims in any article you need a WP:RS that can relied upon and the UFC marketing team is not such a source. As I said, take it to the RS/N if you want clarification. Mtking (edits) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but who is doubting? Where is their sources? Not one of them has provided a source, I have... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't they, well this one say he is American. Mtking (edits) 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you completely ignored the part about "South Vietnamese-born", the UFC uses the flags from their home country, not the country they fight out of. Have you ever watched a UFC event before? Or is the UFC still not notable enough for you to watch? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source for you, if the last one is reliable, then this is too, it says "Vietnamese-born". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Vietnamese-born does not mean you are Vietnamese, Julia Gillard the Prime Minister of Australia is NOT British but she was born in Barry, Wales - please revert your edits as WP:BLP applies. Mtking (edits) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a reliable source, I provided it. You said Canadian media is reliable, so I provided a Canadian media source. The UFC uses the flags of where the fighter was born. Therefore, I am not reverting it, it is correct, even by your standards it's correct. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women MMA organization notability

Please don't make changes to the notability lists without discussing them on the talk page. The criteria used were discussed at WT:MMANOT and then objectively applied. They are also clearly stated in the text at WP:MMANOT. Being top tier for one gender does not automatically mean it's top tier for the other gender. Obvious example: Invicta is just for female fighters, so claiming top tier status for male fighters would be ludicrous. Papaursa (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop making additions to the notable organizations without consensus. Currently there have been no UFC women's fights. It's quite possible that the UFC may become a top tier women's organization, but there are objective criteria to be met. Right now adding the UFC to the women's list is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be obvious with Ronda Rousey as champion, but I respect the consensus. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Submissions

Your AfD submissions are coming out a little strange - please read the How to nominate a single page for deletion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Right now they are not titled or added to the log page. I fixed a few.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are step by step directions about half way down under "How to nominate a single page for deletion". Part of that includes adding the entry to the daily log - if you don't do that it could be that your AfD goes nowhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

What you did at User_talk:Mtking#Warning_for_Vandalism_and_content_removal is an inappropriate use of the warning templates. Regardless of whether or not Mtking's edits at List of current UFC fighters are appropriate for the content of the article, they are not vandalism. See Wikipedia:VAND#Boldly_editing and Wikipedia:VAND#Incorrect_wiki_markup_and_style. If you continue to inappropriately warn users, I will block you. MBisanz talk 06:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that, I try to be a good editor here and contribute as much as possible. But I must respectfully disagree here. MtKing removed a sourced article about Mark Hominick's retirement from that page. I felt that was vandalism and dealt with it accordingly. I also believe MtKing has been harassing people on wikipedia's MMA pages, and has launched a biased crusade of sorts against them and all MMA articles on wikipedia. He has made alot of bad faith, pointy edits and has himself more than once abused warning templates against me. Accused be of personal attacks, which I didnt make, and accused me of breaking the 3RR which I didnt do. I have contributed alot to MMA on wikipedia and other pages. I feel MtKing is abusing his status on wikipedia, and is very biased in his attack on the sport of MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that Mtking is violating policy, you should report the violations to the appropriate venue, such as WP:AN. A report should include diffs of his edits that support your specific allegations of bad faith edits, pointy edits, warning template, abuse, etc. MBisanz talk 06:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I am not a tattletale. But seeing as MtKing is harassing people and abusing his rollbacker status, I will gladly do that, because I believe MMA has a right to be here on wikipedia, just as any other sport. Admins and rollerbackers should not be biased, and he clearly is. I and countless MMA editors have had enough of his antics. I also will admit that I didnt report him in the past for fear of admin bias because he is a rollerbacker, and I am not. But I want to ask, how do I report him? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User status does not exempt a person from compliance with the rules. If Mtking has violated the rules, he will be dealt with by admins the same as any other user. To file a report, click here and enter details of your allegations, linking to edits of Mtking's that support each of your assertions regarding him. MBisanz talk 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. And I have reported him now. I hope that in their hearts, the admins see the damage Mtking has caused to Wikipedia and stop him. And this is coming from a guy who tried to work with him, and who is unbised. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting without knowledge of the situation or the allegations, merely in general after noticing some portions of your AN post. The rollbacker flag merely gives a user the technical ability to rollback vandalism a bit faster than otherwise possible. It's not big deal and it is irrelevant when dealing with a user. We do not look at a user based on what flags they have but on what the issue at hand is. Least of all because of rollbacker or filemover or w/e. Snowolf How can I help? 10:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. I am sick of some of the bias I have seen toward MMA editors here on wikipedia. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never even asked for rollback and didn't have it as a "user right" until I became an admin. I didn't need it because anyone who has an account can just grant themselves rollback by turning on WP:TWINKLE. Smowolf is quite right that no admin in their right mind would see having it as a reason to trust one user over another. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, I have seen alot of discrimination against MMA editors on wikipedia, which is bad for the site. The UFC 155 deletion without reason by Kww was a prime example. We proved that the event was notable with policy based reasons, citing the fact there was a Heavyweight Title fight at the event, and it was still unjustly deleted. That is an example of bias toward on wikipedia. I am also not for ANYONE who uses personal attacks, whether they are an MMA editor or a deletionist. However I feel alot of those personal attacks stem from provocation and discrimination of MMA editors. I just hope you guys realize that the problem is NOT MMA on wikipedia, it is Mtking on wikipedia. There was no issue and all was quiet and running smooth til he came back after his 1st attempt to destroy us. I fear the sanctions will be one sided against MMA editors. I believe wikipedia should be unbiased, it was made for the people after all. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Please note that this is not a template message, there is no red stop sign, it is intended to be a polite observation that after it has been pointed out to you by three editors here, here and here (and this could be classed as the fourth, plus other edit sums on articles such as this one) that the RfC at WT:MMA#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG covers the addition of flags in both tables and lists when relating to UFC/MMA. Any continual action along thoes lines is likely to be viewed as disruptive and or Poninty editing, I urge you to be cautious as that road will lead you to a bad place. Mtking (edits) 07:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mtking, but I read and understood what the RfC said, and the UFC is an exception because it's always been a competition between countries, thats why flags are in the tale of the tape. And hey, even you agree the consensus matters more than quantity of editors. But only 3 people on wikipedia is a drop in the ocean of millions of editors so even if quantity mattered it still wouldn't be on your side. So it appears you are having a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am following the consensus, and that is that. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even when multiple other editors point out you have read it wrong? Mtking (edits) 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody pointed out I "read it wrong", they just said they didnt believe it was right. But I let them know why it was right. You have not pointed anything out, you have just tryed to use the MOS:Flags use to help with your crusade to remove UFC content from wikipedia. However I read that RFC word for word, and they did say there was an exception for competition between countries, which is what the UFC is. Mtking, I am trying to be reasonable here man. Your crusade against the UFC is pointless. Give it up man, why not spend your energy making constructive edits instead of trying to tear down a sport that deserves to be on wikipedia just as much as any other sport does? I know you dont like it, but thats ok, you dont have to watch it! But that doesnt mean try to take it off wikipedia. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the close it says "'Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers.Mtking (edits) 07:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. Well I agree with that Mtking, and are you trying to deny that EVERY fighter on planet Earth is representative of a particular country? The American cards prominently feature fighters from America, and the Brazilian cards prominently feature fighters from Brazil. The English cards prominently feature fighters from England. The Japanese cards prominently feature fighters from Japan. And so on... So yea, it's pretty hard to deny what I'm saying is the absolute unfettered truth here Mtking. Who knows, maybe there will be a UFC on Mars one day featuring a bunch of Martians, then that will be an interesting wikipedia discussion. lol. Just making a joke there Mtking, it's good to laugh a little. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a link to the Japanese governing body or team, or the Brazilian one or the English one, or the American one, which international representative body sets the rules for representational qualification like IAAF, FINA, ICC, IRB, FIFA do for the sports they govern ? Mtking (edits) 08:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does Cung Le compete for a team whose country does not exist ? Mtking (edits) 08:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well talking about different sports other than MMA is sort of comparing apples to oranges, every sport is different Mtking. But if you insist... Here is a link to that governing body: http://www.ufc.com/ JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cung Le competes for a team whose country does exist! Are you saying that Vietnam doesnt exist? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UFC is not the governing body, it is an event promoter, unless you can cite a RS (in which case please change the UFC page). As for Le, according to your edit here you think he represents South Vietnam a county that does not exist now. Mtking (edits) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you please answer Vanisaac question ? Mtking (edits) 08:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer your question first MtKing, you are the King after all. lol (another joke there). The UFC has acted as it's own governing body in the past, in Brazil it did just that, and even drug tested the fighters. But in the USA, it's the Atheletic Commissions who are the governing bodies, they sanction the matches, and provide the referees and judges for the event. They also allow the event to occur, and they allow the use of flags in the tale of the tape, after all it is a competition between countries you know... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not as it does not have the governing body structure that is common to all other representative sports, but if as you say "it is a competition between countries" - where is the WP:RS that can be used to verify that claim ? Mtking (edits) 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right here ol' chap, straight from the root itself: http://www.ufc.com/ JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) UFC is not a WP:RS and b) nothing on the UFC's home page says it is a governing body or a competition between countries. Mtking (edits) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Definition of source

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: 

the piece of work itself (the article, book),"

Actually is a WP:RS. And http://www.ufc.com/program if you flip thru those pages you will see the flag and name of each country's competitor, and a brief discription of their stats on the other pages. Read up! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to, the UFC does not have a reputation for fact checking and is not interdependent of it's self so can not be a RS, besides it is not in doubt UFC uses flags for reasons of promotion, the thing that needs to be verified is your claims that :
  1. The UFC is a governing body; and
  2. UFC is a competition between countries.
because without it your assertion is at best plain good old fashioned original research. Mtking (edits) 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Silva is the matchmaker, he is the governing body. Dana White and the Fertittas are as well. They can sign people or contract and release them as well. Also do you have a source that says the UFC is not known for fact checking? Or is that original research? The flags are used in promotion of a fight between 2 fighters representing countries. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also here is a source that says UFC is a competition between countries. http://www.fightersonlymag.com/content/news/16163-ufc-confirms-australia-vs-uk-for-next-tuf-season JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have tried to engage you, to help demonstrate the issue, this is the problem with MMA on WP; WP has policies, guidelines and conventions, all put in place to build an encyclopedia, one of those core policies is the one on Verifiability, if, as you claim The UFC is a governing body and UFC is a competition between countries then you need to provide an actual source to it from an independent publication, as the verifiability policy says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". Mtking (edits) 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as for the link, read the RFC close, it makes it clear on what to do with MMA events billed as country vs country. Mtking (edits) 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are so frustrated Mtking. You seem to be trying everything to get rid of MMA on wikipedia and it just isnt working out for you. I think you should find a new hobbie. But I did give you a reliable source saying that UFC is Country vs. Country. I dont think you will ever understand that tho, it seems you dont wanna understand something no matter how many reliable sources we MMA editors provide for you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mtking (edits) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Unblock me please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel this block is a mistake, for I feel I did not violate the 3RR policy because I believe I pass exemption for it, as I was trying to protect an RfC consensus which said that flags should only be used in MMA articles if there is a competition between individuals who represent countries, which there clearly was.

Decline reason:

There is no such exemption. Please read policy at WP:3RR. Kuru (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I am blocked right now, but in a nutshell, what is that suggesting? If it's about Omnibus articles, that idea already failed. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been over 24 hours.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was promised only a 24 hour block, this block has been over that time.

Decline reason:

At this time, your block has been active for 23 hours and five minutes. It expires in just under an hour. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Nick Penner. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Wait...what?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was I blocked again? I helped report a guy engaging in an edit war. I thought I was doing the right thing here, why would I be blocked? I also warned him on the page and he removed my warning, I was never warned for breaking 3RR, and I dont believe I did break 3RR or did anything wrong. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see clear reverts at 23:34, 23:35, 23:41, and 23:46, and at least one deceptive edit summary. You don't need to be warned again; you should be well acquainted with the policy after being blocked for violating it less than 24 hours ago. Please carefully read the policy and note that future blocks will increase in length. Kuru (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Within 13 hours of being unblocked for edit warring, you edit warred on the article. [1] [2] [3] You don't need to be warned and having just been blocked, you are aware of the policy against edit warring. Notice that when you file a request there's a portion that asks if you brought this up on the talk page? You never did. Ryan Vesey 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I tried to bring it up on the talk page, he'd delete it. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am acquianted with the 3RR policy. This guy was removing results and page content, and clearly broke the rule for 3RR. I learned from my 1st mistake and I dont remember doing over 3 edits, if I did by mistake I am sorry but in this case content was being removed and made incorrect, content that can be verified by reliable sources. I am pleading "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." If content is being made incorrect and being removed, is that not obvious vandalism? Plus I was never warned for this. And I also wanred him and he removed the template in a correct case of it being used. He also tried to call me a vandal which was a false accusation, and I even reported him because of his actions. I dont feel I am in the wrong here. I only tried to help wikipedia and thought I was helping by reporting him. I dont feel I should be blocked for trying to do the right thing. I am kind of afraid to report people now for fear I will be blocked as well for their wrong doing!

Here is proof content was made incorrect: Here is the sherdog profile: 3 losses, 2 by KO. http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nick-Penner-23736

Here is proof he changed that correct result to an incorrect one, if content is made inncorrect it is vandalism is it not?: [4] JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Jonny, you've been pointed at policies a number of times:

  • Content disputes are not vandalism.
  • Disagreeing with you is not vandalism.
  • Adding wrong information is vandalism only if it's obviously intended to damage Wikipedia, assume good faith.
  • Different people might have different opinions on what is wrong and right.
  • 3RR is not an entitlement to do 3 reverts per day. Edit warring is bad in any case, and it's a blockables offence.
  • You should have been blocked after your first revert, as it was just a continuation of your previous edit war. Yes, one revert immediately after your block for edit warring has expired and you're back behind the bars. Now that you've managed to reach 4 reverts makes your defence even weaker.
  • Repeatedly calling someone's edits vandalism when it's obviously not true is insulting and can lead to blocks on its own.

When your block expires, I suggest you to avoid reverting completely for some time, then stick to 1RR, that would be better for everyone. Max Semenik (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your edits were not reverting obvious vandalism. Here you used an edit summary, which was blatantly false. What you need to read up on is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You make an edit, he reverts that edit, you discuss it on the talk page. Ryan Vesey 00:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is not obvious about that? I have tried to discuss stuff with this guy on talk pages in the past, he removes anything I say, just like he removed the warning templates. I have tried to reason with him but he is so convinced he is right. I have tryed all you are suggesting and it didnt work. So I reported him, they find him guilty, then ban me too? That is kinda of silly. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that in the edit war, the MMA recordbox was given the wrong value. I've fixed that, but you weren't edit warring just over that issue. You were changing everything in parenthesis, something I don't even understand. Can you link to a time where you brought an issue to the article talk page and he removed that information rather than engaging in discussion as you claim? Ryan Vesey 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that a blocked editor must defend himself alone (WP:GAB), but can i make a comment about Willdawg111? Poison Whiskey 00:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's civil, although the focus should really be on Jonny's behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit isnt blanantly false! It matches the source here!: http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nick-Penner-23736

Read it word for word. Doesnt content removal count as page blanking? Didn't he page balck as well when he removed mine, and others wrong templates, is it not obvious vandalism that he is changing results to be incorrect? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I will be happy to find you proof I have tried to reason with him and others have too. And Poison Whiskey, yes you can make a comment about Willdawg111, I want these admins to know I and others have tried to reason with this guy. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Content removal does not count as page blanking. Page blanking and section blanking involve removal of entire pages or sections. Note that vandalism "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emphasis in the original). As this was a dispute based on how the page should appear, it clearly was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by either party. His edits were not vandalism and you cannot remove them as such. Ryan Vesey 01:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's always dangerous to edit-war over content. What you think of as vandalism, many others will not. The vandalism exemption is generally reserved for things that are obvious on their face. Changing content from "correct" to "incorrect" might be considered vandalism, but only if it were done intentionally, or there was a clear pattern that the editor goes around changing facts. As for trying to reason with Willdawg, you normally have to show that you tried to engage him in a discussion for this particular issue on the article talk page. The only edit I see to the article talk page is Willdawg's.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Here's an example of politely trying to reason with him on the talk page. He removed it. Do you know what I'm saying now Ryan? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in this situation you should make your edits to the article talk page rather than to his talk page. He is able to remove whatever he wants (mostly) from his talk page. Ryan Vesey 01:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK Ryan, I was confused by what page blanking meant then, I stand corrected. And when people say talk page, I dont know if they meant his take page or the article's. I did use the article's talk page for a bellator edit tho. I thought you could use any talk page. But I do not think I should be blocked when I did all I could to reason with him, and reported his actions. I mean what was I supposed to do if he just wants to delete any conversation I try to have with him? I would much rather be improving articles right now than having to deal with wiki-court. lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i also tried to warn him about some issues on his talk page weeks ago, and he gave no reasonable answer 1 2. Also tried to discuss other issues on this talk page, but he does not seem to put effort to reach consensus. I know JonnyBonesJones may have broken the three-revert rule, but he didn't it intentional; he was just trying to revert disruptive editing. If you check this page history you can see constant edits and reverts by Willdawg111 without debate. Poison Whiskey 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you can do in the future, is after any revert, take the issue to the article talk page. If the other editor refuses to respond to the discussion, leave a note on their talk page making sure they saw it, if they still fail to take part, contact an admin and ask them to help you resolve the dispute. In addition, if you are ever unsure if an edit is vandalism or not, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Here's a question, do you understand why you were blocked? Ryan Vesey 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Ryan, I tried to contact the admin when I reported him in this case, and look what happened to me. I understand I was blocked because according to Bbb23 "I blocked Jonny for 48 hours because he has been very recently blocked for edit-warring.". Well I already served my time and learned from that block, so why block me again? I'm sorry I dont think thats a valid reason to block me at all. I was really trying my hardest to work with WillDawg111, and I had no choice but to report him. Why should I be blocked for something that is from the past that I was already blocked for and learned from? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I blocked you for edit-warring on this article. However, generally a first-time block is 24 hours (not cast in stone but typical). Because you had just recently edit-warred, I upped the time to 48 hours. Normally, repeat violators get increased block periods.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just copy and pasted your exact quote from the page where I reported Willdawg111. I think it was pretty clear you said you blocked "because he has been very recently blocked for edit-warring." Well thats not a good reason to block me, because I already served my 24 hour block for edit warring, then you add 48 hours to it? No thats not a good reason to block me at all. I dont think policy allows you to reblock someone for a past offense. So what you meant and what you said were different Bbb23. And btw I'm not trying to fight with you over it, I'm keeping civil, I'm not deleting your comments. I'm just quoting your exact words. If I accidently broke the 3RR rule I'm sorry about that, that wasnt my intention. I saw that Willdawg111 broke it and I reported for him for it. I dont think "because he has been very recently blocked for edit-warring." is a valid reason to block me, and I ask you that you lift it, so I can peacefully resume improving on wikipedia pages as usual. Please? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't blocked for a past offense. You were blocked for this offense. The reason your block was 48 hours was because you recently were blocked. Ryan Vesey 02:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats not what was stated by Bbb23. Saying "You weren't blocked for a past offense." then saying "The reason your block was 48 hours was because you recently were blocked." contradicts itself. I already said I was sorry for edit warring in the past, I did my time and should not be blocked for that old offense again. Thats not being fair to me at all, thats not giving me a chance. Also I said I was sorry if I accidently violated 3RR, that wasnt my intention as I stated. I even helped report a guy who has edit warred and personally attacked people multiple times, no one else reported him but me. I was not trying to edit war with anyone. I really would like to be unblocked, so I can get back to improving pages, please... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're not going to be unblocked if you don't understand why you were blocked. I've explained that to you. You were blocked because you recently edit warred at Nick Penner. Ryan Vesey 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ok then, I understand why I was blocked, now may I please be unblocked now? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also per WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE, i already stated I have no intention to disruption wikipedia, but to improve it. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me, I feel this block is unfair, biased, and abuse of admin tools.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"I blocked Jonny for 48 hours because he has been very recently blocked for edit-warring." is not a valid reason to block me. I said I understood why I was blocked like Ryan wanted me to say. MaxSem saying "You should have been blocked after your first revert, as it was just a continuation of your previous edit war. Yes, one revert immediately after your block for edit warring has expired and you're back behind the bars. Now that you've managed to reach 4 reverts makes your defence even weaker." That statement is false. That was on an entirely different page. And then MaxSem contradicts himself and says "I suggest you to avoid reverting completely for some time, then stick to 1RR, that would be better for everyone." Well I have a right to 1 revert like everyone else does, 1 revert isnt an edit war. It's being bold like wikipedia encourages. There is no 1RR rule, admins cant make up rules on people. I served my time for the 1st edit war. I learned from it. But now I help REPORT an edit war and they block me again? Thats not right. And I believe admin grivances have occured, and should be taken seriously. If I am not unblocked, then I want to take this incident to ARBCOM. I feel there was misuse of the admin tool in this case, and making up of rules. Please, do the right thing, and unblock me from this unfair and biased block. Also WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can see in the article history that you violated the three-revert rule at Nick Penner. That rule is always the rule, even when you are sure you are right. It looks like you don't understand the rule, from your unblock request. If you find yourself in a similar situation sometime, WP:DISPUTE has a list of useful things you can do to make sure the best version of the article becomes stable without edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(talk page stalker) I have been watching this with some dread as every time you post you seem to dig your self into a bigger hole. Comments like "admins cant make up rules on people" and "unfair, biased, and abuse of admin tools" is not going to put you in a good light with the only group of editors who can unblock you. Specifically per this discussion an admin can now put you on a 1RR for MMA related articles, secondly with two rejected unblock requests do you honestly believe that this block was an abuse.
If I was an admin reviewing the above request I might be looking for the button "Can't edit own talk page" about now, so given that is an option please take a nickels worth of free advice and re-read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and what you have written and think if you may want to rewrite it and the section heading. You may also want to consider if agreeing to a voluntary 1RR restriction for 3 months on MMA related articles might help to show that you understand the issues and that the block is no longer necessary for the protection of the project (I am not saying that an admin with accept that, but just a thought). Mtking (edits) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking, please do me a favor and go bother someone else, this doesnt concern you. And take your "suggestions" elsewhere, aka off my page. I am talking to admins now, not you. You are not an admin, and I hope you never become an admin, and I know you want to block my talk page because you have beef with me and dont wanna hear the truth. As for the question do I think the block is unfair, yes I do, I think that was obvious that I made it clear I believe the block was unfair. I dont care about impressing wikipedia admins, I dont know them, and they mean nothing to me. I could care less if they died. They are on the internet and I dont know them, I dont know you either, and you dont know me. How about you volunteer to stop using the internet from another 3 months and stop annoying everyone and causing all this senseless drama that I got caught up in? You should just leave wikipedia and the internet for good because no one likes you Mtking, google your name! Everyone hates you man! I was nothing but nice to you, but it's clear you just wanna annoy people and kick them while they are down. Now run along now, shoo! shoo! Get off my page. Now... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny, i kindly suggest you to read WP:BREAK. Poison Whiskey 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you may have misunderstood the '48 hours' comment. Blocks tend to increase in length. Your first block for edit-warring was for 24 hours, and your second is for 48, as is usual. I hope that there won't be a third, but if there is, it would likely be for a week. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rules better now thanks to FisherQueen

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought that the 3 Revert Rule meant it's not allowed to actually REVERT the article with the undo button. But appearently it means to make any changes to the edit in question. I understand that now. I also have made alot of great contrabutions to wikipedia that I cant make because I am blocked right now. So now I understand why I am blocked. I also helped report an incident. So you know I am noy here to disrupt wikipedia. I would like to be unblocked and help fight vandalism on pages. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining unblock as the user has in no way shown that he understands policy. Please stop requesting to be unblocked, that you failed to properly read WP:3RR the first time you were blocked is your own fault. And please also note that the comments made below do border on personal attacks, and indeed show an uncivil attitude towards other editors trying to help. Bjelleklang - talk 12:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:3RR is a bright line of Edit Warring. Your editing over the past week has verged on the 3RR line several times without following the WP:BRD suggestion. Your removal of warnings regarding edit waring before constitutes you acknowledging and accepting said warning. While I cannot speak about your current block for edit warring, I note that the previous instance (MMA and Flags) demonstrated that you would have continued reverting the changes had not an administrator stepped in. Your leaning experience should have come last time. Take this opportunity to learn the WP policies/guidelines/rules/conventions by heart rather than lobbying for early restoration of privileges. Hasteur (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, go away, nobody cares what you think. I was asking for an admin response. Not yours. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling editors who comment here to go away is not helpful. It doesn't matter whether they are admins. "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening. The administrator who blocked you may contribute, but any decision will be made by the reviewing administrator who takes all points made into account." (see WP:GAB, which you are supposed to have read). The comments made by editors have been constructive. Your responses have not; indeed, they have bordered on personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personaly attacking them. How is telling someone I dont know in real life who I really dont like to get off my page and leave me alone a personal attack? He should respect that and go away. He is talking about the past too, not the present, and he's not involved. This is between me and Willdawg111. Mtking and Hasteur arent involved, they are just trying to kick a man when they are down because they dont have anything better to do with their lives. And I dont think publicly stating that I dont know them, that I dont like them, that I dont respect them whatsoever, and dont want them on my page is a personal attack. I never called them any names or cussed them out. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're an admin, and I dont know why you got made an admin, but read this: WP:WIAPA Not once did I make a personal attack. But you wrongfully accusing me of making one could be considered a personal attack Bbb23. I wonder what ARBCOM would think of your actions. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call your actions personal attacks, but I would say that they are worse. They show an inability to accept advice and an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors as part of the Wikipedia community. Instead, your actions imply that you are editing in a situation where you see it as you against the world. Your actions since you have been blocked have actually been more concerning than the initial edit warring. Ryan Vesey 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to say I dont care what you think. You're only 19 man, I'm old enough to be your big brother. Sorry you dont like what I'm saying. And btw, I dont have a battle ground mentally. I never said I hated anyone, I said I dont like them. And I dont have to like them. I dont have to like you either bro... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I try to choose my words carefully. I did not call your comments personal attacks; I said they "bordered" on personal attacks. Comments like "nobody cares what you think" and "everyone hates you" are blatantly uncivil.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make this completely clear JonnyBonesJones. I have made every possible effort to explain to you the reason for your block and to get you unblocked earlier if possible. Your actions have shown that you do not understand the reason, and you have made it a certainty that you will not be unblocked before the end of this blocks terms. If I see any similar disruptive edits on your talk page, I will be bringing the issue up at ANI and suggest that your block length be increased, possibly to an indef block, since you seem to have a failure of the ability to cooperate in a manner that is conducive to productive editing. Ryan Vesey 01:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should choose your words carefully Bbb23. Because no, they didnt border on personal attacks. Read the rules that you're supposed to know.
Ryan Vesey, what are you gunna tell em? That I'm sarcastic? Thats not against the rules little bro. Tell me what I'm doing thats against the rules? I didnt make any personal attacks. And no, saying you are like my little brother isnt a personal attack. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ryan, I'm sorry I upset you, how bout I make it up to you like a good big brother would and take to the bar and have a drink? Sound good? LOL just kidding little bro, you're not old enough to drink. :P

See I can be funny. Just dont try to extend my block because I have a sense of humor. hahaha. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand policy now

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonnyBonesJones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I understand policy better, I been reading up on it. Also sorry for the way I was last night. I think I just have been going thru alot. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're having personal problems, and can't handle them without violating Wikipedia policies, you really can't be unblocked. You won't be unblocked, please just accept this, wait for the block to expire and read up on policies such as WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. Bjelleklang - talk 22:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JonnyBonesJones&oldid=528378803"