User talk:Drr-darkomen

This is Drr-darkomen's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

UFC 103

Don't know why Henderson would be put there when he aint even rumored for that fight (More Like Tito Oritz I heard.) Well I guess now it's Franklin-Belfort (Much better)

Help

Could you look at Brian Bowles' page for me please? The new WEC bantamweight champion, errors have occurred (not by me) that I can't seem to remedy, thank you. --Ecclesispastic2489 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2009

Tito Ortiz

How in gods name was my edition of legacy considered contrevrsial. These facts are all stated by the documentation of his time in the UFC. all the facts were grouped from the afcts alreay in tyhe page. If your jealous i put it up before you thought of it then thats unfair. My information is not bogus nor contreversial as you stated dude. Punisher88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User_talk:65.220.13.2

No, in this case where what he's involved in seems to be content disputes rather than blatant vandalism it doesn't matter how many warnings he gets (in the same way you wouldn't get me blocked that way unless I was actually vandalizing as defined by WP:VAND). WP:DISRUPT is probably the most relevant guideline in this case, and per that your best bet is explaining the situation at WP:ANI and getting admins to look into it. I'm not sure there's a point in doing that as it stands though (at least going by your warnings which is about flags and whether Carwin-Lesnar is accurate). You should probably just stop using the warning-templates altogether and instead explain what's wrong with his edits. If he then continues there might be grounds for a block for disruptive editing (him never responding or explaining his edits doesn't particularly help his case) or a edit warring block should he continue to do the same edits over and over but without actually breaking 3RR. For the latter you really need to not be the only person reverting though as you'll probably get blocked as well, and that pretty much goes for the former too as it shows he's actually being disruptive.

(That said, I haven't really looked too closely on his editing-history, just the most recent edits, so there might be grounds for a block already. The correct venue is definitely ANI and not AIV though since his most recent edits doesn't seem to clearly be vandalism.)

Hopefully that helps, and I'll definitely keep an eye on him as well :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Can't be bothered to create a new heading) There's a discussion about whether "mainstream emergence" is a accaptable term (as a heading) for describing Strikeforce's expansion in 2008/2009 at Talk:Strikeforce where your input would be appreciated. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Not sure what to say really. Not sure I feel like getting into an edit war right now either, I'd rather watch Eagles vs. Colts which just finished downloading (:D). I say it's best not to change it until in a few days or so so that as many people as possible gets that change to chime in and thus show a clear(er) consensus. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one simple problem, the discussion completely ignores all the relevant sources out there. The proposition that you used to justify sources for the section was simply yours and not wikipeadia's. MMAweekly is a credible source as well as others.Sea888 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]