User talk:Aktsu/Archives/2009/June

Article/Fighter Notability

Hey Aktsu! Question for you. I was wondering about your opinion on two articles in terms of notability:

• Jeremiah Riggs has fought on two regional/local cards; his greatest claim to fame seems to be losing his elimination match in episode 1 of TUF 7, and not being seen from again.
• Dan Simmler also lost his only match on TUF 7 in the elimination round. Other than that he's had only a single fight.

I'm feeling a little punchy tonight and figured I should ask someone about these two articles/fighters before I start slapping deletion requests on them. With that I'm walking away from the computer for the night. Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Simmler might be notable because of his BJJ achivements but if so just barely (only competed at the brown-belt level etc). I think I'd still go 'delete'. Riggs is definetly not notable in my book. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated Jeremiah Riggs for deletion, and I think I did everything right in the process. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Riggs‎). --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh... well WP:ATHLETE was just used by someone to advocate keeping Jeremiah Riggs. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joe Warren (fighter)

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joe Warren (fighter), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 09:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

UFC 2009

Yep, I knew I was coming up on it, if not after hitting it, thanks for the reminder though! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 20:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion

I was wondering if you'd look at this guy's edit history and let me know what might be done aside from continuing to revert his nonsense. Thanks. BenTrotsky (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, definetly seems like a single-purpose account hell-bent on enlightening us on this Arvanitis-guy yeah... Can't say I'm convinced about the validity of his additions, and I definetly agree with reverting until some proper sources are presented. The best thing to do is probably to involve more people and if he continue get a consensus somewhere giving grounds for having him blocked should he continue to be disruptive (hopefully it won't come to that though). I'll help keep an eye one him in any case. Welcome back btw :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DaMarques Johnson

Could you add something to DaMarques' article about the rivalry on TUF 9 between, Johnson and Bisping. I just don't know the words to add to the Ultimate Fighter section. I would really appreciate it, thank you. 68.188.29.77 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't watched this season :\ TreyGeek seems to be keeping the TUF9 article up-to-date though, so he might be able to help. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of alternate accounts (IP & registered User)

You may not have the answer, but perhaps you can help me figure out what to do to be sure I don't overreact. Hypothetically (yeah, yeah), say we have a registered user that has recently been discovered to have made non-constructive edits, edits that could result in a block of the account. Then, say, another person has reasonable belief to suspect this registered user also often edits articles while not logged in. The IP doesn't appear to be making any non-constructive edits. However, the IP and username edit the same set of articles and the "two accounts" have even responded to questions/statements made to the other.

WP:SOCK says in a nutshell "one user, one account." However, the use of two accounts, if it really is happening, isn't being done in a deceptive way (I don't think). There could still be a potential issue in the future, particularly if the username were to be blocked or the IP makes non-constructive edits as the username is.

So, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is at what point should the possible connection be investigated and what is the best way to proceed? In reading various pages on this issue (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, WP:MULTIPLE, Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry) I get mixed opinions as to whether this "hypothetical" case should be reported or not. Do you have any thoughts or opinions for this situation? Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as long as the IP isn't being non-constructive I don't think there's an issue as editing under multiple accounts is perfectly fine as long as you don't abuse them. Should one of them be blocked I'd say requesting a checkuser is a good idea as it's always the person that's blocked, not the account, but if they IP is still being constructive you'd have to ask yourself if there's any point (per policy you probably should - but if the IP is being constructive why bother?). I'm not 100%, but I don't think there's an outing-esque policy on revealing connections between accounts but I remember reading something so I'll try to look it up now.. But in any case, if I've read your post correctly I'd say there's no rush to do something about it unless you have reason to believe the two are being used abusivly. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add the above is very hypothetical, and I'm probably not being realistic. If the account is blocked and I think it's his IP I'd immediatly either call for a WP:DUCK block or a checkuser. If it's not blatantly obvious they're the same and the IP is being constructive I'd probably not bother. They way you're describing it it sounds like it's pretty blatant though. I'm just saying that unless there's an actual problem you probably don't need to do anthing. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK scratch that, I'm not considering a realistic situation. I'll say this: unless he's abusing editing under multiple accounts there's probably no need to do anything. The moment one of them is blocked, you should call for a DUCK-block or checkuser. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh... that's the direction I was leaning. I'll keep an eye on the edits for all three of this person's accounts (*sigh*) and should one get blocked in the future, I'll raise the issue then. Thanks for the info. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Koppenhaver

You accused me of copy edits on the page Jon Koppenhaver. I have not done any thing of that. Koppenhaver I watch but haven't had any copy editing issues. I no longer care of the issue but do not gang up on me like you and TreyGeek did ever again. I really did not appreciate that. Justastud15 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this not you adding material from UFC.com (with only minor edits) to the article? If I'm mistaken, I apologize. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copy edited before and still do it on occasion because I forget of the "rules". In all seriousness, that was not me who made those edits and have no idea who. I also apologize for the bad edits, I just don't like seeing plan pages with just a record box. Justastud15 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes two of us :) Just be careful not to copy-paste or closely paraphrase material in the future and it's all good. You do some good work so I'd hate to see you blocked but Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am learning so soon I should have this stuff down. I'll try to remember not to copy and paste or reword anything. Thank you for the help. Justastud15 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fighter Profiles

I am trying to put in a useful resource(mmamoneyline.com) for individual fighters and it keeps on getting deleted. It isn't Spam...it is relevant information. Can you tell me why the links keep getting taken down, and what I can do to make them acceptable. Martygraw80 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Carano/Cyborg

I put in "arguably" for NPOV due to ranking bias and unreliability. Also Carano vs Cyborg will headline a MAJOR mma event is completely true. RegardsSea888 (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

UFC Jakks Action Figures?

Why are you removing the fighter lineups for the new UFC Official Jakks Pacific Action Figures? This is a major UFC licensed product.

You allowed under the Action Figure category, a full paragraph for the Round 5 action figures, which are not sanctioned by the UFC. The UFC has nothing to do with Round 5 figures yet you allow that incorrect information to remain.

It is providing INFORMATION to tell people which fighters were chosen by the UFC for their action figure lines. It is providing INFORMATION to inform users of major UFC licensed product deals and fighters in those deals. J29 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All-terrain vehicle

Thank you for the copyright update. I rewrote my information to comply with the copyright law and reposted it. Please let me know if there is a problem. It is Here --Trackn (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Benavidez

Hi, I've been a personal friend of Joe since 1996 (middle school). I'm not sure how you want me to verify he played football or how he moved back to Las Cruces after attending junior college. Even in the Urijah Faber article there is no source for him playing football, rollerblading or wrestling, so i'm not sure why you need one in Joseph's case. The Las Cruces part is pretty obvious since one of the articles mentions he was working at a T shirt print shop (GSI) and had fights in Las Cruces. Also he was born in San Antonio, but lived most of his life in Las Cruces. Hometown can also be defined as where someone was raised, as well as where they were born. So a hometown doesn't always have to mean where someone was born. Perhaps I can do some searching to see if his name comes up under any newspaper articles to verify that he was on the football team if you need it bad enough. --Bluesoju (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here I found one source showing he attended William Penn, the junior college in Iowa. [1]. Also I think someone tampered with one of your user boxes on your user front page. --Bluesoju (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The vandalized item i was talking about was the box that says: "This user is A COMPLETE HOAX...DOSNT HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT MIXED MARTIAL ARTS." Also finding a way to prove he was on the high school football team seems hard to do unless he flat out says it on an interview somewhere. I mean I could personally interview him, but that wouldn't seem professional enough to go on wikipedia. Also i'm not sure if William Penn is a junior college or not, i'll have to check on it. If there's more I can do for you let me know. I tried to get upload a picture of him on there, but I didn't follow the exact wikipedia rules so it got taken down --Bluesoju (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

William Penn University is a Quaker-founded university in Oskaloosa, Iowa. In my most Friendly manner I can assure you that it is not a junior college. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) a Friend, married to an Iowan

Peacock word(s)

Yup, that's a content dispute. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

SF

I fixed most of it. Read it carefully I've rewritten everything. Yes, I wanted to stress the importance of ProElite and CBS separately to avoid confusion.Sea888 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not copy and paste a paragraph. That was a statement clearly, and it is cited. The other material was rewritten.Sea888 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten many of the original as many other pages are done this way. Please help.Sea888 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls turn your attention to the UFC page then, it has many problems that you have just mentioned. Mentioning Shamrock vs baroni is important and was rewritten to chronologize the events sf has with showtime. Thanks.Sea888 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls show npov and help by expanding or writing the facts to be presented in an encyclopeadic way, I think the info as of now is great and could be expanded on instead of completely deleting. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls read carefully as it is cited and under the "mainstream emergence" section. The statement is cited about sf and the mainstream. It was written by me but referred to by the source.Sea888 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You were right on the duplicate statement on Kimmel, that was my error. The problems stated were corrected. So far there has been great sources and it is easily readable.Sea888 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, pls do not delete the valuable sources, pls help by revising the material at hand instead of deleting. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. But facts are facts too. This page needs to seriously be expanded even more.Sea888 (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look at that later. Whew! I'm tired:) You are exaggerating the promotional material, I have rewritten, deleted, and changed questionable content to npov. Facts are facts. Pls refer specifically to the material you are talking about and it should be considered, but again facts are facts.Sea888 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please divert your attention to expanding the article.Sea888 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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