User talk:Glock17gen4

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to UFC 132, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: UFC 132 was changed by Glock17gen4 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873243 on 2011-07-14T05:05:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current UFC fighters

Thanks for fighting the good fight, but as it is an automatic bot changing this article it is an impossible battle. I am working on a work around to get the flag icons back up on the page, and until then have a stop gap. You can continue to revert this page back to the flag icons if you like, but I would not suggest it as you will be battling a computer program. Hopefully I can get this sorted quickly. Thanks, Thaddeus Venture (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bradley is listed on UFC as a Welterweight, so Until I see a better referenced article that their fight is def. taking place at middleweight, I will assume it's taking place at Welterweight and Bradley is moving down. If you have a good link for pierce moving up please share it. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the update. Its always good to have a link with that sort of thing so it can be verified. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely zero interest in being in the middle of this. Having checked Cung Le's twitter, he aparently has some issues himself with being displayed with a Vietnamese flag. As that is the case and he is a full US citizen I would rather create an exception for him than have to deal with messy edit war. Besides, it sounds like he won't be in the UFC for much longer, rendering this whole issue moot as far as I'm concerned. Please help me take the simple way out and avoid a meaningless conflict. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbo Slice

Please STOP editing the Kimbo Slice article about his pro. boxing record. His opponents name is Tay, NOT Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glock17gen4&action=edit&section=3added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbo Slice vs. Tay

It ok. :) The most imortant thing that he won another fight:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not it does not: http://www.boxingnews24.com/2011/10/weights-kimbo-slice-vs-ray-bledsoe/ http://www.fightsrec.com/tay-bledsoe.html

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=433307&cat=boxer

ufc undisputed 3 weight classes

Hey i was wondering if you could tell me how to update the UFC undisputed 3 weight classes, as their are some fighters confirmered for other weight classes that have yet to be put on the topic. Also how do you make new one for the pride roster.

Edit: Thanks.c.m1994 (Hi) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you out of your mind?

What kind of a source is a "tale of the tape"? There's no country named "South Vietnam", he's an American national. Period. Behemoth (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is Vietnamese, he came out to a red and gold star Vietnam flag, not an American flag, so please stop changing it.

Actually, he did not COME OUT to the gold star Flag. That was due to the UFC production. Are you saying that UFC production tale of the tape is 100% accurate and never wrong? When Cung Le even responded on his twitter that he did not know about the communist flag and he will ask the UFC about it. You clearly seem to have an issue with Cung Le recognizing himself as an American of Vietnamese descent aka Vietnamese-American. You continue to ignore the proof I have provided that he is in fact an American, and that he is only representing his heritage/ethnicity. No different than fighters such as Mark Muoz (Filipino heritage) and Cain Velasquez (Mexican heritage). You continue to use the excuse that it is the tale of the tape. Even when you state that you would be ok with the South Vietnam flag, you continue to revert it back to the communist flag. This has nothing to do with me being offended, rather that you REFUSE to adknowledge the NUMEROUS and significant evidence I have provided. Again, you only have ONE picture which Cung Le had no control over. This is something you refuse to understand and accept. Furthermore, it is EXTREMELY offensive to Vietnamese-Americans and extremely disrespectful to Cung Le because he has NEVER represented himself with the Communist Flag.

What part don't you understand? Frankly, there is no truce because You clearly do not want one. I will continue to change the flag since you refuse to acknowledge the proof, including Cung Le's response. You are trolling, no doubt about it! PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/386683_308847835811428_308847602478118_1157132_1118996196_n.jpg Thanks to this image and the help of Cyberpower678, the correct flag for Cung Le has offically been ruled this flag

Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at UFC 139, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are in violation of WP:3RR if you do not stop and discuss on the article's talk/discussion page, I will report you for blocking. This also pertains to the other article you are fighting about. I will review this information myself and come up with a consensus. —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glock17gen4. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 00:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glock17gen4. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 00:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glock17gen4. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MY DECISION

I have concluded with information on hand that the information on the page regarding his whereabouts, is America. The flag is to remain the way it is now and not be altered to his birth place. I am sorry. Information provided to me outweighs yours. Your information states he was born in Vietnam. The Wikipedia article demands his current whereabouts. He represents America according to him and he lives in America. I am generously cautioning you not to revert this or I will be forced to report you.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake! How does a twitter account that possibly isnt even real outweigh a photo and what I have seen with my own eyes? I know alot about MMA, and I know this is a mistake... Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The official UFC website states he lives in the USA which is what the Wikipedia article is supposed to say. I am not fully relying on Twitter. I have looked at the other sources. Yours simply states where he was born. You may wish to contest this by discussing this with me.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I will continue to discuss this, because this decision was made on haste without even considering the solid proof I had to offer, or the fact I know more about UFC than many people who actually think Cung Le is American, he was born in Saigon, the tale of the tape showed a red one star Vietnam flag, and his shorts had a South Vietnam flag design on them! What can I do to prove this if my image isn't good enough? Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cung Le from what I know was born in Saigon in South Vietnam. When it got taken over by North Vietnam, he fled to America. I am giving him a call right now and leaving a message if not there. Does this satisfy you for the time being?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but are you actually trying to tell me you know Cung Le's number? Because I dont believe that for a second...

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f44/cung-le-vs-wandy-weigh-moment-1891619/ Also these people know alot about MMA, they are saying he is Vietnamese.

I have alot of knowledge about MMA, just as you have alot of knowledge about pokemon and PinoyGuy has alot of knowledge on basketball. I am not satisfied because I have made many contributions to MMA pages, and now I want to leave Wikipedia now because I feel my contributions aren't respected... Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are respected however, you are providing misinformation. Nationality can change. He lives in America and represents America in the fight. That is stated in the official UFC website. I will be talking to other users about this. I left Cung Le an e-Mail and a voicemail message. He can tell us the truth about the articles. Source of his contact information, cungle.com. It redirects to his Facebook page which has his phone number. For the time being we will consider him under American citizenship which in that case warrants a USA flag. You can't put Southern Vietnam because:

It went under.
As it went under he no longer was a citizen of South Vietnam
He represents America and lives in the USA assuming when he fled he acquired citizenship as to be allowed to live in the USA since a South Vietnam passport would no longer be valid, not allowing him to get any form of document that would allow him to live in the USA as a citizen of a country that no longer exists.

I'm sorry you got blocked.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told I was only going to be blocked if I edited the article again, and they did it anyways. Yet they didnt do the same to Pinoy? Now I feel discriminated against, they blocked me for no reason, I really want to leave wikipedia now, seems im not respected here. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you, but I didn't report you. It seems though that the administrators agree with me and Pinoy and saw your edits as disruptive as a result. Pinoy was trying to revert your stuff presenting evidence that outweighs yours. An administrator must have been watching this entire time. Relax. It's only 24h. There are users that get blocked for months. Again I'm sorry.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? You presented one picture that depicts where he was born. Pinoy presented numerous websites that talked about what was in question, nationality. I don't see how this is biased. I neither know you or Pinoy. Other users were disagreeing with you too. Do you think that's biased or the fact that you may be wrong and you don't want to admit it or convinced that it's right when majority says it's wrong. I am a Wikipedia editor to contribute and dispute with a neutral view. This user will be going offline shortly, hence the red signature.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/386683_308847835811428_308847602478118_1157132_1118996196_n.jpg Thanks to this image and the help of Cyberpower678, the correct flag for Cung Le has offically been ruled this flag

Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Disruptive editing: on UFC 139. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glock17gen4 (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? Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:3RR. As a WP:BLP issue, Pinoy was within his rights to revert your edits as much as necessary - therefore he was not blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 23 November 2011 (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.

Glock, I may know a lot about basketball, but I am familiar with both Cung Le and Vietnamese-American history. That link you sent about Sherdog, there were users who did not even know if he was Chinese or Vietnamese. First of all, Le is a Vietnamese surname. Second, calling Cung Le Vietnamese is no different than calling Cain Velasquez Mexican or Mark Munoz - Filipino. Do you get what I am saying? Those terms are acknowledging their heritage and ethnicity. Those are not their nationalities. Please learn the history of Vietnamese-American who fled after the war. There is a reason why Cung Le is quoted and calling himself an American Wushu Champion. He even competed and coached Team USA. This is widely listed all over his bios. Simply labeling him as Vietnamese is innaccurate. He IS NOT A VIETNAMESE national.

International competitions around the world, especially Olympics, it is well known that nationalities can change through citizenship. Go look up Serge Ibaka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Ibaka Born in Congo, but later obtained Spanish Citizenship and competed for Team Spain. Cung Le does not even represent the current communist Flag, the South Vietnamese flag is all over his website and he himself stated that already. If you were truly an MMA fan, you would know this. This is not about respect, it's about understanding the facts and evidence and understand the DIFFERENCE between NATIONALITY vs Ethnicity/Heritage. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know nothing of MMA, you are completely biased, you are a vandal, and you are disrespectful. I know the facts, and what you are saying is false. I also saw that you tryed to report me for no reason. Please leave me alone and stay off my page. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another administrator saw your violation of WP:3RR. It warrants an immediate block if violated.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit after the warning, and now I feel this is biased, unfair, discrimination and this makes me wanna stop contributing to Wikipedia for good... Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for reverting edits that the majority of the users disagreed to according to the blocking administrator.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like somebodys afraid of the truth... Oh and btw, I'm not gunna sign this comment, they got a bot to do that, you dont respect me, and I dont respect you, deal?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/wikitort.html

Some might say that looks suspiciously like a legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked unfairly, and I feel discriminated against. I did what the admin said and was still blocked. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violation of WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule. Also, WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 23 November 2011 (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.

Wikipedia is biased

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a unblock request. Also, a thread relevant to your actions here has been created at WP:ANI. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 23 November 2011 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

I like how this went from being edit disputes to legal threats against Wikipedia. I'm going to bed now. I'm exhausted from this.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following that last personal attack [1], talk page access has been revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your email

Regarding your points, Pinoy was not blocked because BLP policy violations are exempt from the WP:3RR rule when it comes to reverting and removing them. As your editing was a BLP violation, Pinoy was not in violation of WP:3RR. As for the legal threat being a joke and potential unblocking, you can email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org to present your case for unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock this user. After coming into contact with the coworker of Cung Le, he has identified Cung Le to having a Vietnamese Nationality which is the dispute that caused this user to get blocked. I urge you to please let this user have a second chance and let them start fresh. Thank you for your time. —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedurally declined due to request not by the user in question. Furthermore, this user cannot even be considered for unblocking until he withdraws his legal threats. WilliamH (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2011 (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.

Understood.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 02:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my legal threat, I request to be unblocked!

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I formally withdraw taking legal action against wikipedia! Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Granted per retraction and expiration of 3RR block. Please pay close attention to WP:3RR and WP:BLP, and find support for your changes not via edit warring, but by discussion and mutual agreement among other editors. Remember that pursuing the behaviour that got you blocked will get you blocked for longer. WilliamH (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WilliamH!

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I hope you will be a productive editor who enjoys your time on Wikipeida, but please do not ever make personal attacks over email again. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks in an email? When did I make a personal attack? Glock17gen4 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sent three emails to my account when you were blocked. The first was polite; the second two were egrerious personal attack screeds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as User talk:Cyberpower678 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Do not use my as a forum. —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not even know what oversight is or why I am blocked again. Can anyone help me with this? Glock17gen4 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An oversighter is a special administrator who has the power to expunge information from Wikipedia permanently. Given that an oversighter first purged a series of comments you made, and then blocked you, there is good reason to believe to said something eggregious, such as a gross personal attack or attempt to out another editor. I will ask William H. to clarify, but I do not feel comfortable unblocking you given why you were blocked. Jayron32 01:16, 26 November 2011 (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.

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never tried to out anyone, and I didnt post any personal info. If I made a personal attack I am unaware of I am sorry and take it back. But, I still dont understand why I am blocked... Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on some information sent by the blocking admin via email (non-specific, but still sensitive in nature) I am declining this unblock request. Please contact WP:BASC. Jayron32 02:57, 26 November 2011 (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.

I do not understand why I am blocked, can I at least have the reason emailed to me?

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just want to help clear this up. I do not understand why they blocked me, nobody even gave me a reason why besides the vague word "Oversight" Which I dont know what I violated. Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this is an Oversight matter, it is not possible to unblock via these requests now. You need to contact the arbitration committee via WP:BASC as suggested -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2011 (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.

I would recommend you contact the arbitration committee via WP:BASC as I described above. That would be the best course of action at this point. --Jayron32 03:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're not even going to tell me why I was blocked? Why can't they give me a reason? I dont understand... Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email them. They will explain. --Jayron32 03:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did already, no reply yet. Why cant you just tell me? Via email privately if you must? I'm in the dark here... Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give them some time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the meantime, can they at least tell me what I did wrong and whats going on? Why can nobody tell me why I'm blocked? This is really weird! Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to wait for a reply from them. WilliamH did not send me enough information to carry on an intelligent conversation with you about this matter, even via email, but he did tell me enough to know that this is not a normal matter for any normal admin to deal with, and you're going to have to wait for a response from ARBCOM or WilliamH himself for any further information. The only thing I feel comfortable saying is that this block relates to the release of sensitive information through Wikipedia. (which is pretty much all he told me). I (nor, really, any normal admin who would respond to an unblock template) do not have, and have no means of obtaining, any more detailed information than that, so I am afraid that no one except ARBCOM and WilliamH is going to be able to answer your question. Sorry. --Jayron32 03:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue extends beyond Admins? I thought admins were the highest ranked! Who do I have to contact now? I did not release any sensitive infomation... Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASC. Did we not tell you that? --Jayron32 03:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well can u ask WilliamH for me? lol Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can. Try Special:EmailUser/WilliamH. I think he's active now (or at least within the past hour). --Jayron32 03:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted WilliamH, I was told the reason I was blocked, and I want to maintain my innocence, I never posted any sensative information, and I did not invade anyones privacy. I am not guilty, and my logs can be checked, you will not find any thing I did to violate the oversight rule, can I be unblocked now? Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. No, you cannot. You're going to have to wait for ArbCom and WilliamH and others with the correct level of permissions to investigate. As I told you before, no one who could unblock you via the unblock template is going to. If you are innocent, make your case to ArbCom via WP:BASC, and/or WilliamH. If you are actually innocent, they will quickly exonerate you. Thanks for the laugh, though... --Jayron32 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well im glad I can bring laugher in the situation! :D How long does it take for the Arbitor to check this? Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few days? A few weeks? No idea. Email them and ask them. (Actually don't, there's not much you can do to speed things along, but there's a lot you can do to annoy people by badgering them a whole lot. Badgered people are not likely to feel the need to be responsive.) --Jayron32 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great... Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information regarding "my logs can be checked, you will not find any thing I did to violate the oversight rule": Ordinary admins *can not* see material removed by someone with Oversight permission, so we have no idea what it was and cannot possibly evaluate any unblock request - that's why only Arbcom and the blocking Oversighter can deal with this, and why unblock requests here have to be declined -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you contacted ArbCom and explained to them nicely what happened, they should be releasing your block soon. They released mine this morning.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea they emailed me and asked me to agree to a bunch of terms, some Kenneth Kua guy. He said I can come back if I accepted his terms and I did, but he aint unblocked me yet...

They said I can come back if I agree to terms

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agreed to the Arbitor's terms, he said he'd unblock me but I dunno, I told him I accepted the terms and he aint unblocked me yet... Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wait for a response from the Arbitration Committee. If need be, send them another email to follow up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:19, 29 November 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agreed to the Arbitor's terms, he said he'd unblock me but I dunno, I told him I accepted the terms and he aint unblocked me yet... Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Apologies for the delay, I was on my way home. Your account has now been unblocked. Please bear in mind the editorial policies and guidelines on Wikipedia while editing. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks diablo! Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ufcfx1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ufcfx1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Ufcfx1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ufcfx1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to UFC 145, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Glock17gen4. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Event Pages & article naming scheme.

I'm not sure if you have the MMA Wikiproject on your watchlist. A discussion was started there yesterday about the naming scheme for UFC event articles. Your thoughts and input would be welcome. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help! Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info!

ah i was wondering about that. thank you for doing the corrections ands other edits! there was another signing today as well. i put the date of the event. and wow the UFC is just getting bigger and bigger isnt it? seems to be a new guy everyday or every other day lol

i find these signings by reading all these obscure MMA websites lol theres a ton of em haha once again thanks a lot Glock! Vicktor Raze (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, im glad they made that Fox deal, 5 years ago the UFC wasnt half as big as it is now! Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tommy Hayden (fighter) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tommy Hayden (fighter) 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/Tommy Hayden (fighter) 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 good 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. TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the vote you made for the ProElite event pages

Don't worry, its nothing serious, just add the 4 '~' symbols at the end of your vote, these people get very picky about how a vote is done so its best not to give them ammo to find a way to makeyour vote void. thanks BigzMMA (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap I forgot, thanks man. Glock17gen4 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX 4

You removed an AFD tag on an article after an IP vandalized it. Please don't remove AFD tags unless you are 100 percent sure you know what is going on by checking into the article's history a bit more. It has been restored. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was tricked by the vandalism, I thought the issue was resolved. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Event Posters

Hey, since u seem to be entwine with the MMA Project i need some help here. I went through the Event Program found here: http://www.ufc.com/program and on page 23 and 27 there are official event posters for UFC 145 and UFC on FX 2. What should we do with them and how do we make them as images? --Imhungry4444 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, try print scrning it and getting a screenshot in paint. Glock17gen4 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFL 1

Hello, I don't think you can remember me, but we both voted Keep for the ProElite articles. I am here to ask you if you could go to the AfD page for this event and vote. If you look into the event, it meets the same, if not more, coverage as the ProElite pages and for this reason I voted Keep. The SFL is India's first MMA Promotion, and their upcoming event this weekend will mark the first MMA event to ever happen in India. Prior to the fights Jennifer Lopez, LMFAO and many other famous music acts will perform prior to the event to gain an audience and then they can stay to watch the fights after it, which will be headlined by James Thompson and Bob Sapp. There are dozens of articles out there on this event but please take the time to research these and vote for whatever you believe it should be. BigzMMA (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll be glad to help out Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). BigzMMA (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SFL 2

The article SFL 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mean as custard (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149

Please keep in mind that the AfD resulting in the merger/redirect of UFC 149 was closed only four days ago. Sufficient time has likely not passed to change the consensus as judged by the closing admin. Recreation of the article this soon could be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a discussion at the MMA WikiProject on this article and its status. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was ok to unredirect it because they are announcing the event now. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the AfD was about whether the event was notable not only because it hadn't been announced, but because there was/is no evidence the event meets other criteria including WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:EFFECT. While the event has been confirmed, there is only been half a fight announced or even speculated. It seems to me, not much has changed in the last four days since the AfD was closed and more time is needed before the article fully restored.

Of course, if you or others disagree with me, you could ask the closing admin if he believes things have changed significantly enough to restore the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are bouts in the works right now, I think enough has changed for the article to be restored, I'd ask the closing admin about it but I dont exactly know who he is, haha. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin left their message at the top of the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I msged him and left him this link showing the UFC has announced UFC 149 and stated Jose Aldo will defend his featherweight title in the main event, if thats not notable I dont know what is. http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/UFC-Announces-Fall-Events-in-Toronto-Montreal-Aldo-Officially-Headlines-July-21-Event-in-Calgary-41265 Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give them a lot of information to work off of. I responded on their talk page as well with more details to explain what is going on with the situation. I attempted to make it as unbias as possible. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know I thought that article was enough, BTW why on earth are they trying to delete UFC 140 and say THAT's not notable? I'm very surprised that a UFC event that already happened where a title was defended would be considered not notable. I mean, might as well delete all UFC related events if UFC 140 or UFC 149 isnt considered notable... Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, it's because the article looks like crap. Prior to the start of the AfD, UFC 140 contained pretty much only a list of fight results; even now the additional prose and discussion is hidden at the bottom of the page under the right results. WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT say that Wikipedia articles should contain more information than just routine fight announcements and results, and specifically it should have "well sourced prose". To the uninformed reader, UFC 140 looks to have the same notability as Jungle Fight 1. Remember, Wikipedia articles are supposed to serve to educate uninformed readers about the topic contained in the article. This is a problem that almost all MMA event articles have and this will be continuing battle until we as MMA WikiProject editors do a better job of actually writing content about events, organizations, and fighters. Once the AfD for UFC 140 is closed (presumably it will be either 'keep' or 'no consensus') I'll try to work on adding 'well-soured' content and prose to the article that lets the article establish the notability on its own. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well I'll see if I can find more sources for it. What kinda info would be useful? Glock17gen4 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See UFC 94. It has been given good article standing which should be the goal of every Wikipedia article short of featured article standing. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the difference between UFC 94 and UFC 140 is one of the biggest super fights in UFC history happened there. I mean GSP vs BJ Penn? Welterweight champ vs. Lightweight champ at the time? Yea thats gunna be a huge article, but the UFC cant afford to make super fights like that all the time. But the UFC is the biggest MMA organization in the entire world, every single event they have should be recorded on wikipedia, even if it is mostly results. Because when you think about it, every UFC event can be related to another, it sort of tells a story in a way. If UFC 140 or 149 is deleted, it's like a page is missing from that story, because both are very important events in UFC history. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't dismiss that article so quickly. There is a lot of information in that article outside of Penn vs St-Pierre or the greasing controversy. There's a full paragraph on the background of Machida-Silva and another paragraph going into the background of the other fights on the card. There is a paragraph on text discussing the event, location, attendance, PPV buys, etc. There are actual paragraphs of text describing each fight. Finally, there's a section discussing what happened after event in regards to the people involved in it and it isn't all just Penn, St-Pierre and greasing.

What I'm trying to say, is that UFC 94 has actual prose discussing the event and the fights. It's also very well sourced. Look at practically every other MMA event article. It's a one sentence "paragraph" about each fight in the background section, a list of fight results, a list of bonus awards, and sometimes a list of entrance music or payouts. However, they lack the prose. There is nothing to actually read! An encyclopedia should be read to learn things, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (not a stats book).

If we as a WikiProject cannot reproduce this for every event, even if on a smaller scale, then perhaps we should be combining them into articles like 2012 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thats not half bad an idea, sorta like the Bellator pages that are separated into seasons right? Another idea is to have like a page like UFC 140-149, UFC 150-159 and so on. But yea I think for the big events like UFC 94 that deserves it's own page. Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that really major events can be split off into their own article with well written prose. That is assuming a "year in" article is the way to go. I've offered up the idea of the "2012 in UFC events" on the MMA WikiProject page, but folks there didn't seem too wild about it. The idea may be more popular for non-UFC events (BAMMA? SFL? etc). I figure at the very least, what I have in my sandbox can provide a good stub for the start of prose for the UFC articles about each event to build off of. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should do it for free events, like UFC on Fox, UFC on FX etc. Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good idea: 2012 in UFC on FX events and/or 2011 in UFC Fight Night events. However, will people accept having UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger, UFC on Fuel TV: Gustafsson vs. Silva, and UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier redirect to 2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events? Or will they wig out and want to remove the redirect and keep the existing articles?

I haven't pressed the issue much in the last few days (besides off-wiki life being a bit hectic at the moment). I figure I'll wait for the UFC 140 AfD to end. I'm expecting it to be closed as a 'no consensus'. I'll then try to put in some effort to write up a decent article about it; I should have more time in a few days to focus on it. "Year in" event articles can wait for now since there wasn't a lot of support for it at the WikiProject. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear life isnt going so great for you. Well for Fox events, this page UFC on Fox can be used, and UFC on FX, UFC on Fuel TV and so on. The numbered events will be harder to organize tho. Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of SFL 2 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SFL 2 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/SFL 2 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 good 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. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa 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/ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa 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 good 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. Mt king^(edits) 03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Before you either create any new articles or comment on any more AfD's, you might like to have a read of a number pages

Policy :
- WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
Notability Guidelines :
- WP:MMAEVENT,
- WP:EVENT and
- WP:SPORTSEVENT

Which are there to help editors understand what should and should not be subject to WP articles.

Mt king^(edits) 06:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For you to say a UFC event with actual fights on it isn't notable clearly shows your lack of knowledge and respect for the sport. Glock17gen4 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you don't seem to have understood what WP as an encyclopaedia is here for, it is not to be a record of every sports event that happens, it only records the ones that demonstrate lasting significance. As an example have a look for articles on any of the 2000+ regular season MLB games played in 2011, all of which will have received far more coverage in RS than any single UFC event, will have had more spectators live at the game than any UFC event and will have had vastly more TV viewers than any UFC event, you probably wont find a single one. Why ? because as individual games they have no lasting historical significance; the same goes for the UFC event's, yers they happened, yes they had news coverage, but there is no lasting significance to any of the events they held. Mt king^(edits) 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure discrimation and you know it, why cant you go attack some boxing articles? THis is your opinion that it's not notable, it's very notable, this is the fasting growing sport in the world. And I checked that WP:MMAEVENT, it lists UFC as a highly notable organization, oops! I really hope you get your rollbacker rights revoked, because I'm sick of this attack on my favorite sport, why dont you try this with boxing? The only one who thinks the UFC isnt notable, is YOU! Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading it again as you missed the start of that section when it says "Individual events are not inherently considered notable" Mt king^(edits) 08:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesnt stop the event from being notable... Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE and WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2012 in UFC events. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits to 2012 in UFC events are disruptive - Please stop this, please discuss at the talk page. Mt king^(edits) 08:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did I make 3 reverts? I was just trying to help that page look presentable...Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did not say you had made 3, you were fast approaching it and you were asked to make your case to the talk page, which you ignored. Mt king^(edits) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did, you tryed to throw a WP:3RR at me, and it doesnt matter if you think I "was fast approaching it" in your opinion, you need 3 to hold anything against me, if you're gunna try and throw he rule book at me, at least do it if I ACTUALLY BREAK A RULE! You just proved you dont know what you're doing. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing things up

Hi. I read your thread at WP:ANI, and I have to say that I understand how frustrated you are, but I have to say you are not entirely innocent in that incident. I want to clear things up, as a lot of people are accusing you of "I didn't hear that" behavior, among other accusations. In order for you to learn from what you did, I will give you a quick quiz.
1. Why are individual events not notable, unless they are especially notable?

2. What is (the exact definition of) edit warring, and how does it harm Wikipedia? (Optional: Explain why the Three revert rule was made.)

3. What is assuming good faith?

The lessons I want you to learn here is 1. There is no secret conspiracy against you. 2. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit-warring. 3. Assume that most of us here are trying to help you. It may not look like that in your point of view, but Mtking was warning you about edit-warring, as this is seriously bad for the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. 4. It's not like we didn't tell you to use the talk page. Mtking's warning told you to use the talk page before reverting. I have to say that this makes me wonder if you read the whole thing. Because of that, people say you have a "I didn't hear that" attitude, as many editors have gone the extra mile to explain concisely why some things you are doing are wrong by Wikipedia standards, but it seems like you forget that every 5 seconds. I can understand that you are on thin ice with other editors, but you are responsible, to some extent, for the problems you've been experiencing. Don't get me wrong, you can be a very good editor, but almost everybody has problems on Wikipedia. Thanks. P.S. Don't say that someone has abused their rollback privileges just by warning you. Unless they have used rollback against you in this case, this is not abuse. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well thanks. I'll try and answer there questions as best I can.

1. I believe individual events are not notable, unless they're from one of the 3 top MMA organizations. UFC, Bellator, and Strikeforce. But I must say I like the fact that the Bellator page separated their event's into seasons.

2. Edit warring is where 2 or more people edit and revert parts of an article back and forth, and it's unconstructive. I wasnt doing anything of the sort tho, which is why I thought him accusing me of such was ridiculous.

3. Assuming good faith is believing that someone is doing something for a good reason. Glock17gen4 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your E-Mail

“

Why are you trying to ruin our UFC articles?

”

Answer: They are not yours in the first place. Mt king^(edits) 04:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said to you! Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have disrupted nothing, and I dont have a battleground mentality, so I should not be blocked. Glock17gen4 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Try looking at a) your contributions and b) this talkpage ... you'll get a good idea of disruption and battleground attitude (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 31 March 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.

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I was blocked was not explained to me, and I have not disrupted anything, and I do not have a battleground mentality. If I have broken those rules, then explain how I broke them with quotes, because I did nothing wrong and dont deserve to be blocked. Glock17gen4 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here's a hint. Spamming multiple pages with loud, shouty comments about bureaucracy and WP:IAR because you don't like the rules is disruptive. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 31 March 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.

I must have asked you four or five times to calm down and to comment on content instead of attacking other users. I realize this is a topic you have a lot of interest in and you are passionate about it, but what you have been doing is not how we resolve disputes around here. I tried to point you in the right direction repeatedly, but you just kept making hostile comments. Practically every edit you made to the UFC 2012 talk page called out two other users by name. I sincerely hope you are beginning to understand why this was not acceptable and will be able to participate constructively in the discussion once your block is over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want me to edit the article to make it better, I'll do just that. Sorta hard to do since I'm blocked tho now isnt it? Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok Elen of the Roads, I'll do all those 1. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia because. I have been a great contributor to MMA wiki related articles, I did not cause any harm to the 2012 in UFC events wiki page, I went by book and expressed by concern about the poor format of the new articles, and voted in the AFD, I did not disruptfully edit that article in any way shape or form. 2. Do I understand what the block is for? Well, appearently, administrator The ED17 thinks in his opinion I was being disruptive, thats not the case, I had treygeek and mtking throw the rule book at me and then they challenged everyone to see if they were violating wikipedia's policies, so I did exactly that, I pointed out what they violated. And for that I got blocked. lol. 3. If me doing what treygeek asked was disruptive, which was to point out a wiki policy they violated, then I'm sorry I guess. 4. Well funny you should bring that up, I have been making useful contributions on wikipedia for awhile now, and I plan on continuing do to do. Does this mean I am now gunna support TreyGeek and MtKing in thier efforts, no... But I will help improve the page, they themselves asked that after telling people not to, so I guess I'm gunna improve the page as they asked, but kinda hard to do that when I'm being blocked, right? Glock17gen4 (talk) 2:31 pm, 31 March 2012, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You no longer appear to be blocked. If you are still unable to edit, please post the message you see when you try to edit. TNXMan 16:41, 2 April 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.

I finally found the time to wade through all the bashing from many users on the talk page of 2012 in UFC events and found that you and I agree with each other as to using Bellator Fighting Championships: Season One as a partial guide. If not for all the users jumping on the page, bashing each other, I would have found that sooner. I suggest taking the day off, relax off of Wikipedia, and when you get back, I would like to help all you work out a solution. It will require you work with TreyGeek and Mtking, but ironically, what they were trying to do is also in line with that other article that you and I think could serve as a basis. Glock, we are all on the same side, really we are. We all want great information here on Wikipedia, we only disagree on the format of that information. I said it before but will say it again: I trust you when it comes to the information you put on the MMA pages. I'm asking you to trust people like me and others when it comes to understanding the guidelines here. You know more about MMA, some of us just might know more about the policies here. We aren't enemies, we just specialize in different information. It takes all of working together. Like any other "team", a real professional can rise above the fray and work with those he doesn't like or agree with, as long as you are working toward a common goal. I'm hoping you are that kind of professional. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Dennis, if they can work with me and everyone else, I can work with them. And yet the Bellator format works. I can definitly help with the format, and make this page presentable, I also suggest a name change to the page, from "2012 in UFC events" to "UFC events in 2012. If we combine the detail of the old way, with the format of the new way and make a compromise, it will work. But uh... to help you guys I need to be unblocked, seriously... Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that last unblock request I would say it is pretty clear he is not. Glock, you might want to read WP:NOTTHEM. You are moving further from being unblocked, not closer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not trying to blame them, but they did ask me to point out what rules where violated, I thought that was a very important part of the unblock request, so thats why I included it, there was no intent to shift blame here. Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it appears that Trey agrees with him as well. [2], Glock voted against it at first, but maybe he should reconsider since he liked the same idea later on at the talk page. And I'm still holding out that Glock can cool down and realize that he was just too confrontational. He didn't offend me personally, but his actions were a little over the top so I supported the block so he could cool out, reconsider, and hopefully rejoin the conversation with the idea of moving forward. His accepting of the similar formatted fight article is a good start. Not everyone is so quick to accept change, I just wish Glock would realize that this kind of change will actually make the MMA articles better, not worse. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help fix that page to be more of a Bellator format style which works. So yes, I can work with them. Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That is a good place to start. I would recommend you ride out the 31 hours, whether or not you agree, but that is your decision. What matters now is where do we go from here. Also for what it is worth, I would suggest leaving a message on some talk pages telling people that you want to work with them, say you understand they are also wanting to improve Wikipedia even if you disagree with some of their ideas, then be willing to compromise. You might not want to hear it, but I'm telling you, eating a little crow is good for making friends and getting people to listen to your ideas. You are pulling them toward you instead of away from you, so they are more receptive to your ideas. Admitting that you took it a little too far, and saying you will try to not in the future isn't a sign of weakness, it is a sign of maturity and makes people more willing to listen. Seriously, we are all human, we all fuck up from time to time, and what you did wasn't the worst thing in the world, but it was disruptive and worthy of a short timeout (imho). I don't think you meant to be disruptive, and you have some good ideas, and I admire your passion about the topic, it is just your communication of that passion that needs a little fine tuning ;). And yes, being honest about it makes others trust you more. So...at this stage, either you understand where I'm going, or you think I'm stupid as hell, yet both are potentially correct. I'm hoping you can move forward, pull back your emotions just a little, remind yourself that we are all here to improve Wikipedia, and remember the old saying "May my words always be tender and sweet, for some day, I just might have to eat them." Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I have plenty of friends, and eating crow? Ummm no thanks I prefer chicken, more protein less of that rotting carcass taste. I'd message people on their talk pages but, well, I'm blocked and cant even do that, this and email is my only form of wikipedia communication. Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To beeblebrox

Saw this quote on WP:ANI from Beeblebrox.

"Based on his block log, I would say Glock got off pretty light."

I have a response to that since you like to bring up the past.: WP:REPENTANT Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm sure you have made many good edits to actual articles, your participation in discussions keeps getting you into trouble. Everyone makes mistakes, but you are expected to learn from them, not repeat them. 31 hours is pretty short for someone who has been repeatedly blocked for attacking other users and already talked their way out of an indefinite block just a few months ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are admins immune to the rules or something? I just showed you that you violated a rule by bringing up the past, and you keep doing it! Dennis wants to work with me and I'm all for that, you just wanna bring up the past, for your information, that block is from LAST YEAR. You trying to use that against me isnt allowed. Again. WP:REPENTANT also WP:FORGIVE Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently didn't bother to read the big tags at the top of those pages explaining that neither of those are rules, they are essays and are not binding on anyone. WP:BATTLE, on the other hand is a policy. WP:IDHT is a behavioral guideline, the next level down below a policy. Essays are just advice or opinions that somebody wrote up, if you don't agree with them you don't have to follow them. Every comment you make here demonstrates again why you were blocked in the first place, it's sad that you can't see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glock, as a friend, I'm recommending you just take the day off. You are more than welcome to bring up any topic you want on my talk page after the block, but not now. Words will only hurt you today, so don't use them. Please, trust me on this. There is much wisdom to the old saying "It is better to be happy, than to be right". You can't win by arguing today, so please don't try. Tomorrow is a whole new day, just ride it out, as nothing good can possibly come of you continuing this conversation. Please. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, fine... Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But before I go, I have one thing to say to Beeblebrox, this is a policy too! WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Later...buddy. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of sarcasm demonstrates to me that you aren't learning much from this block... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it demonstrates that he's learned nothing at all, any more than he seems to have learned from his previous blocks. It's coast-to-coast battlefield, and he seems constitutionally incapable of ceding the last word to anyone.

Glock, may I tender you some advice? What you need to do, very badly now, is sit down and shut the heck up, and not just today, but for some time to come. Don't participate in AfDs, don't dive into content disputes, just sit back and edit articles, which is something you can do and have done in the past. I recognize that you think you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that's doing you about as good as a MMA fighter who throws kick after kick, convinced that it's his money move, but who never connects and is progressively getting the stuffing beaten out of him.

Have you noticed, come to that, that this wikilawyering, flinging links around and battleground mentality have done others much good? From Spyder Grove to The Ultimate Editing Championship to FLM to LDP to BEO to BigzMMA, there've been a small host of SPAs who've tried it in these MMA disputes, been blocked for it and have nothing to show for it. The pity of it all is that if all these editors had chosen to act constructively, cooperatively and within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, they might have had a significant effect on consensus. Ravenswing 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie old boy, the block has nothing to do with my sarcasm, I was sarcastic before any blocks! What is that against the rules too? Sheesh... And Ravenswing, I'm done with those AfDs, it appears it doesnt matter how many keeps votes they get, the wikicabal is gunna force the new changes rather we like it or not, I'd just gunna do my best once the block is lifted to fix up the new page like was asked. As far as me getting the last word, well I could care less about that really, I just like to get the truth out there. And kicks? Well I've trained boxing, not much of a kicker. haha. :) Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And rather than lose another editor that knows the content, but not the guidelines, I would rather spend a little time trying to help him. He is on thin ice due to the number of previous blocks he has had, and I'm hoping he understands that if he is going to prevent being outright banned, he needs to work on his communication skills, and not let his frustration turn into disruption. If Glock is willing, I will spend the time to try to help him understand the guidelines and some better ways to deal with disagreements. I think it is better we at least try to work with him, he said he can work with TreyGeek and others, which is a step in the right direction. This doesn't mean we tolerate disruptions, but we might be careful to not pile on either. Raven is correct that Glock should probably avoid AFDs and other venues where confrontation is the norm. Look Glock, I took a long break a few years ago to prevent my own passion about topics from getting me blocked. I had to learn to step back and accept that I am better off avoiding certain areas that evoke strong emotions and cause me to be "rude". I understand your frustrations completely. This is why I've volunteered to help you stay here, as long as you are willing to trust advice, even if you disagree with it. And it starts with some self-control. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dennis I'm glad to hear you are a reformed man on wikipedia. lol. You even got to be a member of the staff, isnt that great? I'd do the same but I hear you dont get payed for it so thats a big turn off for me. But yea, I would like you to help me understand these guidelines a bit more, I mean with all the contradictions in them i'm sure everyone should have them explained to them, when I try and make sense of them I get called a "lawyer"! haha. When I came here I came to look up MMA related stuff, then eventually started helping with the content. Like I said I am done with pointless AfD's. I am only interested in fixing up MMA related content. BTW how much time has elasped? This block is taking forever to expire! Glock17gen4 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page history shows when the block was issued, I think 18 1/2 hours ago, but I'm running on 3 hours sleep so I could be wrong. And to be clear, I'm not "part of the staff". I'm not an admin, although I often work in Wiki-related areas as much as article content. I'm an ordinary editor, just like you. I do have a fair amount of experience, but no "super powers" ;) I got involved in this debate solely to try to bring some peace to the project and prevent some folks from getting blocked and banned. And yes, the guidelines can be confusing, but there really is a logic to them once you are familiar. I've been here over 5 years, but still have to read the guidelines regularly to keep up, and I often ask more experienced editors for their take on them regularly as well. So be patient, and be careful. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dennis Brown‏‎ (file mover, rollbacker)" No super powers? Thats sorta of like a forum mod if I'm not mistaken, this "rollbacker" status. Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker just makes "undo" easier by deleting all the edits in a row by a vandal, and filemover just lets me rename images. Any experienced and trusted user can ask for and get the tools, it isn't a biggie. I can't view redacted info, issue blocks, or use the advanced tools like admins. No more superpowers than Robin had. Even less than Barnacle Boy has. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well they'd never trust me with those kinda powers! ha. And btw Dennis, I'm being very careful, it's April Fools day, I dont wanna get pranked. lol Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown isn't an administrator. You can check that easily - if you look on my version of the page [3] you'll see it say that I'm an administrator. Dennis's doesn't say that [4] Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my page has a userbox that clearly says that I am NOT an admin. Kept getting called one in an ANI a few weeks back, thought the box would help. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my block is supposed to be expired, now it says I'm autoblocked? Whats going on here? Glock17gen4 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be unblocked now. If you can't edit, leave a note on my talk page and I will get an admin to fix it. Please understand that it is Monday, and I am swamped at work, so I can't promise to check here very often today, but will try to keep up as best I can. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." And I cant edit your talk page dude, I'm blocked and it wont allow me to edit anywhere but here! Glock17gen4 (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will find someone to fix that. I'm not an admin, or I would just unblock you myself, since it has expired. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an ANI on it, someone should address it shortly. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it appears to have been taken care of, thanks man! Glock17gen4 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter Brazil fighter names

Would you be willing to chime in at Talk:The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil about how to present the fighter's names for this season. I'm really unsure of the best approach. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and I can also help you with the event articles, Dennis said were working together now to come up with the best way to do this. Glock17gen4 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result tables and UFC on FX 3

First, thanks for keeping up with the result tables that have been created for MMA event articles. I've noticed that besides updating the results for the Bellator event going on tonight (right now?) you've added new tables for future UFC events. I think the tables are a better presentation of fight cards (though I have issues with the current format) and seeing folks who weren't involved in that conversation use them is refreshing. A note on UFC on FX 3. I noticed you did a copy/paste move of the article this afternoon. When moving the contents of an article to a new article name, you should use the move function (under the down arrow icon next to the search bar). That way the new article name retains the edit history for the article as a whole. Don't be alarmed if someone requests a speedy deletion of the new article. It'll be an attempt to move UFC on FX 3 to the new article name and maintain the edit history. This will be a separate issue from the redirects to 2012 in UFC events, so I just wanted to let you know in advance. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and yes I like the new tables too. And thanks, I didnt know about the move function but I do now. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too liked the tables as it looks more encyclopedic(sp?) although my preference would be to have the fighters listed first and move "card" and "weight class" to the right. But there wasn't a lot of initial support for that so I didn't push the issue. It it looks good overall and if we need to tweak it over time, that's a possibility too. Someone reported that the tables don't work well on mobile devices (and looking at it from my cell phone I'd agree), but I'm not sure what the solution to that is going to be. FYI, I'm going to put up the speedy deletion to make the move of UFC on FX 3 done properly. WP:Twinkle likes to automatically inform the page creator when I do that, so you'll likely get a notice in a few minutes. Just as a heads up. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Yea I didnt know you couldnt copy and paste, sorry about that Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the copy/paste move. It's fairly easy to fix. Just keep it in mind for the future. :) If you have any suggestions or feedback on the results tables don't hesitate to jump in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (though it is getting hard to tell where to talk about what on that page) or put it here and I'll forward it on. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is getting pretty full. Once place you *can* cut and paste is archiving your own talk page. Some people just delete their old talk page stuff, but archiving is useful. Give me a yell if you want to learn to do that, it's easy enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, yea, how would I go about doing that? Glock17gen4 (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller 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 FX: Guillard vs. Miller 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. Mt king^(edits) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback from TreyGeek

Hello, Glock17gen4. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier 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 Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier 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. Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger 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 Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier 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 Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (2nd nomination) 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. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWE nominations

Glock17gen4, I have closed the nominations that you made for the WWE pay per views because they were clearly made to disrupt Wikipedia. Your comments here and here suggest as much. Further to this, your nomination statement "This article is not notable enough for wikipedia" is also not sufficient for deletion, as you are required to explain why, and give a policy based explanation. Personally I think that all WWE events are not notable by default, and would probably vote delete in most discussions, but as I said, your nominations were done to disrupt process as a way to strike back at Wikipedia, which is why I closed them as I did. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glock17gen4 used nominations to exert himself, and you use this comment to exert yourself. What a wonderful little celebration of "I don't like WWE, and I want people to know". Lovely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just another guy in a suit (talk • contribs)

So what about the UFC articles then? You wanna tell me WWE articles are notable for wikipeida, but the UFC isnt? Either they're both notable enough for wikipedia, or both have to go. Where's your proof of notablity huh? Glock17gen4 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding why I closed the deletion discussions. I didn't close them because I disagreed with the statement that they are not notable, I closed them because of the reason they were nominated. As I said in my original post, I do not think that all WWE events are inherently notable (although I said it in a round about way), so no, I will not explain why the WWE articles are notable, because frankly for the most part I don't think they are. Having said that, since your nominations were in retaliation for the UFC nominations and didn't have any policy based justification, they were inappropriate. I closed them under Point 2b of Wikipedia:Speedy keep

The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. (emphasis added)
- nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption

Your suggestion that since the UFC articles are being deleted the WWE ones should be is a tit for tat argument. Had you actually put in reasonable, policy based justification for deletion, and not just your opinion "This article is not notable enough for wikipedia", the nominations likely would have stood, but given the nomination and the reason you nominated them, they didn't. I am watching this page, so you can reply here if you like, you don't have to notify me on my talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wheres your proof? I dont think you're assuming good faith. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My proof is the two links at the top of this section. As I explain below, I am not required to assume good faith when there is clear evidence to the contrary.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about MtKing's nominations, those are disruptive then. Where's your proof I was trying to disrupt a process, I thought you were "assuming good faith". Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Mtking, this is about your nominations, however I will respond. Mtking nominated pages for deletion with policy based arguments, which were agreed upon by other Wikipedia editors in good standing, and disagreed with by other Wikipedia editors in various standings (including but not exclusive to blocked users). There was nothing disruptive about his nominations, other than some people didn't like it. They were not nominated in retaliation for actions by another user. As for your Assume good faith question, I am always willing to assume good faith. Having said that, if you read the in a nutshell part of WP:AGF you will see:

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Saying "why don't you go nominate some WWE articles for deletion" in response to the UFC nominations is clear evidence. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because he kept bring up that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and UFC articles have no place on it, if thats true, then WWE articles dont have any place on it either. So no that wasnt proof, I was doing this in good faith, and you aren't assuming good faith. You're trying to accuse me of disrupting wikipedia, if thats the case. Then MtKing is just as disruptive. Because I was just going off his logic. So which is it? Is it an encyclopedia or not? Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree with my assessment, but don't expect that I will change my view on the situation. Good day. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a policy it breaks, and I will nominate it again. Have a nice day. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, upon your return, feel free to run any AfD nominations by me before you post them, if you want help with them. But I would suggest one at a time. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they blocked me because if they didn't MtKing was gunna cry and shit his big boy pants. So they didnt wanna smell that and have to change his pull ups so yea, they blocked me. Because wikipedia admins think they're the God of the interwebs. lolololol. But guess what, I dont give a flying rats ass! hahaha! Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Glock17gen4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not disruptivly edit anything. I was trying to follow policy. So why am I unblocked? lol.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not disruptivly edit anything. I was trying to follow policy. So why am I unblocked? lol. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not disruptivly edit anything. I was trying to follow policy. So why am I unblocked? lol. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not disruptivly edit anything. I was trying to follow policy. So why am I unblocked? lol. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Blocked

Due to your blatant disruption, I have blocked you for 1 week. You have flat-out refused to play nice or cooperate in any way, shape, or form, hence this block. Regards, --MuZemike 00:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you work for MtKing, that explains it. Wheres the rule that says I have to play nice or cooperate? Where's your proof of all this? Or are you just trying to silence me? lol.Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, not listening to MtKing isnt against the rules of wikipedia. He's not the King of wikipedia, even though he thinks he is. Are you his queen? lmao! Ohhhh you so big and powerful, a wiki admin. Guess what, I'm not bowing down to you. U mad bro? Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]