Talk:Ronnie Coleman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] User:Neenerhead
This is obviously an attack from a forum of some kind. Just wait a while and it will die down --Neenerhead 02:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No it's not, it looks like an inside job --karmazon
-
- well gonnabefamous is a troll at the bodybuilding.com forum, bigpoppaproppy is a mod there.
- StrengthCoach 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
LET THE BANNINGS BEGIN:
You guys realize bigpoppaproppy is going to ban all of you for attacking abother website right...? PS, Im not registered on BB.com but I've been around since before the sex section was closed :D <----- Tech Zilla
[edit] Unprotected
Completely unprotected as a test. If vandals come back, semi protection is the best bet. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Imo it should be set to semi protection. For what ever the dim wits at clackamas community college (the user of that ip I know I am a student) think it's funny to mess with wikipedia. It ends up harming everyone because a blanket ban is put on our ip.
[edit] Big Ron and Steroids
HEY! The fact that Coleman is a cop and uses illegal drugs is worth mentioning! Essentially, EVERYONE in the bodybuilding world uses steroids, unless they enter "natural" bodybuilding contests and submit to testing. At the very least, the fact that none of Ronnies titles come from contests that test is worth mentioning. Even if you don't say overtly that he uses steroids, you can say that he rufuses to be tested, because that much is true.
Does Ronnie Coleman use steroids?
The writer stats, "There has been no public mention by Ronnie on whether or not he utilizes steroids, but most in the bodybuilding world feel that it is an absolute certainty due to his unparalled mass and incredibly low fat percentage."
In Ronnie's first video, Mitsuru Okabe’s “Ronnie Coleman”, Ronnie clearly states to the entire viewing world that he uses steroids.
It is a wise idea to watch the video to personally hear Ronnie say, without a shadow of a doubt, that he uses steroids.
With this evidence the issue is closed and the article must be edited immediately.
Also, who are the most and who the few in the bodybuilding world? Absolutely everyone in the bodybuilding world knows that Ronnie uses steroids, unless they are very young or ignorant.
Even if Ronnie never stated his steroid use, which he did, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.
- I have personally never heard Ronnie say he used steroids, although I will attempt to find that video. True, anyone who has even a little knowledge of bodybuilding or has attempted to build muscle will tell you its impossible to gain that much mass and stay so lean without the use of some serious steroids. BoxingNut83 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I watched a bit of the video and I think you may be getting confused by a quote in the beginning of the movie where Ronnie says before he got into bodybuilding, all he knew about it was that bodybuilders used steroids and had a strict diet. Perhaps I missed this part you are claiming is there... Where exactly is it at in the video? 70.17.196.226 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed info?
Didn't this article have much more info before, saying that Coleman is an ambassador for the sport and is involved in several projects to keep kids off the streets etc? Whatever happened to that? Jack Daw 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.... I'm betting that it got removed because it was PR, and not up to encyclopedic standards.
[edit] 3RR?
What's with all the back-and-forth reversions to this article? It looks like people have been seriously violating the three-revert rule. The next person to violate it will be blocked. Please find other ways to resolve your differences. - Brian Kendig 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Take a close look at the users who have been reverting changes - they're cases of reverting obvious, simple vandalism and reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user. (the users vandalizing this article are sockpuppets) Page protection has been implemented as a result. Yankees76 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've removed the protection, as I don't believe this is the proper use of semi-protection as laid out in Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. I've added this page to my watchlist, and I'm going to keep an eye on it. If specific users begin vandalizing it again, I'll block them - please, for your sake, don't get into another endless loop of reverting the same user over and over again! By the way: the vandalism appears to center on the "Current stats" section of the page. 24 inches is 60.96cm, so 61cm appears to be the correct stat, and 58 inches is 147.32cm, so 147cm appears to be the correct stat. If I'm incorrect please let me know, but if people vandalize these numbers then I'll help deal with it. Feel free to flag my attention on my Talk page if there's ongoing vandalism here that I've missed. - Brian Kendig 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The vandalism centered on the addition of the phrase "dat dere Cell-Tech", along with a link to a web forum and/or image of someone's personal email purported to be from the subject of this article (along with the stats changes you mentioned). Both vandalism - and both changes reverted by numerous editors besides myself. And, since your removal of the semi-protection a few hours ago, the article has already been vandalized by 2 unregistered users (207.200.116.136 and 172.190.203.136 - both AOL accounts - within six minutes of each other (which is why King of Hearts protected the page). If you look through the backhistory of this talk page, you'll find where the vandal has shown a total disregard for Wikipedia. [1]. Just my .02. Yankees76 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Brian, I'll assume you were referring to the edit war a few weeks back I was in when you spoke of the three revert rule. While I certainly admit to being wasteful of server resources during that whole ordeal, I'd like to point out how the vandalism kept going on for over an hour and a half, until said vandal gave up and left of his own accord, with no admin anywhere in sight. That said, for some stupid reason or another, I've invested quite a bit of time into keeping this article unmolested.
- Yet the vandals, presumably from the bodybuilding forums mentioned at the top of this talk page, are somehow more obsessive than me. I don't understand why anyone would spend so much time fighting a losing battle, but for some reason, they are bent on keeping this completely nonsensical edit in:
Supplements: BSN Supplements www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bigron.htm and possibly dat dere Cell-tech.
Questionable proof of cell-tech use: <nowiki<forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=310862&d=1150408493</nowiki>
-
- "Dat dere Cell-tech" is some kind of catchphrase that the vandals think is hilarious, and the link is to a made-up joke image -- typical message board nuisance behavior. I'm pretty sure, however, that the bulk of the edits are being made by the same guy (207.200.116.136 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)), who said on June 23rd:
That's fine..
I'm creating plenty of new usernames each day..
-
- Lastly, the semi-protection was favored by at least two other administrators, King of Hearts and Glen/Stollery (sorry to put words in your mouths, guys), one of whom said to me:
... msg me for sure if it happens again!
-
-
- Much later edit: User:GIen actually wasn't an administrator. My fault (he will be one soon, though). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Three closing points: First, the semi-protection only slowed down the vandalism, and now it will be nonstop. Second, 3RR does not apply to vandalism reverting. Third, this is most definitely vandalism and not a content dispute. This is not commentary or editorializing, it's just garbage being posted for giggles. I don't know anything about Ronnie Coleman, nor pretend to, but I know nonsense when I see it.
- Many thanks for your attention and patience, and my sincere and humble thanks for your consideration. -- Omicronpersei8 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, I agree completely that this page should be protected until the vandalism stops. Second, my guess (and this is only a guess) is that it has something to do with the fact that Coleman endorses products from BSN, which competes with MuscleTech (which makes Cell-Tech). So I guess the vandal(s) may think it's scandalous or something. Frankg 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the vandal keeps editing "I'm pretty sure, however, that the bulk of the edits are being made by the same guy" to read "...by the same guy/girl." I think the vandal is, for some reason, trying to clue us in on her gender! Frankg 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Lastly, Ronnie Coleman is not the only article being hit by this vandal. The entry for buttocks has also had unecessary reverts over the inclusion of one word. That page was also semi-protected as a result, and since then vandalism has ceased (thanks to the speedy blocking of numerous sockpuppets of danwat1234) - the main vandal of this page. Yankees76 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't referring to any edit war a few weeks back - I saw the recent constant reversions between two named accounts, and I assumed it was an edit war. My bad; I didn't realize one of them was a vandal. I'm willing to accept that this article might be a situation for semi-protection - that is, that the vandalism is overwhelming the editors, and comes from a wide range of IP accounts such that blocking individual accounts isn't practical - but, it looks like the only vandal today has been User:207.200.116.136 from AOL, and that's been blocked already. I suspect that if any account which vandalizes this article (in the specific way commonly seen, such as with that silly catchphrase) is blocked immediately as a suspected sockpuppet, that'll help things a lot for this article as well as others. What do you think? (And, do you know what the user's original account was?) - Brian Kendig 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a list of all accounts blocked so far [2]. Note that the article for Jay Cutler (bodybuilder) has now been vandalized by yet another sockpuppet of this same user. [3]Yankees76 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, judging from all the sockpuppet abuse of this page, I agree it's a fitting situation for being sprotected - but keep in mind that sprotection isn't meant to be indefinite, it's only supposed to be in place for a short time, per policy. I noticed that even with sprotection in place, the article has still gotten vandalized, though... is that another sockpuppet account of the same person? - Brian Kendig 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Potentially. Generally if they're making the exact same reverts I'd label them as a sock. We have enough evidence (see above statement about 'creating new user names everyday') to tag any new user account that makes these edits as a sockpuppet. I agree that protection should not be permanent. I've run into a very similar situation in the past with Repartee, and eventually the gag becomes old and they leave. Yankees76 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, judging from all the sockpuppet abuse of this page, I agree it's a fitting situation for being sprotected - but keep in mind that sprotection isn't meant to be indefinite, it's only supposed to be in place for a short time, per policy. I noticed that even with sprotection in place, the article has still gotten vandalized, though... is that another sockpuppet account of the same person? - Brian Kendig 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Time for semi-protection again?
Looks like a good candidate for semi-protection to me, but I'd like to get a few other opinions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. It's alot easier to block the sockpupppets on sight than constantly revert AOL IP edits. Yankees76 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone explain the rationale of unprotecting the article on the day that it's vandalized by two separate, newly-created sockpuppets? I'm just curious about the thought process there. Yankees76 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I unprotected because I blacklisted the link that was being added to the article. Hopefully this will result in less spamming, but if it continues, I will reprotect. Naconkantari 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I didn't know that could be done. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. Kudos.Yankees76 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I didn't know that could be done. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I unprotected because I blacklisted the link that was being added to the article. Hopefully this will result in less spamming, but if it continues, I will reprotect. Naconkantari 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone explain the rationale of unprotecting the article on the day that it's vandalized by two separate, newly-created sockpuppets? I'm just curious about the thought process there. Yankees76 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The same junk is being posted again. The new link as of the 15th was:
http://forums.2cpu.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2321&stc=1&d=1152866091
Could we get that blacklisted if it starts popping up again, please? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
He is a 2006 Olympia winner according to this article. Please correct
- Time for semi-protection again.Yankees76 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I Only Have A Few Things to Say About All Of This!!!
Yeeeeeeeea Buddy! Light Weight! Light Weight! Nothin but a peanut! Yeaaaaaa Buddy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.88.238 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
