User talk:Hateless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hateless, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 08:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your userpage

Some vandal started your userpage with nonsense. I blanked it, and it might just look better if your name is blue, but if you want me to delete the page outright, just say the word. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the 'knockout' article.

It's interesting that the NJ state athletic control board has defined knockout, but it's still not mentioned in the rules of the UFC. Got any idea about that?--Marcus 05:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure why... although that rules page also leaves out some other rules mentioned on UFC broadcasts, ie. fighters are repositioned as they were on the ground if a ref should call time. I assumed it's mostly because that section of the UFC site is just neglected. hateless 07:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your "Tsunami Song" AfD Vote

Keep, the Hot 97 controversy was rather major, especially for the Asian American community, and it deserves its own article. I don't have an opinion on whether songs about the tsunami should have an article however. hateless 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that USA for Indonesia be deleted, which is the song surrounding the Hot 97 controversy. I'm proposing that the article about "tsunami song" — which is "songs about the tsunami" — should be deleted. If you have no opinion on that, then you probably wouldn't want to vote either way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed delete

Hey, how come you put a proposed to be deleted tag on the article for TC (Artist)? I'm half way through setting it up? Mostly Zen 00:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Is this a hobby of yours? Putting relevant pages forward for deletion after a lot of time and effort has been put in? Evidently so. Tír Eoghain abú 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a fun way for a wannabe bureaucrat like me to kill some time. Sarcasm aside, I've grown quite affectionate toward WP and have an appreciation for the WP's rules and guidelines and the rationale behind the rules. Usually I'm nice and put up a prod tag which can be overturned by anyone, like I did with the fellow above, and leave it alone when problems are fixed. Then there's people like you, who evidently have no respect for the encyclopedia. Do yourself a favor and get a web site going for your school paper, and publish content there instead of here. hateless 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Affairs Magazine

In regards to the article Christian Affairs Magazine, which you proposed for deletion, I have marked the article for speedy deletion, as I feel that the article meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In cases where it applies, speedy deletion is preferable to proposed deletion. I have left the {{prod}} tag in place, so that if speedy deletion is rejected, your proposed deletion will remain in place. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roentgen Stories

Jumping the gun, aren't we? If you'll check the history of the ROENTGEN STORIES page before posting, you might notice that I only just created it. Currently, I'm in the process of adding content, unless you expect a gorgeous, content-filled page to suddenly pop out of nowhere, fully created.

It's an honest mistake, I suppose, but please check your facts before posting.

Phemeral 07:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasmin Warsame

Hi Hateless. Please check Yasmin Warsame to see if it meets your requirements for removing the cleanup tag.S710 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Its better, I went ahead and cleaned it up a bit further to make it more in like with the basic biography format. Happy editing... hateless 05:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream urban r&b

I see you placed a prod on this article. You should know that I have speedied it twice as a repost---the original was speedied earlier today---and the author has threatened to continue recreating it. I have reported his actions to an administrator, and hopefully they will do something about him. You should watch and make sure he does not remove the prod tag. ---Charles 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Water, which you tagged for speedy

The one film is the least of the problems. Look at the contributions from Rclarkjrndf@aol.com (talk • contribs). Must be a student filmmaker. Neither he or any of his films show up on IMDB. Looks like time for a group AFD. Fan1967 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's taken the tag off. Fan1967 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human-baiting

You may want to participate in these additional votes:

Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes at Template:User cal

Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFC pages/links

Hello, this is Ivan Trembow of MMAWeekly. I noticed that you (or someone else around the same timeframe) posted links to my recent article about the UFC's 2006 pay-per-view buyrates. Even if you weren't the one who added that link, this message still applies to you because you appear to have a semi-regular role in maintaining the UFC event pages on Wikipedia.

The only problem with the links to the PPV article is that they pointed to the article on MMAWeekly, and the links on MMAWeekly expire after a certain number of weeks. Everything that I write about mixed martial arts is published on both MMAWeekly and on my own personal web site. So, I have replaced the links to the PPV article on MMAWeekly with links to the same article on my own site. It is the same exact article from the same exact author (me), but at a permanent URL that won't expire.

On some other UFC event pages, I have also added other links to specific articles that I have written, in cases where I felt it was appropriate. For example, on the pages for the live TV events that the UFC has held, I added information about the TV ratings for those events and linked to the full articles if people want more information.

The same goes for the Fighter Salaries for every UFC event starting in April 2005, although I wasn't sure where to put those particular links because they do not necessarily fall under the "Sources" section for any given UFC event page on Wikipedia, but they do contain relevant information that a very large percentage of MMA fans are interested in reading. You may have a better idea of where to put those links on any given "UFC event page," so please feel free to move them to a different spot on the page if you feel that there's a more appropriate spot.

Also, please note that I made the vast majority of these changes without using my account, which I just created in the last few hours, so the majority of my edits will show up as just being from the IP address 69.175.88.28

Any feedback/comments/questions on any of the changes I've made would be much appreciated.

ALSO: I wanted to ask you this since you are a regular Wikipedia contributor and probably know the answer. When adding relevant information that is fully relevant to a page, such as the TV ratings for a UFC TV event, or the fighter salaries for a UFC PPV event (or TV event), what is the proper way of doing so? Would it be to include the information and a link (with just the "1" or "2" external link notation) in the body of the page along with the rest of the description? Or would it be to include something in the "External Links" section of the page that links to an article with the relevant information? Or is it both? The info on TV ratings and fighter salaries is very relevant information, but I'm not 100% sure how to properly implement it.

[edit] Proposed MMA promotion

I see you work on MMA. this had some good fights in England 02'-04'. Don't see it on the promotion list. http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?Organization_ID=116

http://www.mmauniverse.com/organisations/SS139

NickVet419 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] status?

Hi, this is Ivan Trembow and I just wanted to ask what the general timeframe is for questions posed on the WikiProjects pages. So far, there hasn't been any objections to changing the specified links to my own site, but then again, there have only been three people who have responded (not counting myself). I'm not sure how this works... at what point is it decided that a consensus has been reached and the links are okay to be changed back (or kept the same if a consensus is reached in the other direction)? How exactly does the process work now that a couple of days have gone by? --Ivantrembow 07:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attendance/live gate/fighter payroll information

Hi, I am posting this message on both the WikiProject page and oyour Talk page because I wasn't sure whether I should post it on one or the other, or both.

I wanted to let you know that in addition changing the link URLs that we previously discussed, I also added links in the articles (I believe they would be called inline links, but I'm not 100% sure on that because I'm still fairly new to this) to the UFC attendance, live gate, and fighter salary information. I added the salary breakdowns for all the events that I have, and in doing so I noticed that many events (especially those in the UFC 45 to UFC 49 range) did not have any attendance information whatsoever, so I added the attendance information and created inline links to the Nevada State Athletic Commission web site on those pages.

Also, from the period of UFC 51 and on, there were a few pages that had incorrect attendance numbers, which appeared to be the numbers that Zuffa announced. Those numbers are often exaggerated, and the legit numbers are released by the athletic commissions. In any case where I changed anything attendance-related, I made sure to include an inline link to the NSAC web site. Actually, even on most of the pages, where the attendance was correct, I still added inline links to the NSAC web site on the pages that didn't have them before. Also, a few of the pages had the info in the infobox on the right-side column, but not in the body text as well, so in those cases I added a brief sentence to the body text with the attendance and live gate figures.

The total combination of this is that I think the pages have a lot more business information in the body text, between the attendance numbers, live gate figures, fighter payrolls, and TV ratings for the Spike TV shows, and all of the aforementioned things have inline links to the appropriate places for more information.

The only thing now is that I could have added the attendance and fighter payroll info for UFC 43 and UFC 44, but there have been no event pages created for those events. I don't know anywhere near enough about Wikipedia to be able to create new pages and list the results and all of that, but if you or anyone else does that stuff at some point, then I could add in the fighter payroll and attendance info for those events. As for UFC 40, UFC 41, and UFC 42, it might be good to create little pages for those events, but the only info I have for those events is the attendance and live gate for UFC 40. --Ivantrembow 10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mellisa Elise

Do you expect anyone to add content to the aforementioned article if it doesn't exist? It Holds PLENTY of useful information. Wikipedia is a collection of information, Melissa Elise exists and who knows when she will be searched for? Or when she has more roles? When she does, people will add more info but ONLY IF IT EXISTS! Do not put it up for deletion, that is a stupid abuse of power. --Crampy20 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:NN. There are reasons why non-notable people are not welcomed subjects on this encyclopedia. If the subject is not notable enough to ensure reliable sources of information about that subject, then it doesn't belong in WP. Frankly, don't expect articles on non-notable people to expand naturally if not enough people out there have any information on the subject. I suggest you stop getting frustrated and understand these policies and why they came about. Also, if you want to be given the benefit of the doubt on questionable articles, I suggest you start authoring articles that comply with the Manual of Style, at least that way people can assume you're familiar with WP's policies. hateless 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Deletion suggestion

I've very recently started adding articles to WP, and this is the first time I've come across the guideline for adding an article for a pop track, which, incidentally, makes sense (only setting up an article if it was released as a single or has special historical significance). My question is, is there a suggested way to include credits for songs on the main page of an album so as not to create a secondary article? My intention was to show the international artists Joseph Arthur has performed with on his albums, and this doesn't seem to be a good way to do it. Would it be most practical to put a complete list of artists on the album's main page and denote on which tracks they performed? Thanks for your assistance - I consider myself rather fond of Wikipedia and want to make it easily navigable. CGrue 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and especially their model article/examples section. It does not appear they have a preferred format for credits, so it seems you can do what you deem to be the best way. The way you suggested seems perfectly fine to me, certainly it's the more established method of listing credits in most liner notes I've seen. And thanks for understanding the reason why I tagged the articles. hateless 05:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In regard to the AfD for Cheese (recreational drug)

I hope your WP:CIVIL reminder wasn't directed at me!!! I was merely attempting to notify the nominator that AfDs have fallen through because of an assumed "bad faith" nomination as a result of a comment such as the one made by the nominator.

Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Srose, no the note was directed to Aspensti, who wrote a rather rude reply to your suggestion. Don't worry, I thought your comment was fine and well in-line. hateless 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baffled (Marquardt image)

Hello. I noticed that you were a prolific member of the Wikipedia Mixed Martial Arts project, so I came asking for a bit of advice. I recently revamped Nathan Marquardt's article and uploaded an image that was from the official Pancrase website (Image:Marquardt image.jpg). I've seen a lot of users that upload images, but mine was tagged for deletion, it seems. I am apparently missing a "fair use explanation," but am a bit confused. I included a fairuse tag, but am not sure how to rationalize it beyond that. Do you have any pointers for such a situation? I'm still learning the ins and outs to Wikipedia. Thanks! Wyldephang 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WA007 article help needed

Hello hateless, can you give me a hand over on the WA007 article. I found that you helped out the 2Advanced article, and I feel that WA007.com deserves to have their name in Wiki as one of the people who innovated flash design. Because WA007 is not as large as 2Advanced they do not seem to have as many citations i can use on the article. To give validitiy to the company as a prominent source of design influence in flash design. Your help would be greatly appreciated, as I am new to Wiki and the one topic that I pick to write about is the one that gets contested.--GDWA007 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Lil' One

Hey, man. The Mr. Lil' One page is relevant, hes a chicano rapper from San Diego and fits in the Chicano Rap section of Wikipedia, can u take that thing you put on the page off? Thanks -CharlesBronson18

[edit] Don't do me any favors

You tagged the article eleven minutes after it was created. Did you perhaps stop to think that it might be a work in progress? Otto4711 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for citation

In History of Seattle, you tagged the passage "Although it boasted newspapers and telephones, lynch law often prevailed (there were at least four lynchings in 1882), schools barely operated, and indoor plumbing was a rare novelty. In the low mudflats where much of the city was built, sewage was almost as likely to come in on the tide as to flow away. Potholes in the street were so bad as to cause at least one fatal drowning." I'm not sure exactly what facts you want a citation for. It's a dense passage with about 10 separate facts, most of them (I would think) quite uncontroversial. Let me know what you have any doubts about and I'll get you a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, per my practice, and my interpretation of WP:V, I generally tag with {{fact}} any time I see some sort of statistic or urban legend (or anything that seems like an urban legend) which is unsourced, whether I believe it or not. As for the above passage the fatal drowning in a pothole seems a stretch, although I don't really have an opinion on its factuality, I think something that can seem incredulous should have some support. hateless 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aperture update

Why did you re-update the release date of Aperture 1.5 to be the 25th of september? The new version of the software has not yet been released so that date is incorrect - the correct thing to do is to wait and determine what the valid date really is (should be later this week so there is not long to get correct information here).

I would actually be OK just removing the whole 1.5 entry if it's a matter of style not having an exact date on a release line - I did not add the original 1.5 entry. The problem is that some people are seeing a release date there and thinking the release is out already, which it is not... I just want to provide the most factual information possible.

Kgelner 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, because I thought the news stories said the update was released immediately, and the infobox already showed (before my edit) that 1.5 was released on the 25th, I believed it was already released. Sorry for the error, although it should be easy to fix. hateless 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 65

Ah, so I was right to revert. 'Man on man' seemed just close enough to be possible. I think that's me done for the night. Mr Stephen 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Steve Mazzagatti

I created a short article about Steve Mazzagatti for the project and I guess it was deleted? I always see you around MMA wikis so I thought maybe I would just tell you and see what you thought. I thought it would be okay? Dumbwhiteguy777 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion logs show that it was speedy deleted under CSD A7, that it is a biographical article without an assertion to notability. You can take it up with Ginkgo100, the admin who deleted it, and ask him why he deleted it. If you don't like the answer, you can appeal the deletion at deletion review. Personally, I don't think Mazzagatti is notable enough for WP since there just isn't enough written about him that we could use for a reliable article. hateless 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Fighting Championship

Does this page not qualify for locking from unregistered and new users? Crazyknight 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can bring it up with WP:RFP, but the admins do turn down requests if there isn't enough recent vandalism to justify protection. hateless 06:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just so sick of seeing a good article get vandalised by morons and spammers. If it wasn't for you, this article would be full of crap. -- Crazyknight 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Looking around, you seem like the sort of guy who would know this sort of thing. I'm looking to pick up a few images for my articles but don't want to get into trouble. Is a pic available on a free website able to be used? For instance, if I find a picture of Marcus Davis on his official site, can I use it without getting into trouble? The policies on this site are very detailed but I find it hard to get a succinct yes/no out of them. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Crazyknight 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Lake

The reason I PROD'd it was not because it was insignificant. Indeed, it is notable. It was a severely badly written article by someone who had written 3 or 4 nonsense articles that day - presumably in an attempt to "game the system". Bubba hotep 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page.

First of all, you are willfully misinterpreting WP:IAR. Please read it again, specifically the part about "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". The article you voted keep for was nothing but a sub-stub. It had no possibility of ever being anything but a stub stub. Your use of WP:IAR did not improve Wikipedia and impeded it's maintenance. You tell me that we're not a bureaucracy...but ironically, that guideline is talking about following the spirit of a policy, which you did not do with your vote or in invoking IAR.

Second, on a broader note, it's the responsibility to follow all policy except and until they are harming the Wikipedia, and the important policies are not to be ignored except in the most dire situations. Consider WP:OR. You find a "great article" that's completely OR. Are you going to ignore IAR simply because you think it should be kept? If following policy is common sense as opposed to voting IAR simply because 85% of the time you think articles should be kept, then I cannot see a rational reason why you would be surprised you got called on it.

Finally, the reason I said that to you was that I'm very tired of people deciding that since they think articles need to be kept, they'll simply vote "keep" on anything they like, without actually assessing the possibility that the article contributes nothing to Wikipedia. I'm very tired of people mouthing policy at me -- incorrectly, and basically looking at it from a very biased POV -- and I'm very tired of people telling me it's better to keep than delete. So that in the future you know how to vote on an article like the one you mentioned, here is the relevant section from WP:DICDEF. If you wonder why I'm quoting this at you like you're incapable of reading it or as if you don't know it, it's because of the fact that you decided to whine at me on Thanksgiving. I'm going back to eat more food.

Nearly everyone here agrees that in general, stub articles are to be encouraged, provided they meet certain criteria. There are likewise some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable for beginning an article. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort —don't just give the meanings of the word. Instead, they should simply take the entry to be a "stub" article, which will be expanded later. That's probably OK, in most cases, but some view this as either a violation of the WINAD policy, or otherwise meritous of deletion. Deletion is a necessary process on Wikipedia and articles which do not meet minimum reasonable criteria can be deleted rather quickly —for some, the potential of a stub is not as important as the fact that it's not yet an article. Moreover, there are plenty of senses of terms that aren't of interest in an encyclopedia. They would be in a dictionary but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. So it makes no sense to describe those other, mere dictionary senses of terms in Wikipedia articles (unless, somehow it is important to describe those senses in order to clarify the main topic of the article). While on the one hand we are all certainly delighted that Wikipedia is growing in breadth, some (but not all) of us view breadth at the expense of the very notion of what we are working on--an encyclopedia--as a bad idea.

Sincerely, ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRIDE edits

Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know I didn't mean to edit your stuff out of the PRIDE page recently - I was just reverting stuff by the now anon user formerly known as Too Cool and T00C00L.

He goes by 203.76.124.202 (and 203.76.96.12 ) now. I reported his sock puppetry to the admin that blocked him here, but since his edits these days seem less hostile, and seem to be made with good intentions (mostly adding "incomplete" templates and such) he is letting it go for now.

But if you start to have problems with him reverting or blanking stuff out or editing your messages, or whatever(like he used to), report him, because after being blocked, technically I don't think he is allowed to edit anymore. ANd we both know he can be persistant... I do think he is pretty harmless at his current pace over the past few months, but judging from the ammount of stuff he edited in the past, who knows what will happen.... keep up the good work on MMA pages! Skeletor2112 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for straightening out the situation for me. I'll keep an eye out on Too Cool (I haven't kept up on him, thanks for the update) and I hope the note I left on the talk page will make sure that point doesn't get reinserted later. hateless 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I also see that you do a lot of the assesment stuff - I was hoping to plow through some of those unassesed articles, and wondered what the main criteria you judge stuff on is. (article size, prose, citations, records?) Articles I've worked on like Don Frye, Mark Coleman, Bas Rutten, Justin Eilers, ect all have a decent ammount of info, but were mostly written before I used citations...
I am currently working to elevate a couple of articles in the other project I work in here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal, but I really would like to get a few GA and FA articles in the MMA project. The metal project had a collaberation of the month thing, where project members band together to elevate one article per month, but there weren't enough dedicated editors at the metal project then. I do think there are 4 or 5 guys here in project MMA that are dedicated enough, though - and somthing like this may be useful. Skeletor2112 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
A collabration of the week/month I think would be a great idea, it does seem we have enough dedicated editors for it to be effective. As for assessment, I've mainly judged articles based on their length, since it appears to me that none of the articles in WP:MMA are good enough (or have enough sourcing) for GA status, and my thought is that sourcing is mainly what separates articles in the higher grades. Generally, I don't grade articles that are badly written, nor articles that seem to be on a border, I suppose I'm sticking to non-controversial grades. Or, if they already been graded for another project, I'd use the same grade for the WP:MMA tag since the whole encyclopedia uses the same grading criteria. I suppose now that I think more about it, it's a higher priority to get MMA and a few other articles (perhaps UFC) to GA and A status before we get into sorting the rest of them out. hateless 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Amy Loftus

With regard to your remark on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Loftus, I was careful to be civil. As I explain there, I choose my words carefully, and always hope that readers will read them carefully. Hu 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Hateless in a comment above, inclusionism shorn of any desire to improve what is kept is worthy of only derision. It *is* a joke without the desire to expand. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii (urine)

How dare you suggest that our poll is invalid! It is a very cool poll, by the way. I like all the things you said on the Wii discusion page. I agree with what all you said. Have some times! Jecowa 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dude, word up. hateless 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilogos

I've noticed you are a graphic designer, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of UFC 69

UFC 69 is not a rumor. The UFC has officially announced the event, including the proposed rubber match between GSP and Hughes which was removed from the card... they also officially announced it would be the first event in Canada, later to state it wouldn't happen there, so instead they will move into Texas... with all the buzz around the event and the currently factual data it is not a speculative article Thesaddestday 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The new UFC 69 article is up for deletion again, but now that Diego/Kos is signed I was wondering if you would agree that it should stay now? Also hope you noted I didn't remake the page, noticed someone else did Thesaddestday 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K'Pop

I can't figure out how to weed google hits for the band from google hits for Korean pop music in general. If you have a source for your claim about them being signed to Sony BMG, now would be a good time to add it to the article. — Swpb talk contribs 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pride33 alt.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pride33 alt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Diaz vandalism

The Nick Diaz page has become heavily vandalized by a series of posts... I'm not sure exactly how to revert it back to its original form so I figured you might be able to help with it, or possibly help me learn how to do it. Thanks Thesaddestday 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD removed from UFC 70

I noticed that StrangeD took it upon himself to remove the AFD tag from the UFC 70 page... I'm not sure what to do in this situation so I figured I'd inform you Thesaddestday 08:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

meant to add, I put the AFD back up on the page Thesaddestday 08:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Bullet (appliance)

Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate about links

--Ivantrembow 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Hi Hateless, this is Ivan Trembow. I just saw the note that you posted in January on the WikiProjects page and I have posted my response to the links issue on that anonymous user's Talk page. It seemed like the user was making a lot of false assumptions and I wanted to clear those up. Thank you very much for your help in trying to explain to that Wikipedia user that I'm not a spammer. If it weren't for you making those posts on his or her Talk page, there would have been none because I only get on Wikipedia every month or two and I haven't even been aware that the links were removed until now.

In the meantime, the reason I got on Wikipedia tonight was because it felt like it was time for the monthly or bi-monthly update where I add links if I recently wrote articles which contain relevant info that isn't already on the appropriate Wikiprojects pages. And there has been lots of good stuff in the last couple months, ranging from extensive notes on the UFC's record-breaking business levels on a couple different fronts, to very in-depth coverage of a number of recent Nevada State Athletic Commission disciplinary hearings for fighters (mostly drug-related), to fighters who have tested positive for one banned substance or another but haven't had their disciplinary hearings yet, to ratings reports for UFC broadcasts on Spike TV, it's a fair amount of very pertinent and relevant material.

But I'm wondering if I should even add the links for these things because that guy or gal who deleted the links before might just delete them again, and I also don't want to interfere with the process if the issue of the links is still an undecided issue. So what I'm going to do now unless I'm specifically told by you to do otherwise, is to just not post the links for now and wait to see how or if this whole issue is resolved. I'll try to get on Wikipedia more frequently over the next several days to check in on whether or not anything further has been resolved. Thank you. --Ivantrembow 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User pages

Please make sure that you leave messages for people on their TALK page and not their USER page as you did with User:Maidenfan18. Thanks in advance --Samtheboy (t/c) 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that was a brain fart on my part. Thanks for correcting the mistake. hateless 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Ultimate Fighting Championship by 80.229.35.229

Apologies for the above - this IP address is for my place of work & we have a large number of trainees in the building using computers. I would appreciate hearing about any further incidents from this IP address so I can have a chat with the perpetrators ;) EyeSerene 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MMA discussion

Hey,

Check into the MMA talk - I don't want to change the Bruce Lee paragraph before you had a chance to respond.

Thanks!

-CasualFighter 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/t/User_talk%7EHateless_a584.html"