User talk:172.56.37.140


 * Not "illegal", especially given the abuser behind this range has a penchant for biographical policy violations. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Perry's page
I was warned because I reverted it 3 times, not because of the reasons for reverting it. I don't use alternate accounts on different devices to navigate around that rule which makes it very difficult to prevent these poorly written edits to the page. I am confused as to why there has been no effort made to tackle the controversy section issue properly in over a year when it's clear there are a number of people (or one determined person) who are insistent on putting it back. I have no issue with the section being added to the page if it's done correctly and not as some personal vendetta against Mike Perry and the fans who added his page and continue to update it. I have opened a dialogue on this before and was trolled instead of those editors doing their research on controversy sections and various defamation issues. I even provided links to the relevant wikipedia pages and they were ignored.

If the accusations of racism had some weight, like a UFC statement made on them, a police report or some other serious repercussions then that would lead to articles that discuss the issue and have varying opinions so it's not just a one sided bias piece. The sources provided for the section are entirely the opinions of the writers and do not fairly reflect the views of the majority. You telling me I'm being ridiculous doesn't change the wikipedia rules and guidelines which are easy to find. This isn't a war that a "we" are determined to win, we just want the information on the page to be handled correctly.

For example, if the section was about Mike Perry being homophobic it would probably be easier to incorporate it into the page because he HAS made homophobic comments and there's not much of a grey area regarding them. Wearing a halloween costume sold in stores all across America isn't the same as using homophobic slurs to derogatively describe another person, and I am talking from a legal perspective here too. I still think you'd run into some of the same issues in regards to providing sources that give due weight to both sides of the argument though.

The page for Jon Jones was previously used as an example, but his controversies had legal repercussions that were reported objectively, and that is the main thing that is missing from the section on Mike Perry's page. It would make sense on Alex Nicholson's page (if written correctly) because of the related statement issued by the UFC.

I'm not going to do your work for you because I don't feel there's any proof that Mike Perry is racist, and that is the majority view. Is he stupid? absolutely he is, stupid, ignorant, insensitive etc but not racist, and any attempts to convince wiki readers that he is suggests an agenda. Putting that aside, I stand by my statement near the top, I have no issue with the section being added to the page if it's done correctly and not as some personal vendetta against Mike Perry. You're also skirting very close to the defamation issues that were discussed when I previously raised concerns about this.

Jahannum (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Why not just do the research, write the section properly and back it up with sources giving due weight to both sides of the argument? easy enough if Mike Perry is truly a racist and there is no disputing it. It will basically write itself, rather than looking like an agenda driven blog post with cherry picked quotes either taken out of context or edited to reflect a different view than the one being expressed in the quote. The section is poorly written.