User talk:JonnyBonesJones

Site to Check Out
If you are interested in working on MMA articles in a Wiki type format, visit MMA Wikia --Boston2austin (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm gunna join. Just let me know what you guys need help with. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— cyberpower Chat Offline 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC on Fox: Shogun vs. Vera 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 Fox: Shogun vs. Vera 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) 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha, what are you talking about, what edit? I've been reverting vandalism, get off my case. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistake, there was IP vandalism mixed in with your edits. I removed the vandalism warning.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cool :-) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Current UFC fighters

 * It's fine to delete Sarafian's nickname if you feel strongly about it. As I said, my stance on nicknames is if they've ever used them over a period of time they are open for inclusion with the most recent one (or the one from UFC.com) taking priority. I don't think of it as a particularly important part of the article, and I certainly wouldn't use UFC.com exclusively for it, as they tend to list nicknames sparingly. If you feel more strongly about this I'd be happy to make a discussion out of it in order to come to a stronger conclusion, but it's probably the only part of the article that I feel is fair game for anything reasonably reference-able.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, I just never heard of him going by that nickname, it's not listed on Sherdog, or UFC, and he's one of the few fighters from TUF Brazil that opted to not use a nickname. Chael Sonnen although not listed on the UFC yet openly uses the nick name "The American Gangster" in almost every UFC related interview he does. But yea I have not found one single source saying Daniel Sarafian goes by the name "Tanque". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. I looked as well and couldn't find anything, but he also had almost no publicity for most of his career, so it's hard to tell what he might have been announced by while fighting on the brazilian regional circuit. I'm fine with it either way, I just want to make it clear that it's not something I consider overly important beyond vandalism prevention.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chins
Hi Bones. I don't disagree with putting Chris Leben on the list, but to answer your question, some people doubt his chin because of his fight with Anderson... Of course, it's not like getting KTFO by him isn't a norm or anything. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anderson can KO anyone... Chris Leben has shown an iron chin in many fights. And btw why is Chuck Liddell on both lists. His chin is clearly one of the weak ones! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I said. And Liddell used to have an iron chin. It's a good example of how damage can affect a fighter's chin. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, what fights did he show an iron chin in? I'm curious. I wanna see them. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Tito, Landi-Jons, Metzger, Vitor, Overeem, and in the first Rampage fight he got hit hard on the chin at least 8-9 times, was staggered but never went down. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, nice! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce Heavyweight Title
Thanks for the link. Glad to see that have publicly mentioned it now, not that it makes it any less of a mess. Appreciate all of the work you've been doing on the MMA pages. Keep it up! Udar55 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hey, I see that you do a lot of edits of the ufc event pages. I just want to ask you if you do edit a page, you type in the summary what you changed exactly. Then others can see what has changed. Thanks in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Well it does show what was changed anyway. But I try to put summary in everytime I can. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA
Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
I took a look at the History of many UFC articles, and I saw that you are one of the most prominent contributors.
 * Thank you. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Bellator 78
The fight was announced as a TKO by the announcer, please do not change it. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The announcer made a mistake, Joe Rogan and Mike GOldberg make mistakes all the time. This reliable source says a KO.

http://www.sherdog.com/events/BFC-Bellator-Fighting-Championships-78-25211

Plus watching the fight you could tell it was a KO. You also failed to leave a method. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have it on tape. He wasn't completely out. The announcer went nuts but if you watch it on replay, he wasn't out, he had his hands up trying to block the punches. The ref and announcer said it was a TKO so the official stoppage is TKO. Thanks for your concern, but I have this under control. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you should provide a reliable source saying so instead of engaging in an edit war. I am using this as a reliable source: http://www.sherdog.com/events/BFC-Bellator-Fighting-Championships-78-25211

Also this looks like it's not the 1st time you have been warned about edit warring. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have this all under control. I was putting the results in as I watched the show and putting in what they announced, which is what is official. I appreciate you trying to help, but I've got this under control. Please leave my entries alone. Thanks. Trying to correct vandalism on my entries isn't an editing war. It looks like you were warned about it. You are supposed to use the user talk page for the article, which I did after I saw the vandalism of my entries but nobody said anything. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I cannot do that, I am trying to keep wikipedia accurate, and also avoid edit wars. I have a reliable source so my edits are not vandalism. You will need a reliable source to say what you are saying is true, otherwise it is just basically heresay. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were trying to keep it accurate, then you would quit vandalizing my entries. I have a video to back up what I'm saying. --Willdawg111 (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please present the link. I have commented on the Bellator pages talk section. Until then we shall go off the reliable source of sherdog.com JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFasLXEyAY Look at the 2:02 mark.
 * http://www.mmafighting.com/2012/10/26/3559896/bellator-78-results-tsarev-vs-good

It was a TKO, thanks.--Willdawg111 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That youtube video would not be considered a reliable source. However mmafighting.com is. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You left out the method of TKO, so I put that in there for you. Make sure to always include the method and use reliable sources like the one you just gave me. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the fighters records. If I came off as rude or anything, I appologize. I was watching it and clearly heard the ref and announcer say TKO. If you were watching the fights, I hoped you enjoyed them. I thought it was a very good card, plus I've trained with Jorge Gurgel up in Cincinnatti so this was a really exciting card for me. --Willdawg111 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and yes it was enjoyable! :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS
I am sorry but the UFC is not a WP:RS, it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in this case it has a vested interest in bending reality to help it's marketing. If you disagree feel free to take it to the WP:RS/N. Mt king (edits) 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They hired and background checked the guy, I'd think they'd know if he's from Vietnam or not... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is at least a strong degree of doubt as to his nationality so then before making any claims in any article you need a WP:RS that can relied upon and the UFC marketing team is not such a source. As I said, take it to the RS/N if you want clarification. Mt  king (edits) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but who is doubting? Where is their sources? Not one of them has provided a source, I have... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't they, well this one say he is American. Mt  king (edits) 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And you completely ignored the part about "South Vietnamese-born", the UFC uses the flags from their home country, not the country they fight out of. Have you ever watched a UFC event before? Or is the UFC still not notable enough for you to watch? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another source for you, if the last one is reliable, then this is too, it says "Vietnamese-born". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being Vietnamese-born does not mean you are Vietnamese, Julia Gillard the Prime Minister of Australia is NOT British but she was born in Barry, Wales - please revert your edits as WP:BLP applies. Mt  king (edits) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for a reliable source, I provided it. You said Canadian media is reliable, so I provided a Canadian media source. The UFC uses the flags of where the fighter was born. Therefore, I am not reverting it, it is correct, even by your standards it's correct. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Women MMA organization notability
Please don't make changes to the notability lists without discussing them on the talk page. The criteria used were discussed at WT:MMANOT and then objectively applied. They are also clearly stated in the text at WP:MMANOT. Being top tier for one gender does not automatically mean it's top tier for the other gender. Obvious example: Invicta is just for female fighters, so claiming top tier status for male fighters would be ludicrous. Papaursa (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, please stop making additions to the notable organizations without consensus. Currently there have been no UFC women's fights. It's quite possible that the UFC may become a top tier women's organization, but there are objective criteria to be met. Right now adding the UFC to the women's list is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be obvious with Ronda Rousey as champion, but I respect the consensus. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD Submissions
Your AfD submissions are coming out a little strange - please read the How to nominate a single page for deletion on the Articles for deletion. Right now they are not titled or added to the log page. I fixed a few.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I do that? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to Articles for deletion. There are step by step directions about half way down under "How to nominate a single page for deletion".  Part of that includes adding the entry to the daily log - if you don't do that it could be that your AfD goes nowhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning
What you did at User_talk:Mtking is an inappropriate use of the warning templates. Regardless of whether or not Mtking's edits at List of current UFC fighters are appropriate for the content of the article, they are not vandalism. See VAND and VAND. If you continue to inappropriately warn users, I will block you.  MBisanz  talk 06:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for that, I try to be a good editor here and contribute as much as possible. But I must respectfully disagree here. MtKing removed a sourced article about Mark Hominick's retirement from that page. I felt that was vandalism and dealt with it accordingly. I also believe MtKing has been harassing people on wikipedia's MMA pages, and has launched a biased crusade of sorts against them and all MMA articles on wikipedia. He has made alot of bad faith, pointy edits and has himself more than once abused warning templates against me. Accused be of personal attacks, which I didnt make, and accused me of breaking the 3RR which I didnt do. I have contributed alot to MMA on wikipedia and other pages. I feel MtKing is abusing his status on wikipedia, and is very biased in his attack on the sport of MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you feel that Mtking is violating policy, you should report the violations to the appropriate venue, such as WP:AN. A report should include diffs of his edits that support your specific allegations of bad faith edits, pointy edits, warning template, abuse, etc.  MBisanz  talk 06:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I am not a tattletale. But seeing as MtKing is harassing people and abusing his rollbacker status, I will gladly do that, because I believe MMA has a right to be here on wikipedia, just as any other sport. Admins and rollerbackers should not be biased, and he clearly is. I and countless MMA editors have had enough of his antics. I also will admit that I didnt report him in the past for fear of admin bias because he is a rollerbacker, and I am not. But I want to ask, how do I report him? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User status does not exempt a person from compliance with the rules. If Mtking has violated the rules, he will be dealt with by admins the same as any other user. To file a report, click here and enter details of your allegations, linking to edits of Mtking's that support each of your assertions regarding him.  MBisanz  talk 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope so. And I have reported him now. I hope that in their hearts, the admins see the damage Mtking has caused to Wikipedia and stop him. And this is coming from a guy who tried to work with him, and who is unbised. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Commenting without knowledge of the situation or the allegations, merely in general after noticing some portions of your AN post. The rollbacker flag merely gives a user the technical ability to rollback vandalism a bit faster than otherwise possible. It's not big deal and it is irrelevant when dealing with a user. We do not look at a user based on what flags they have but on what the issue at hand is. Least of all because of rollbacker or filemover or w/e.  Snowolf How can I help? 10:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope so. I am sick of some of the bias I have seen toward MMA editors here on wikipedia. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never even asked for rollback and didn't have it as a "user right" until I became an admin. I didn't need it because anyone who has an account can just grant themselves rollback  by turning on WP:TWINKLE. Smowolf is quite right that no admin in their right mind would see having it as a reason to trust one user over another. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I have seen alot of discrimination against MMA editors on wikipedia, which is bad for the site. The UFC 155 deletion without reason by Kww was a prime example. We proved that the event was notable with policy based reasons, citing the fact there was a Heavyweight Title fight at the event, and it was still unjustly deleted. That is an example of bias toward on wikipedia. I am also not for ANYONE who uses personal attacks, whether they are an MMA editor or a deletionist. However I feel alot of those personal attacks stem from provocation and discrimination of MMA editors. I just hope you guys realize that the problem is NOT MMA on wikipedia, it is Mtking on wikipedia. There was no issue and all was quiet and running smooth til he came back after his 1st attempt to destroy us. I fear the sanctions will be one sided against MMA editors. I believe wikipedia should be unbiased, it was made for the people after all. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags
Please note that this is not a template message, there is no red stop sign, it is intended to be a polite observation that after it has been pointed out to you by three editors, and  (and this could be classed as the fourth, plus other edit sums on articles such as ) that the RfC at WT:MMA covers the addition of flags in both tables and lists when relating to UFC/MMA. Any continual action along thoes lines is likely to be viewed as disruptive and or Poninty editing, I urge you to be cautious as that road will lead you to a bad place. Mt king (edits) 07:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mtking, but I read and understood what the RfC said, and the UFC is an exception because it's always been a competition between countries, thats why flags are in the tale of the tape. And hey, even you agree the consensus matters more than quantity of editors. But only 3 people on wikipedia is a drop in the ocean of millions of editors so even if quantity mattered it still wouldn't be on your side. So it appears you are having a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am following the consensus, and that is that. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even when multiple other editors point out you have read it wrong? Mt  king (edits) 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody pointed out I "read it wrong", they just said they didnt believe it was right. But I let them know why it was right. You have not pointed anything out, you have just tryed to use the MOS:Flags use to help with your crusade to remove UFC content from wikipedia. However I read that RFC word for word, and they did say there was an exception for competition between countries, which is what the UFC is. Mtking, I am trying to be reasonable here man. Your crusade against the UFC is pointless. Give it up man, why not spend your energy making constructive edits instead of trying to tear down a sport that deserves to be on wikipedia just as much as any other sport does? I know you dont like it, but thats ok, you dont have to watch it! But that doesnt mean try to take it off wikipedia. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * if you read the it says "'Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers. Mt  king (edits) 07:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. Well I agree with that Mtking, and are you trying to deny that EVERY fighter on planet Earth is representative of a particular country? The American cards prominently feature fighters from America, and the Brazilian cards prominently feature fighters from Brazil. The English cards prominently feature fighters from England. The Japanese cards prominently feature fighters from Japan. And so on... So yea, it's pretty hard to deny what I'm saying is the absolute unfettered truth here Mtking. Who knows, maybe there will be a UFC on Mars one day featuring a bunch of Martians, then that will be an interesting wikipedia discussion. lol. Just making a joke there Mtking, it's good to laugh a little. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Provide a link to the Japanese governing body or team, or the Brazilian one or the English one, or the American one, which international representative body sets the rules for representational qualification like IAAF, FINA, ICC, IRB, FIFA do for the sports they govern ?  Mt  king (edits) 08:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How does Cung Le compete for a team whose country does not exist ? Mt  king (edits) 08:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well talking about different sports other than MMA is sort of comparing apples to oranges, every sport is different Mtking. But if you insist... Here is a link to that governing body: http://www.ufc.com/ JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cung Le competes for a team whose country does exist! Are you saying that Vietnam doesnt exist? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The UFC is not the governing body, it is an event promoter, unless you can cite a RS (in which case please change the UFC page). As for Le, according to your edit you think he represents South Vietnam a county that does not exist now.  Mt  king (edits) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also can you please answer Vanisaac ?  Mt  king (edits) 08:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answer your question first MtKing, you are the King after all. lol (another joke there). The UFC has acted as it's own governing body in the past, in Brazil it did just that, and even drug tested the fighters. But in the USA, it's the Atheletic Commissions who are the governing bodies, they sanction the matches, and provide the referees and judges for the event. They also allow the event to occur, and they allow the use of flags in the tale of the tape, after all it is a competition between countries you know... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it is not as it does not have the governing body structure that is common to all other representative sports, but if as you say "it is a competition between countries" - where is the WP:RS that can be used to verify that claim ? Mt  king (edits) 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right here ol' chap, straight from the root itself: http://www.ufc.com/ JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

a) UFC is not a WP:RS and b) nothing on the UFC's home page says it is a governing body or a competition between countries. Mt king (edits) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Definition of source

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book),"

Actually is a WP:RS. And http://www.ufc.com/program if you flip thru those pages you will see the flag and name of each country's competitor, and a brief discription of their stats on the other pages. Read up! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to, the UFC does not have a reputation for fact checking and is not interdependent of it's self so can not be a RS, besides it is not in doubt UFC uses flags for reasons of promotion, the thing that needs to be verified is your claims that :
 * The UFC is a governing body; and
 * UFC is a competition between countries.
 * because without it your assertion is at best plain good old fashioned original research. Mt  king (edits) 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe Silva is the matchmaker, he is the governing body. Dana White and the Fertittas are as well. They can sign people or contract and release them as well. Also do you have a source that says the UFC is not known for fact checking? Or is that original research? The flags are used in promotion of a fight between 2 fighters representing countries. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also here is a source that says UFC is a competition between countries. http://www.fightersonlymag.com/content/news/16163-ufc-confirms-australia-vs-uk-for-next-tuf-season JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to engage you, to help demonstrate the issue, this is the problem with MMA on WP; WP has policies, guidelines and conventions, all put in place to build an encyclopedia, one of those core policies is the one on Verifiability, if, as you claim The UFC is a governing body and UFC is a competition between countries then you need to provide an actual source to it from an independent publication, as the verifiability policy says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". Mt  king (edits) 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * as for the link, read the RFC close, it makes it clear on what to do with MMA events billed as country vs country. Mt  king (edits) 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you are so frustrated Mtking. You seem to be trying everything to get rid of MMA on wikipedia and it just isnt working out for you. I think you should find a new hobbie. But I did give you a reliable source saying that UFC is Country vs. Country. I dont think you will ever understand that tho, it seems you dont wanna understand something no matter how many reliable sources we MMA editors provide for you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

NAAFS
Please read the explanation. AfD doesn't apply for redirects. They are deleted along with the main article latter on.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, thanks. Didnt know that. I nominated for discussion. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No sweat - its a learning process. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to learn all this stuff I admit. lol. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question
Hi there! I don't think there is any policy against noting it in the AfD, but it doesn't count for anything. It's not an argument against voiding the AfD or keeping the article in any way in this case. Bjelleklang -  talk 08:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page
Hi there. Just a note that you must not remove declined unblock requests regarding your blocks. --LlamaAl (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that only applies while I am blocked, not after... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct (JonnyBonesJones). There was nothing wrong with removing the requests. Ryan Vesey 07:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NMMA and TUF
Some people seem to be confused about how to catagorize MMA fights. You are definitely not the only one, but since you are trying to get so many pages deleted that are actually notable, I wanted to make sure you understood. If you look at WP:NMMA, it only requires fights for notability to be put on by a top tier organization and be professional. All legal MMA fights in the US are done at 3 levels, toughman, amateur, or professional. Once you are a professional, you can not got back down to amateur to compete. Every single fighter on TUF, is a professional fighter, and every single fight on TUF is legal and sanctioned by the NSAC. When they call them exhibition fights, they only mean that they have worked out a deal where they don't have to report them to the ABC to be immediately put on the record. They did this because you could go to a person's record and create a bracket of who won and who loss if they didn't do that. It doesn't mean that they aren't professional and put on by a top tier, which is all that is required to be notable by WP:NMMA. If you personally have an issue with TUF fights being used, then I would suggest trying to get the guidelines changed, but as of now, quite a few of those articles should never have been recomended per WP:NMMA. Until such a time exists, that the guidelines are changed, please follow them. Thanks. And feel free to delete this if you want, because if you do delete it, then you are acknowledging that you read it and understand it. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such guideline that says exhibition bouts count. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is nothing that says exhibition bouts don't count. Since an exhibition bout can still be a professional fight and can still be put on by a top tier organization, Professional exhibition bouts you see put on by the UFC (which is what TUF fights are) still fall into the guidelines setup by WP:NMMA. You and a couple other people keep hanging onto the word exhibition and as far as the guidelines go, it's irrelevant. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read up on what makes a fighter notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags
One warning, and only one. You cannot say that the result of the MMA discussion applied only to results tables. In fact, the discussion itself covered the use of flags in general. Furthermore, the whole point of the RfC was just to affirm that MOS:FLAG applied in its restrictive sense to MMA articles. If you add flags or revert someone else's removal of flags from an MMA article I will block you. And it will be for a sizable length of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers - the team they are fighting for - are appropriate to understanding the outcome of the overall competition."


 * Thats what the RFC said. I bolded and italiced a certain part you ignored for you. Also Mtking didnt just remove flags, he removed content from the page, aka Shane Carwin's name, I expect you're not gunna mention that either though. Also in his most recent edit he removed content other than flags, he removed Daniel Pineda's name. He also removed non flag tags saying what country the fighter comes from, and numbers which tell how many fighters are from a particular country. I doubt you'll threaten to block Mtking over that though.


 * I also feel with these posts that you and Mtking are assuming bad faith of me. He is bringing up the past over something that had nothing to do with the page in question, assuming I will be baited into another edit war, which I wont. And this quote assumes bad faith on your part: "I've given him a final warning. Which I expect he will ignore, since he seems to believe, despite multiple editors telling him otherwise, that he is correct on this issue no matter what the RfC says. If it occurs again, let me know and I will block." Well the RfC says results tables. So I am correct on the issue. I also feel you are not being neutral, and picking sides on an issue, thats unbecoming of an admin. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jonny, you may want to have a read of WP:POINT, because some might view edits as letting your disagreements about flags in MMA spill over into another area of the 'pedia to make a point. You might also want to avoid making comments such as, every editor is responsable for their own edits, if you are not willing to take personal responsibility for making an edit then don't make it.  Mt  king (edits) 00:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian said it was OK to remove the flags. So I'm gunna go ahead and do what I always do, and disregard your message. Have a nice day! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I certainly did not. Seriously, do you just want to be blocked? You know as well as I do that you made the edit solely to be pointy. I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes you did, are you trying to lie to me? I will quote a post from your talk and bold the areas which show you allowed it.


 * "It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection): Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf) Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]] In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves. WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)"


 * Also you accusing me of being pointy, even tho I just showed you that you allowed for us to remove flags from those articles is an example of assuming bad faith and WP:HYPOCRISY. Are you really trying to tell me that what you said never happened, when I just quoted you word for word? Also "I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you.", was that a threat? I kind of feel uncomfortable now, because that sounds like a threat. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is JonnyBonesJones. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk)


 * I am sorry you are upset Qwyrxian, but what are you trying to report me for? What have I dont wrong? I am only trying to follow wikipedia's guidelines, and do something you yourself said was ok! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you a psychiatrist? No, I merely have reading skills above the the sixth-grade level, as well as a lifetime of dealing with and little patience for those who -- wrongly -- think they're being clever. If you think you're being particularly clever, I suggest you try this out on your homeroom teacher and see how far it gets you.

As far as the definition of passive-aggressive behavior goes, it's easy enough to find if you're willing to look outside your hermetically sealed world. Like, say, here:


 * Passive–aggressive behavior is a category of interpersonal interactions characterised by an obstructionist or hostile manner that indicates aggression, or, in more general terms, expressing aggression in non-assertive, subtle (i.e. passive or indirect) ways. It can be seen in some cases as a personality trait or disorder marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed, resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.

Passive aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible --Calton | Talk 21:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I havent had a homeroom teacher in years, now I request you no longer comment on my talk page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Community discretionary sanctions
Per the approved General_sanctions in MMA related areas, and as I am an uninvolved admin, you are hereby placed on restriction from editing any flag in any article on Wikipedia, including non-MMA articles, for a period of 6 months including adding flags to MMA articles you create. You may continue to discuss the matter of flags on article talk pages. Anymore disruption or bad faith accusations in this topic area will result in stricter restrictions or a block.--v/r - TP 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I can agree to this. What if it is decided flags are ok for MMA articles, would I still be on restriction? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Until the restriction expires, yes, but you may participate in any discussion that would lead to that conclusion and afterwards you may ask the community or Arbcom to rescind the restriction.--v/r - TP 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The restriction is now logged.--v/r - TP 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask for the end date? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless my math is wrong, 23 May 2013.--v/r - TP 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 months would end on June 23.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, no flags for 6 months. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Ok I can agree to this. Wrong. You don't have a choice. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calton, don't grave dance please. Everyone has options and as I see this, the editor is agreeing that he will not violate the sanctions and is not figting them. That was just uncalled for.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist, don't start with your usually wrong-headed busybodiness, please. IIf you don't understand what's been written, don't comment: a sanction is not an "agreement" or choice except that it's a choice between following it or leaving, and the sooner JonnyBonesJones -- assuming he's not indefinitely blocked and come to think of it even if he is -- understands that basic fact -- not "opinion", as you pretend it to be -- the better. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the two of you mind taking this to one of your own talk pages instead of here? It's hardly fair to JBJ or his talk page watchers to have this squabble on our talk page/watchlists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calton, I request that you leave my talk page. Amadscientist, you may stay. lol JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to word that so it is clear you are asking for no further contact. And when doing so, it is always best practice to return the same by not posting further on the editors talkpage as well. The LOL was probably not a good way to demonstrate your sincerity. It is not uncommon for editors to dislike that. Just earlier this evening I was pointed to an admins pre-made request to not use "LOL" or "Meh" when posting to them.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I formally request no further contact from Calton. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for WP:CANVASS, WP:DE - this should be enough time for the ANI discussion to conclude without you further disrupting the project as a whole. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still permitted to participate in the ANI discussion related to the potential for an indefinite block from this project by using helpme followed by the phrase "Please copy this to the ANI discussion:" ... and whatever text you want copied there. Be cautious with what you ask to be copied on your behalf, as your replies so far have done nothing but harm your case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please copy this to the ANI discussion: I think 31 hours is fair, however I do request that Calton be removed from my talk page for his comments bordering on harassment. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to have talkpage access. As such you may remove any editor comments that you feel are not appropriate ( do not remove admin warnings, sanctions, blocks, etc.) and request that they stop further contact. If the editor refuses to heed your request, you may ask for further assistance.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll leave em up for the admins to see. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello!
TParis and Biwilkins are good admin. They do not do sanctions lightly. There seems to be no reason for any appeals etc. and I firmly believe you are doing yourself and the community a service by accepting sanctions in a reasonable fashion. When you return, this editor (me ) is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

As a courtesy, I am leaving the options that I referred to, that you may not know about. Please do not see this as a suggestion to appeal. It is not. I am offering only what little I know about these matters to show that there are always options, but the one you chose is the best path in this case.


 * Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")


 * If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process below). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly.


 * Disputes or complaints


 * In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available.


 * Administrator recall


 * Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if specified criteria are met.
 * The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and usually detailed in their userspace. The process is entirely voluntary and administrators may change their criteria at any time, or decline to adhere to previously made recall pledges.


 * Requests for comment on administrator conduct
 * Misuse of administrator access or behavior that is incompatible with adminship may result in an involuntary request for comment on administrator conduct. Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review, for which see below.


 * Arbitration Committee review
 * This is an involuntary process. Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution are tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct or other steps. Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, and removal of administrator privileges.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am offically retiring from Wikipedia. Everyone who doesnt like the way things are going, come here! http://mmawiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
I have had it with all this anal nonsense. I'm most likely gunna be blocked as a martyr for MMA on wikipedia. If anyone who is part of the MMA project is sick of all the bullshit from Mtking and Hasteur and the anal admins, please join me at the true MMA wikipedia:

http://mmawiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Thanks everyone. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Message
 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing your disruptive and abusive approach to Wikipedia, and for making personal attacks and attempted outing. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)