User talk:Gromlakh

Welcome!

Hello, Gromlakh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! VegaDark 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Ever thought of joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts? I noticed you have lots of MMA related edits. We are now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive, please add your input to decide what the first collaboration should be. VegaDark 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should get around to joining at some point. I don't think I have the time right now to contribute much to the article improvement drive, but I keep my eye on several MMA-related articles for vandalism, nonsense, etc. I'll probably throw my name in the members section. Tuckdogg 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, your contributions show you've made a lot of positive edits to MMA-related articles. Keep up the good work! east .718 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, fine, if you're gonna twist my arm...in a kimura...Tuckdogg 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Copeland

There is a move discussin going on at the talk page of Adam Copeland, I thought you would be interested in it. TJ Spyke 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

...catching that linkspammer and reverting vandalism in general. Have you thought about trying out Twinkle? It makes vandalism reversion much easier, and also streamlines warning users. east.718 at 01:26, September 12, 2007

Looks interesting! I may have to check that out...Tuckdogg 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary revision reverting

If you are going to reverse a revision that has been researched and well crafted, be consistent across the board. Compare content with other similar entries which are considered acceptable, then rethink your actions. Read the Muhammed Ali, Fedor Emelianenko, Chuck Liddell biographies for examples of what is considered relevant information, particularly regarding fight descriptions. Make changes to all of those wiki entries if you feel that your standards should be universally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acesfull11 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure Tuckdogg will get around to cleaning up those articles too. east.718 at 20:17, September 25, 2007

East718 is correct, at least as to the Liddell/Fedor pages. Chuck hasn't been on my watchlist, but I think I should add him.Tuckdogg 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the MMA portion of my watchlist to my sandbox for your use... just visit [1] and paste at the bottom... there's probably a few leftovers from other topics though. east.718 at 00:41, September 26, 2007

Holy friggin' crap, dude! Suddenly my watchlist doesn't look so insanely large!Tuckdogg 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sylvia's Page

I was the one reverting edits to Tim Sylvia's page. As one person pointed out, putting his website info about autographs could be seen as advertisement so it's best to keep that out, but as for the rest of it I still think it should be put back on the page. The info I reverted it to seems to be general consensus among anyone who is not blind. As it stands, leaving that specific information out would seem like a POV edit by someone who is a Tim Sylvia fan. What's your reasoning for removing that info then threatening me with a ban (which someone else already did)? Cyrus777 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user's talk page.Tuckdogg 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 79

The Chuck Liddell vs. Wanderlei Silva fight was set for UFC 79 on December 29 and will be played on DirecTV as per various articles and their own website. That is confirmation tha fight is happening. What your are looking for is an offcial annoucement from UFC or the fighters. Wikipedia ia here to share information. While I agree with you that rumors and speculation should not be on here, big news like a cable company announcing it will carry the fight is something worth sharing on wikipedia and is validated information with references to back it. There is nothing in wikipedia that says we need an offcial annoucement from UFC to list the fight and post on on the UFC 79 page. All we need is confirmed verification that the fight is taking place and we have that with the DirecTV article. If you are waiting for UFC to offcially annouce the fight then why are there 4 or 5 fights listed on the UFC 79 page? The only fight officially annouced by UFC for December 29th is Matt Serra vs. Matt Hughes. I don't know why you are being so strict on here that you want to keep confirmed and reference articles out of the pages that will be read by fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.157.157 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the topic started on the UFC 79 talk page...umm, yeah, that's exactly what I'm looking for. The standard for including a fight is an official announcement from the promotion. If there is none, then a statement from one or more of the fighters confirming that the fight is officially signed will do. Barring one of those, there is no official fight. If the fight is not official, it is rumored. If it is rumored, it doesn't belong on the wiki page. Period.Tuckdogg 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why don't you delete all the other fights that are included on that listing? The only fight that has been confirmed by UFC itself is Matt Serra vs. Matt Hughes. All the other information about the match ups from UFC 79 where brought from 2nd hand websites that have nothing to do with the UFC company itself reporting the fight will happen. Why does my information about Liddel and Silva get deleted when at least the DirecTV people have something to do with the UFC and they said the fight will happen. How do 2nd hand websites have more credibility then DirecTV saying it will carry a fight? You come check all this stuff and basically have no standards for what you are taking out and leaving in. You take out valid information saying it's not official but leave other information that has not been officially announced either? If your gonna make moves like taking out big news that has a reference and valid information (which I believe is vandalism)then at least do it evenly so there is consistency on what is on the page. You can't have many different pieces of information with similar references backing them and then go and pick and choose which ones end up on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.157.157 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history on the UFC 79 page. Myself (and others) have been editing the crap out of it, keeping unofficial fights off of the page for weeks. Those fights are on there because they are now officially signed, and the reference articles confirm it. Kongo/Nogueria was announced by the Fight Network, and confirmed as signed by both camps. Clementi confirmed that Joe Silva told him his fight was officially on the card, so that's good.

All the reference articles say reflect that those fights are officially confirmed from official sources, either the fighters themselves or from the UFC. The reference articles for Silva/Liddell say nothing of the sort. They mention that a graphic was posted on the DirecTV website, and then was taken down. They are then "SPECULATING" (<--- note the magic word) on what exactly that means. Speculation == not official == no fight yet. The expectation is that the fight is on, and will be announced at UFC 77. Until that happens, there's no way of knowing whether the fight is signed or is still just in negotiations. Remember, this is the same fight that Dana announced with Silva & Chuck in the cage, and it still hasn't happened yet.Tuckdogg 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fight network putting up a paragraph about the Kengo vs Nog fight taking place at UFC 79 any different then MMA weekley posting a graphic directly from the DirecTV website saying that the Liddell fight is taking place at UFC 79? One was confirmed by the fight network, one was confirmed by DirecTV. Neither has been announced by the fighter or by the UFC. If your criteria is the UFC or fighter annoucement then 80 percent of the fights listed must come down. If your criteria is that a site confirms it, then it can all stay up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.157.157 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because both camps have confirmed Nog/Kongo, and the Fight Network is a reliable source that announced the fight as officially signed. The MMA Weekly article never says the fight is signed, nor has either fighter's camp announced it, nor has the UFC. DirecTV also did not confirm the fight. They posted the picture, then they took it down almost immediately. What does that mean? I haven't a clue. Probably either that they weren't supposed to announced it that early (because Dana wants to save the announcement for UFC 77), or because Dana told them to yank it down because the contracts haven't been signed yet and he doesn't want to get hopes up based on the previous history of making this fight. I'd guess it's likely the former, but my guess isn't a reliable source.

And since at least one fighter involved in each of the listed fights has confirmed that the fight is signed, sealed, and delivered for UFC 79, that's considered reliable enough for it to be listed. No need to drop any of the fights, except the one glaring exception that's never been confirmed by any the promoter or a fighter involved. Any guesses as to which fight that is?Tuckdogg 03:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, looked what happened with the Nog/Kongo fight. It's not happening. Guess my statement was correct that if Liddell vs. Silva was not allowed to be post then the other fights should not be posted because none wedre confirmed by the UFC. You either post all fights that are annouced by scources outside the UFC or post none of them. You can't just post some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.157.157 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC

Before you go back and try to say Randy Cotoure is not UFC Heavyweight champ you need to go to the UFC's website http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.TitleHolders&cid=3. It does not list the title as vacant. It lists Randy Cotoure as champ. So unless you can provide a proper citation more reliable than the UFC itself. Do not change it.Aladdin Zane 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page.Tuckdogg 23:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because even though there are certain things going on around Randy right now and his retirement again. They still lists him as champ and are leaving the title with him until Dana has had a chance to speak with him. which has not happened as of yet. So there is nothing wrong with leaving it as is until the talks are over.Aladdin Zane 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy supposedly faxed in a resignation. No talks have happened as of this time because Randy is in South Africa filming a movie. So they are leaving the title in his name until talks are over. Because a resignation has to be accepted for it to be inforced. As of this time it still has not been accepted until Dana has a chance to speak with randyAladdin Zane 23:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user's talk page.Tuckdogg 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So to keep edit wars from happening while they are waiting for talks to happen. There is no harm in leaving the page as is until the UFC officialy declares the title vacant.Aladdin Zane 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user's talk page.Tuckdogg 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is "alledgedly" because anyone can fax anyone anything saying it was from Randy. Also Dana said he received the resignation paper. He did NOT say the UFC ACCEPTED the resignation letter. There is a big difference. So unless you have something from the UFC stating they have accepted it and the title is vacant. It should stay as it is until the UFC declares it vacant. Which as of current time and date they havent, and the website is updated several tiumes daily. So best to leave it be until the officially announce the title is vacant to prevent edit wars.Aladdin Zane 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC

Response on user's talk page.Tuckdogg 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your Dude, and I was not the first to revert what you did. Best thing is to leave it alone til it is officialAladdin Zane 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished with this conversation.Tuckdogg 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also depending on the contract he had with the UFC they can decline his resignation. Because As with any contracted employee. For instance when I was a contracted employee I could only resign with a 3 month notice. If I tried to immediately resign I had to pay them a huge sum of money. Aladdin Zane 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go read the mixed martial arts talkpage. Looks like 2 others agree with me, and one even posted this [2] which is exactly what I have been telling you.Aladdin Zane 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zepp

		Hello, Tuckdogg
		Congratulations for finding my hidden User page! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Fedor

Um...okay? The Anti-Vandalism King 18:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a favor

Hey Tuckdogg, I'm sure you're familiar with the "wigger" vandal that's been attacking Phil Baroni, Pete Sell, Matt Serra, and other articles. Could you please go through the histories of these articles and get me a list of usernames and diffs that have vandalized? I'm planning on grabbing someone with CheckUser permissions on IRC and putting an end to this. Thanks, east.718 at 18:58, 11/3/2007

Thanks a million. east.718 at 20:37, 11/4/2007

Roger Huerta Info

I noticed that you suspected vandalism on Roger Huerta's wiki entry regarding his ethnic background. The author claims he is of Mexican American descent. Huerta is of Salvadoran background. Please see the discussion page for the exact link to the Sports Illustrated article on Huerta's background. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.190.100 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:24, 11/4/2007

They'll be confirmed sooner or later so just leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordvader2009 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florian

How is it vandalism? He is part Armenian.--74.207.72.208 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 82

Seriously --> Tuckdogg Faggot <-- ... stop being an uptight bitch... its ok for koschecks announced matchup to be on the UFC 82 page, first of all it isnt a rumor, you faggot, he confirmed it... and when Chuck liddell confirmed the UFC 79 fight, it was left TBD and second of all the ufc doesn have to announce it, the fighter does...

If Koscheck ever does end up fighting at UFC 82 im gomnna kick the shit out of you and make you suck my cock.. which is probably gonna happen since HE ANNOUNCED IT!!! FAG!!!