Misplaced Pages

User talk:Niteshift36

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lexein (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 6 October 2010 (→Idiocracy: request.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:29, 6 October 2010 by Lexein (talk | contribs) (→Idiocracy: request.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Please place new messages at the BOTTOM of the page.

I detest stalkers, especially those who can't get their facts straight.


BJJFan

Hi Niteshift, I want to start updating some of the bjj fighters information on wiki.what would wiki consider reliable sources? I mean the only reliable source of bjj information seems to be from articles and news web sites spread out through the internet. Here are some examples: ], ] , ], those are the major online news for bjj and mma in the world. They publish monthly magazines as wellI mean would you consider those reliable sources? If not we have to shut down every major bjj competitor, because most information come from these sites. Also I've notice some fighters are adding the tournament results and fight records, in which are detailed information about their matches, what do you think about that? --Bjjfan232 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Corkscrew store photo

that would be incredibly cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyapetty (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Greetings, Niteshift! I've asked an admin whom I respect greatly to weigh in on the whole Sean Hannity/waterboarding/sock puppet issue. Though he and I have collaborated on several articles in the past, we come from very distinct worldviews. As a self-described conservative Christian, he's actually probably more inclined to side with you, although I trust him completely to strive for a neutral point of view. (Not saying you don't... but again, I've worked with him many times.) Mainly, I'm hoping he can get to the bottom of the issue of sockpuppets and SPA's thwarting our efforts at consensus building. Looking forward to working with him, and you! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think that I've supported the inclusion of the waterboarding statement because I want to see criticism of him for the sake of criticism — I believe that it's better included as an example of his political views on a touchy subject. And your userboxes — see mine if you've not already looked. I'm not suspecting you of being a staffer working with a hidden POV :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • After giving the matter quite a bit of thought, I decided I agree with you on the Hal Turner issue. It's just not notable to an article on Sean Hannity. Indeed, about all that is notable about Hannity's days at WABC is that which already appears in the article-- and I say that as a fan of Hannity since shortly before his leaving WGST. (Yes, really! A non-traditional Libertarian who is a fan of a faithful Catholic conservative. Whodda thunk it? ;-) ) What worries me, though, is how the article has been redacted to the point that it does now seem to be askew of NPOV. And although the POV I think it now represents is not my own, that does not make it any more worrisome to me than if it had taken a POV that more closely matches my own. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Gang

I noticed that you been editing the Gang article . I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod on David M. Malone

Drmies has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

International Sport Combat Federation

Hey there Niteshift! I've been in touch with Steve Fossum, the president of the ICSF, and we've been trying to work on getting the article up to notability standards. He sent me the following, and while it needs work, I'm wondering if the references he's provided satisfy your interpretation of the notability guidelines. Let me know what you think whenever you get a chance. Thanks in advance ocee 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

International Sport Combat Federation - ISCF

The International Sport Combat Federation (ISCF) is an international sanctioning body regulating mixed martial arts and submission grappling and is based out of Newcastle, California, USA. http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFLogoSMWH.jpg


WHAT IS THE ISCF? The ISCF was the first ever Sanctioning Body for the Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) created in 1999. Other than the annual ISCF Amateur World Classic (The Golden Gloves of MMA) The ISCF does not Promote events and is NOT a Promotional Company. The ISCF is a "Sanctioning Body" for Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events just like other sanctioning bodies for fight sports (Kickboxing: IKF, ISKA, WKA, USKBA etc. - Boxing: WBC, IBF, WBC etc.).


SANCTIONING When the ISCF is called upon to SANCTION an event, the name of the event does not change. In fact, very little does change. The ISCF works with each Promoter and or Promotional Company individually. The ISCF assigns and approves all event officials that have been trained and certified as ISCF Officials.


RULES The ISCF is sometimes asked to follow the rules and requirements of a jurisdictions Athletic Commission of the region the event is promoted in. If so, some ISCF Rules and Regulations may vary to meet the requirements of the State or jurisdiction of the event.


The ISCF Mission For Mixed Martial Arts... "Safety, Credibility, Fairness, Recognition, Support & Unification of Mixed Martial Arts Around The World"

"The goal of the International Sport Combat Federation is to regulate safe and fair rules and regulations and help provide exposure and opportunities for local, regional, national and international competition among amateur and professional mixed martial arts fighters, trainers, promoters and officials. We will, through adherence to and enforcement of these rules and regulations, strive to make competitive mixed martial arts fighting a safe and fair sport as we continue to help bring exposure to and enhance the present as well as the future of the sport we serve, Mixed Martial Arts." Steve Fossum, President International Sport Combat Federation

___________________________________


References Books and articles

http://www.cagepotato.com/2008/02/19/fight-magazine-exclusive-smoker

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090908155021zmil.nb/topstory.html

http://eon.businesswire.com/portal/site/eon/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070323105175&newsLang=en

http://worldextremefighter.com/2009/11/24/mma-scoring-system-needs-change/

http://www.fullcontactmartialarts.org/mma-mixed-martial-arts.html

http://www.extremeprosports.com/full_contact_fighting/amateur_grappling_venues.html

http://www.search.com/reference/International_Sport_Combat_Federation

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/sb224.pdf

http://www.yourinnerdragon.com/mixed-martial-arts-mma.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/seemeactive/fightsports/prweb3156014.htm

http://www.whispy.com/martial-arts-resources.html

http://tn.gov/commerce/athletic/index.shtml

http://www.camplejeuneglobe.com/articles/2007/12/06/sports/base/onbase02.txt

Just wondering why we still can't have our page up? Can someone contact us to let us know what we are STILL missing or not doing???

info@iscfmma.com

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.252.203 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 13 sources on that list. Of them, 10 fail WP:RS as reliable sources. 3 remaining three confirm that ISCF exists, which nobody disputes, but they don't provide significant coverage of the organization. The only one that comes close is the one from the News Blaze, but it focuses on the event, not on the organization. It sounds like it was a great event, but the article only states that you sanctioned it and that the ring girls were from the ISCF. Do you know of any articles that actually talk about the org? You know, something that say "this is who they are, this is what they do" kind of thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Wikiwings
For extraordinary contributions to Aircraft in fiction, thus improving hundreds of aircraft type articles along the way! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.

This barnstar is awarded to User:Niteshift36, for his dedication to compromise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for your valiant efforts to the project. Ikip (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

wow, i could really like you

I love your user page, I love everything in your "My Boxes". Well, everything but coffee. No, that's not true, I love coffee too, I just can't drink it any more. Seems we got off to a bad start there in US Secret Service, did I strike a nerve? I see you (like myself) served in uniform. We both enjoy firearms, democracy, conservativism, martial arts, political incorrectness, fatherhood, and sci fi (the weirder the better).

Thanks for the tips on the standards to meet in putting together a new SS section.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you're edits seem well put and truthful on the Fox News page. I have tried to make the lead of the NYT article congruent with the lead of the Fox News but the editors seem more interested in their bias opinion. It would be a great help to the wiki community if you reviewed my latest edit and post on the discussion page. Thank you! DeltoidNoob (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Goon Affiliated

Hey do you think the stuff not covered in the source in the tracklist should just be removed and me and you work together to revert the unsourced changes and i'll also make a report at WP:RFPP so we can get long term protection this time. The {{cn}} tags make it harder to read. STAT -Verse 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the page in my watchlist so i know and appritiate your work to help this article out the best you can :). Protection might be a problem because im ussally good at getting articles protected but theres been this admin recently thats been a real dick recently and has been declining all my requests :(. STAT -Verse 04:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Man I dont know what the real tracklist is anymore. First we had a tracklist from a source I forget then we have HipHopDX's then we have one from Allmusic. I would accept Allmusic's but my one thought against it is the fact that the single Medicine was left out. Its just confusing. STAT -Verse 22:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now that its protected again we won't have to worry about IP's for a while. Since the album comes out it two days someone will buy it and read the inside so we know the real producers for the songs. STAT -Verse 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless it gets delayed....again. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actully Billboard.com's chartings get updated on Thursday. Thats last weeks sales charts. STAT -Verse 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey what if these people adding the producers are reading it off the lineir notes if they have the album? STAT -Verse 01:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Then they need to use it as a source. I already tried the tagging it route. They're hard-headed and need to learn what a source is and that they need to include one. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If the album wasent so bubblegum i would've bought it and added the real producers myself lol. Trust me i'll buy Recovery instead lol. STAT -Verse 02:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Like this?? STAT -Verse 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Gun laws in the United States (by state)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Gun laws in the United States (by state) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Niteshift36. I hope you will agree to this mediation, by posting the word "agree" and your signature at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Parties' agreement to mediation. I believe that for the mediation to proceed we need everyone to agree. It's possible that that would result in the removal of the Brady Campaign state scorecard from the article, which I'd really like. Whether or not you actually participate in the mediation discussion -- which hasn't officially started yet -- is entirely up to you, although I hope you'll do that too. Thanks. — Mudwater 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but we might need your agreement for the mediation to proceed. As I mentioned, your actual participation in the discussion would be encouraged but entirely optional. I'm curious about why you haven't responded so far, and hoping that you'll agree. Thanks. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Niteshift. Will you be signing off on the mediation (one way or the other) at any point soon? We're mainly waiting on you. Regards, AGK 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to the mediation. That is a difficult dispute but I hope the mediation process will help us make some progress. — Mudwater 11:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT

Sorry I accused you of "picking on amateur sports." That sounds much worse in writing than I meant it to sound. Often, I feel that no one wants to tackle the one second in a pro game makes you notable rule because doing so will pit you up against handfulls of pro sports fans. For amateurs things can often be said with no response from the other side, so I often get overly defensive to compensate. In my defensive writing it may have been lost, but if you go back I think you'll notice that I am for keeping standards tight as well, in fact I was the one who suggested tightening the junior skaters section a while ago, well before this whole debacle. Look at "skating is way too lenient" in the archived discussions. I started that, and it still hasn't been resolved. I wanted to change competed in world junior champs to medaled, others seemed to disagree. I finally changed it from competed to competed in the free skate (which is the finals in figure skating, which by the way is much larger than track, so I agree it is still to lax). I also wanted to change national championship to national champion for a country that has a record of notable skaters, or something to that regard.

I am also sorry I kept on mentioning gymnastics, that was a bit personal when it came up in the original post since I have been the only one to create and edit that section and it is probably the toughest sport to get into in terms of notability, and I view it as a model to look up to. Plus despite my cries for help at the gymnastics project, no one has given any imput, so I never got any feedback. So I saw the word in your first post and I couldn't get it out of my mind, and just could not let it go even after you explanation. This was in poor taste on my part.

I know I can be harsh with my arguments, and sometimes downright rude, please forgive me. I also understand that it is important to have non track fans editing/overseeing the track section, and the same goes for all other sections. So I hope you continue to contribute to the conversation. While I think we disagree on a lot of things right now, I think we may be able to reach some sort of consensus for tightening. I have done it before on both sides of the aisle for multiple sports sections in this essay. I am truly interested in hearing your comments on the road racing section, as I also think this section has problems. As for the AfDs you were referring to I don't mean what I said disingenuously, if similar junior records for other sports are being rejected as reasons for notability at AfD lets talk about either how these world track records need to be deleted or how they are different than the ones under scrutiny at AfD. I do think my table of Olympic bronze medalists vs. world junior records is quite convincing, but if it isn't to you lets talk about why. --MATThematical (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Knight in the Congo (2nd nomination)

Howdy, I wanted to let you know I have re-opened an AfD which you have previously commented on. I had closed it prematurely, on the basis of a copyright violation, which turned out to be erroneous. My apologies for the mix-up. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Washington & Jefferson topic

Thanks for the recognition!. Might I ask how you came across some of those articles? Just curious--GrapedApe (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I grew up in Washington. Nearly went to W&J and have friends and family that did. If you check the edit history of it, the Harding-Smith article etc, you'll see I've mainly reverted vandalism, but I sourced some "trivia" that some were trying to remove etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are free to disagree...

NPOV does not apply to talk pages. Editors are free to name sections however they want as long as they do not attack any editor when doing so. IMO, the heading as it currently reads is not a personal attack. Soxwon (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Examiner Links

Per your edit here, I looked at the reference links and the links are active and working, I am confused how they are blacklisted....normally a bot catches that immediately. These are links from The Washington Examiner, a local Washington, DC newspaper. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I talked with a friend who works at The Washington Examiner and she said "It's our parent company, but there's no affiliation between our paper and the site." So since they are owned by the same company, but not affiliated, I am not sure how you want to deal with that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, just wanted to err on the side of caution, plus it was an excuse to talking to a friend. :) Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, you removed some links from examiner.com over at John Astin, but the article was were pre-2009, so it was from The Baltimore Examiner, which is a reliable source. Whatever exists there now is different, and that is what is blacklisted, not the Baltimore Examiner. So, I have restored the ref, but commented out the URL, so it should be A-OK now.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's use some common sense here, since it is pretty clear that the blacklist refers to the current resident of examiner.com, not the Baltimore Examiner. In the future, maybe you should just comment out the link, rather than striking all of its references. I posted a note at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist about the problem, asking if the blacklist could be restricted to post-February 2009 articles. I'm concerned that we're losing a lot of data here, because of an overbroad blacklist.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on Brady map

Greetings, Niteshift36. There's currently a straw poll at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps. I hope you'll participate. Thanks. — Mudwater 12:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice to quit

You are not welcome on my talk page. Please do not make further posts there.Mk5384 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yep. I seriously considered a "blocks all around" approach on that edit war. You don't have to notify Mk5384 of 3RR anymore: he's been warned in the past, and even blocked for it. No one would believe he was unaware of it.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Close......but at some point, his reverts of sourced material that was in the article by consensus, that was being put back in by multiple editors, borders on vandalism. I was keeping 3RR in mind, which is why I didn't do the last couple of reverts. I don't see an exception on the notification rule and what I don't want to see is 5 reverts down the road, being told "nobody properly warned him" (and you both know that does happen).Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I was keeping that in mind and I have addressed the compromise version already. Note that his version is the one that currently appears in the article and he uses a bogus justification of the RSN. That discussion, which is still on-going, doesn't show any real support for his claim that the sources aren't reliable. The fact that he was willing to make a suicide charge on reverts before his temp block, shouldn't keep the version that has been reverted by at least 4 editors, as the default version just because we don't want to run afoul of the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because the sources haven't been deemed unreliable doesn't mean we should present their words as matter-of-fact. I've commented at the article talk, let's keep the content discussion there. –xeno 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still learning how to use this wikipedia

Hey Niteshift. I just wanted to write to you and let you know that I understood why my "Mike Stone" article was deleted. I honestly am new to this, so I really don't blame you for deleting that article I had put up. I was testing out the waters by using myself as an example, but I failed in the 1st run. Forgive me for that, please. Mikestone05 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Idiocracy

It's not usual or helpful to simply DELETE an entire section while an editor is working to improve it. You don't indicate whether you made a good faith effort to find sources yourself - this is a vital part of WP:BURDEN. If you suggest discussion, you should actually start the discussion. The {{dubious}} tag will also help move the article toward improvement. Arguments should not take place through reverts and edit summaries. I do not entirely disagree with your points, just the method. Please reread WP:Five Pillars, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Lexein (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandboxing (which you didn't suggest to the other editor) isn't not on for sections that have been with an article for a while. In-place improvement is entirely appropriate. Clear suggestions (and edits) are more productive than deletion.
I don't find applying both sides of WP:BURDEN to be "silly." I stand by my comments above in their entirety, as civil and AGF. You suggested the discussion but still have not started it. Though I did suggest reading materials, those were pamphlets on the table, not hurtling phonebooks. Some folks had never seen 'em, and have in the past thanked me. If you didn't like Idiocracy, please don't(!) look at The Marching Morons. --Lexein (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said, "I do not entirely disagree with your points, just the method." Reading WP:BURDEN - the deleter has an obligation to make a good faith effort to find a source to support that which is about to be deleted; nothing more than a good faith effort. Lots of editors do: it's a good guideline, and a good guideline within it. The history of that Idiocracy section is that many, many (non-notable, non-RS) sources had cumulatively pointed out the obvious link between Idiocracy, Kornbluth, and Huxley, in different combinations. The section was started as soon as there was the slightest shred of scholarly and media support for the notion. That's not necessarily OR, and you know it. It's arguably not, to point out what's been sourced. When you yell "synth" it's helpful to point out which specific words you despise, and even just delete. I would support that. Wholesale deletion is utterly utterly useless, and flies in the face of ongoing, no deadline, WP:Article improvement. Deletions should be reserved for vandalism, obvious nonsense, falsehoods, violations of BLP, etc. and a host of other reasons; not for this. Of course Misplaced Pages's voice should not be used to speak original research, but "stories of time travel to a dystopian future are not new" followed by a short list of well-known notable stories and their publication dates, and reviews which support the "time travel" and "dystopian future" portions of the claim, doesn't seem at all to rise to the level of OR, to me, at all. --Lexein (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to move this entire thread, including your responses, ordered in time, to Talk:Idiocracy, to request WP:Third opinion. Ok by you? --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)