MMAfan2007

Welcome to my talk.

Fedor (again)

I have submitted a request for editor comments on the issue of the Fedor redirect. Please do not move the page again until a consensus has been reached. Thank you. Tuckdogg 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuckdogg forgot to include a link to the discussion, it's located at Talk:Fedor. Also, thank you for supporting my RfA, I know we haven't had the greatest of interactions in the past. east.718 at 19:07, 10/28/2007

...and it is OK, but archiving is preferred, plus I find it more useful for finding old conversations. :) east.718 at 19:28, 10/28/2007

Kendal Grove & d'arce/brabo choke

I noticed on Grove's page you changed d'arce choke to brabo choke. Just letting you know, they are the same thing ;) Thesaddestday 18:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. I figured that's probably what you thought. The UFC actually announced it as a d'arce choke, and I think the end result was listed the same by the commission following, but everywhere else has been listing it as a brabo choke. Thesaddestday 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vandal Warning

Ah ok, no problem lol. These things happen. DoyleyTalk 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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 02:33, 11/4/2007

UFC 84

A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

9/11 alternative theories

While it's good to be bold, this move is very controversial and there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about it, for which there has emerged no consensus to change the name, as of yet. Please discuss controversial changes, rather than driving them through. --Haemo (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your edit (diff) but I agree it is controversial, though I side with you on this controversy. There is mediation in progress regarding the name of that article, maybe you want to join it, and help there?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ufc 86

Dude, have you heard what’s going on with Roger Huerta? And also have you read who’s fighting at ufc 86? Thanks for your time --Vik.sanchez (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

question

Have you ever tried talking TOO people rather then at them, like your comments on the Freemasonry talk page. Pretty rude, how about being less combatative and more respectful to others. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fedor

The issue of the redirect was discussed liberally on the talk page. You yourself participated in that discussion. The consensus was clearly against your constant attempts to redirect the page to Fedor Emelianenko instead of a disambig page. Barely six months ago you apologized for doing so and claimed you would not do it again.

Now today I find you doing it again for both pages, not using the talk pages, and again simply imposing your own views in stark contrast to the clearly established consensus to prove your own point. You're just being disruptive now; I will not warn you for this again. If the pages have to be admin protected to keep you from changing them, I will do that. If you have to be blocked for being disruptive, we can go that route as well. Either way, knock it off. Gromlakh (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your User name

Haha, I saw you on my watchlist and I couldn't help but notice some similarities in our user name :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

haha, you reported to WP:AIV which is on my watchlist lol. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I could, but the page is already protected and I don't see much in line with a lot of persistent vandalism. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats good, and am sure it was, those fights rarely ever disappoint! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joe Milligan

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joe Milligan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)