User talk:BasicsOnly

BasicsOnly, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BasicsOnly! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite! BasicsOnly (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi BasicsOnly! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have no idea what you think Wikipedia is for, what you're doing or what you hope to achieve by your presence here, but it is clear you're not here to contribute in an appropriate, collaborative manner, accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked you. You may appeal this block by following the instructions here. Nick (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BasicsOnly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is no reason for me to be blocked. None of my edits were unconstructive. I think it is worth pointing out that the opposing votes on the RFA are because of disagreements on voting, but how can anyone vote with confidence on an issue if they will be punished for voting at later points? Aside from this action, all of my edits have been purely factual and have mostly revolved around establishing articles that are missing for prominent multiple time world chapmpion BJJ practitioners, correcting BJJ articles, and clarifying other articles. My intent at Wikipedia is to contribute to the quality of the site. I do not think that questioning activities occuring in the main page of the RFA in the talk page for the RFA is worth an indefinite block BasicsOnly (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you per the discussion below. I'm happy to help if you're ever not sure about the propriety of bringing up some issue you may have on a particular page, or if you need guidance on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in general. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion

Unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewing. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I emailed the blocking Admin this following message:

Hi, BasicsOnly here.
I'm not sure why you blocked me. I'll assume that you objected to what I said in the talk portion of the RFA. However, this does not mean that I am not contributing to the website, so I would contest that it does not fit under Obviously not here to build an Encyclopedia. In just 2 days I have performed several quality edits that improve the quality of the site, as well as promoting the creation of a very worthwhile article on 6 time BJJ world champion Paulo Sergio Santos.
I have also disclosed my own conflicts of interest on my talk page. For the record, I read up on the topic of the controversies surrounding the RFA candidate, and that is what lead me to respond. To be honest, it looks a lot like reprisal to follow someone for a single lapse of judgment all the way to their RFA to oppose it because you don't like the way they voted. I'm not saying you specifically are doing so, but this is why I spoke out.
I look forward to long term (though less frequent) content contribution in the narrow field of Martial Arts, which is my specialty. I have an extensive background in Muay Thai Kickboxing, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and MMA. If you choose to keep me blocked there's obviously nothing I can do about it. I'm not going to go around and try to create a new account to circumvent the ban, but likewise I won't be able to contribute to my fields of expertise.
Thanks for your time, and I hope you will reconsider. I apologize if you found what I wrote disruptive, but I'm still getting into the groove of things here.
V/R
BasicsOnly

Also, some VERY strange things are going on with the Deepak Rao page. I invite you to check it out. All the items removed from the article for being inaccurate or not sourced are being re-added one by one. This article deserves a very close look. I am confident that Mr. Rao or people close to him are watching the page and editing it to be a supporting advertisement for Mr. Rao's business. I'm not actually sure how his page passes notability requirements for a living person, but many of the claims are either inaccurate or uncited and the entire article is a mess of self-referencing or dead links.

For what it's worth, mine was one of the Opposes that BasicsOnly objected to. But I had no problem with that, and would have been happy to respond and explain what's behind my reasoning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to hear the other side. I opened it for discussion because it seemed like reprisal for voting a different way in a normal voting process, which seems to undermine the voting process itself. I am new to the site, so I'm sorry if it bothered anyone, but it really stands out when that is the largest primary objection in the RFA. Happy to hear any response you might have!
Sure, but I'll leave it until this unblock discussion is finished and I'll get back to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a profound interest in Deepak Rao. You have made some assertions and disrupted an RFA to make a point of it. Care to explain your interest?
What is the connection between Mr. Rao and Paulo Sergio Santos? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to drop the Deepak Rao issue and stay off the RFA page?
Would you stop dropping Paulo Sergio Santos' name in unrelated conversations (like this one) beyond creating a Draft via WP:AfC?
What constructive edits would you make?
Pardon my French, but this reprisal nonsense is bullshit. I've known Boing a long time. I disagree with him in this instance. We don't block people for disagreeing in an RFA. The problem is your "interest" in Deepak Rao with your dropping Paulo Sergio Santos' name at every opportunity. It smells of fish.
@Nick: Input/feedback would be appreciated.
Have you edited using any other account? Best, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I'm more than happy for you to handle. I've nothing further to add at this time, if anything else comes up, I'll let you know. Nick (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a profound interest in Deepak Rao. You have made some assertions and disrupted an RFA to make a point of it. Care to explain your interest?

Mr. Deepak Rao has made claims that are dangerous and self-promoting. In the martial art Brazilian Jiu Jitsu one of the worst things you can do is falsely claim rank that you did not earn. This is for 4 reasons: 1) because it cheapens and lessens the martial art, 2) because it is incredibly easy to tell if a practitioner has skill in line with their rank (especially at black belt), 3) because every single blackbelt’s lineage can be traced all the way back to the founder of the art and is therefore exceedingly easy to check and foolish to lie about, and 4) because it is very dangerous to teach a martial art such as BJJ which is comprised of techniques for strangulation to unconsciousness and breaking joints in live sparring without proper safety measures and a competent instructor.
My largest issue with Mr. Deepak Rao is that he appears to have no integrity. None of his claims are verified with the exception of his honorary rank of major in the Indian Army Reserves. All of his sources are primary, self created, and many of the reference links are dead as well. Yet without any evidence he claims a M.D. from Harvard, a BJJ blackbelt (takes on average 9-12 years) from Paris, a Jeet Kun Do blackbelt from the US from a notable dead practitioner Richard Bustillo in California, to be a Global Peace Prize awardee, a Lawyer at Yale, and the list goes on. Imagine if someone sees his Wikipedia page and believes he is legit and goes to him for medical services? Or to train martial arts? There is a serious danger there as Wikipedia is seen by many as an authoritative source.

What is the connection between Mr. Rao and Paulo Sergio Santos? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, there is no connection between the two. Paulo Sergio Santos and Deepak Rao live over 7000 KM away from each other. I only brought up Paulo here because it is evidence against the claim of “(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia)” as I’m trying to have the page created. I have also prior disclosed my COI with the subject as I have trained with Paulo before.

Would you agree to drop the Deepak Rao issue and stay off the RFA page?

I can stay off of the RFA page. I do believe that the Deepak Rao article bears serious investigation however. If you tell me I have to, I will stay off of it. But I would like to continue to contribute to that and other articles to ensure they are factual, consistent, and high quality.

Would you stop dropping Paulo Sergio Santos' name in unrelated conversations (like this one) beyond creating a Draft via WP:AfC?

This is the only place I have talked about Paulo aside from in the appropriate venues. As I said before I only brought up Paulo here because it is evidence against the claim of “(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia)” as I’m trying to have the page created. I have also prior disclosed my COI with the subject as I have trained with Paulo before.

What constructive edits would you make?

I would like to contribute primarily to martial arts related pages on Wikipedia. Specifically regarding the topics of Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and MMA as these are my primary areas of expertise.

Pardon my French, but this reprisal nonsense is bullshit. I've known Boing a long time. I disagree with him in this instance. We don't block people for disagreeing in an RFA. The problem is your "interest" in Deepak Rao with your dropping Paulo Sergio Santos' name at every opportunity. It smells of fish.

I’m not saying this is reprisal against me. I was suggesting it’s worth discussing if the downvotes on the RFA constitute reprisal against candidate CaptainEek for their vote towards the unblock. Additionally, I questioned if it makes sense to oppose someone’s appointment for making a mistake. If we required Admins to be perfect and flawless, who would dare claim the role?

Have you edited using any other account? Best, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I just found out about editing Wikipedia. I did some small edits with IP before this in the last 2-3 days before I made an account. I’m rather new to the whole process.

Looking forward to hearing your response! V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, @Deepfriedokra, Boing! said Zebedee, and Nick:, and making no comment on the block which I'm sure was probably justified in context (no offence, Basics), but I pretty much agree with their assessment of the Deepak Rao article; a hive of self-promotion and dubious sourcing as you will ever see, but now reduced to its core. Might be worth keeping eyes on it, there's clearly some orchestration coming from somewhere. SERIAL ^# 17:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Serial Number 54129 (I see you've changed your signature) and said as much on a sidebar discussion on my talk page last night - regardless of this particular editor's behavior, the version of the article pre-SN54129's edits smelled like promotion/covert advertising. creffett (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, and thanks for pruning that article. I have it on my watchlist now too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Serial Number 54129 Always a pleasure. Well, @BasicsOnly: that [[ bit of business is dealt with. I am inclined to unblock, but will leave for further review. Sometimes, I'm too easy. Sorry for the inconvenience, but sometimes I unblock too eagerly, and someone else should look this over. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: thank you for your response and input, and I look forward to hearing another Admin's input regarding this situation v/r BasicsOnly (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an unblock. I think the "reprisal" question was meant in good faith, and I'll be happy to discuss my take on it here once the block situation is sorted out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the right intentions, but go about pursuing them in a vexatious way. It's not just about an RfA; the general principle is that you should not drag unrelated disputes into random project pages. For example, assuming you are unblocked, if you are having a dispute on an article and the discussion gets heated don't run to WP:ANI to complain unless there is actually something for administrators to act on. The world isn't going to end just because the Deepak Rao article had some puffery in it, and sometimes people get tired of being spammed about it even if you're right. Understood? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I can understand that viewpoint. I'm new to the website from an editing perspective. I am just trying to make a net positive difference, and I'm not sure yet which specific pathways to use in order to get proper attention to pages with severe issues. Thank you for your input!

V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome to Wikipedia

		The Civility Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your recent calm and civil demeanor in what must have been trying circumstances. Admirable. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I noticed you changed a section heading to read "Notable Fighters" instead of "Notable fighters", on the BJJ article. Section headings, as outlined here, generally only capitalize the first letter. I have changed it back for you, and thank you for your other contributions to the page! Lcodyh803 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lcodyh803: thank you! I'm just getting into the swing of things. I'd love any suggestions on your opinions on what I will need to do to make the article reach "A" or "FL"-"FA" status.

v/r BasicsOnly (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A first step in that direction would be getting it to Good Article status. GA criteria are less strict than FA, so most articles achieve GA status before FA. An outline of the criteria can be found here. Lcodyh803 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu ‎, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Also, you might do the WP:TUTORIAL. It will help you avoid awkward mistakes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: Hi and thanks for the greeting! I'll do what I can to match the conventions. I forgot to press the sign button.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)

Hi moonquale here, I got your note about my contributions to the BJJ post. I deleted the "gogoplata" choke in preference to the "omoplata" as it is the original and more fundamental of that type of particular choke. I felt that if you were to list off chokes, you would go with the original not a deviation of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonquale (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonquale: Hi! So the Omoplata is not a choke at all. It is a joint lock. It looks like THIS. The Gogoplata IS a choke, and looks like THIS. Please double check your work. BasicsOnly (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was not thinking correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonquale (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonquale: no problem! Thanks for contributing, nonetheless! BasicsOnly (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi BasicsOnly! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Request for article creation, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Komal Rao—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist Thank you for taking a look at that article. Please consider looking at Deepak Rao and Seema Rao as well. Thank you.

Deepak Rao AFD

As you put the page up for AFD you are counted as a Delete, accordingly you should self-revert your Delete vote or change it to a Comment. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Thank you for the info! I'll correct it accordingly. I'm somewhat new to the format, so it's interesting to learn the ins and outs of the process. V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that copying all your arguments over to the AFD is helpful, Users who might otherwise vote are likely to feel Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only copied over the portion regarding why I think they are wp:meat BasicsOnly (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: BasicsOnly (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Violation

I have redacted you calling the subject a charlatan from this AFD since that is a clear violation of wikipedia's BLP policies. A couple of your other comments on the page regarding the subject and other participants are also borderline violations of BLP and WP:NPA respectively. It is possible to discuss the non-notability of the subject, and suspicious editing by other users, without resorting to name-calling. Please be more mindful in the future. Abecedare (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, note also the canvassing by this editor on the talk pages of Cryptic and others. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Hi! As I commented in several locations including the AFD I didn't think that responding on those users' talk pages constituted canvassing both because I was only leaving messages on the user pages of users that Anu231 had already attempted to rope into the discussion claiming racism and bias, and because I was only leaving the messages with the intention to inform, not to have the users participate in the AFD. Since it was brought up, I haven't contacted any users, have refrained from participating in the AFD except for posting this Sockpuppet Investigation. I have also refrained from editing or altering the pages for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao to prevent any allegations of conflict of interest given that I initiated the AFD for both. I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention though, and I ask your forgiveness for any minor mistakes that I might make so far. I've only been editing wikipedia for less than 2 weeks, and it has a bit of a learning curve. Advice is also always appreciated! Warm regards, BasicsOnly (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Please use fewer words, and see Wikipedia:Indentation. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in this very apology you're trying to move me one way or another. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies: the Wikipedia:Indentation link is appreciated! Thanks! And no, I don't mind if anyone participates in the topic or not to be perfectly honest. My initial intent was actually just to have people take a look at it because IMO it was obvious there were issues there. I don't need to change someone's opinion to have them correct it because that's the nature of Wikipedia editing in the first place. The only thing needed to correct the articles was just to get people to look at them in the first place. Warm regards, BasicsOnly (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BasicsOnly, I second Drmies' advice to be more succinct and keep discussion about a subject in one place. And as both Andrewa and I have indicated, don't copy discussions from one talkpage to another; simple links suffice.
      
      @Drmies: there were certainly attempts to influence the discussion at the two related AFDs through messages left at user-talkpages (including mine), first by Anu123 and later by BasicsOnly. But, irrespective of the intention, those messages have had the effect of inviting some uninvolved and experienced editors' attention to the articles and discussion. So, as long as such activity doesn't continue, it may be okay to look past the past errors. PS: having commented at the AFDs, I am involved now. Would appreciate you keeping a watch and making the call if any admin-action is needed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Thank you for the advice! Much appreciated. V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi. Why have you taken the pics out of the Gracie family and Gracie Challenge? Wikiguys360 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back your edits to the last stable version. Please feel free to reinsert the pictures should you so choose, and should they be properly attributed. BasicsOnly (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Gracie's direct Nazi Quote.

Please explain why you believe that a direct Nazi quote and then defense of said quote is not notable and how it's considered vandalism. "Mislabeling good-faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia."Axeonator2 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Rao

Hi, I understand that you're not a fan of the subject of said article, but that doesn't mean you can delete content with a misleading edit summary. Coincidentally, it was comment to Cpt. EEk's RFA which drew my attention to the article and made me add a reference. 15 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]