User talk:Stosseled

Welcome

Hello, Stosseled! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jess_talk|_edits 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Replaceable fair use File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trilithon

Although badly written and sourced, the original source, Jean-Pierre Adam, is an expert on the subject. Would you like to rewrite and restore this or shall I? By the way, it was downhill from the quarry to Baalbek, although some sources assume otherwise. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debt reap diplomacy

Hello, I'm 2001:8003:4E96:4100:71CD:D6:12B2:7C6C. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Debt-trap diplomacy have been undone because they 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. Learn to read the sources before you delete information. Your edit has been reverted because it's blatant POV pushing. The first source literally says, "the so-called “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative has been debunked by a growing of scholars and analysts. There just isn’t any evidence whatsoever to support the charge". The "former source" you criticised is actually cited in the Foreign Policy article. That is why you need to read the sources properly before you delete information. The Foreign Policy article explicitly says, "Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port remains the only known case of China taking ownership control over a Belt and Road project, and that debt-equity swap was at Colombo’s urging, not Beijing’s", providing a link to the "former source". (2001:8003:4E96:4100:71CD:D6:12B2:7C6C (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hello anonymous user. a) "chinaafricaproject.com" is not a reliable source with which to dismiss criticisms of said project. b) "chinaafricaproject.com" provided absolutely no evidence, citations, or supporting material for its broad and overly ambitious claim (see: 'debunked') c) I read every single word in the second citation and found nothing that comes even remotely close to even resembling support for that claim. d) Even if not for points a, b, and c, the phrasing of the statement is so patently not in line with Wikipedia's policies that it still has to be rephrased to be acceptable. Weasel words such as "a growing number of scholars" without mentioning a single scholar are not OK. e) Even if not for points a, b, c, and d, the claim that a critique of policy/suspicion of ulterior motives has simply been "debunked" is absurd. That word can not be used in this statement either. Something encyclopedic such as "the veracity of the criticism has been brought into question by X/Y/Z" would be more fitting.

Stosseled (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khamzat Chimaev

Hi Stosseled, Good day. Pls note that your edit on the above page has been reverted as the fight methods are as per Sherdog based on Wikipedia MMA guidelines. Pls do not change it again. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 20:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cassiopeia.

Firstly there is no one except apparently some highly-misguided Sherdog staff person that considers a D'Arce choke in no-gi to be "a brabo choke" because a brabo choke is by definition when you use the LAPEL of someone's CLOTHING to submit someone. There is no other definition. There is no dispute to be had here. This is not a serious discussion.

Secondly contrary to what you've just claimed there is nothing in the guidelines that says Sherdog is the exclusive and decisive source for fight result methods. In fact to the contrary the OFFICIAL UFC page is referenced in the guidelines.

Would you be surprised to hear that just like everyone else in the world (except some Sherdog staff) the UFC does not consider the method of victory in this NO-GI fight to have been via a GI-ONLY choke?

I'll quote directly from the guidelines:

"In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts

Now I'll quote directly from the official UFC website:

"Khamzat Chimaev def. Kevin Holland via submission (D’Arce choke) at 2:13 of the first round."

https://www.ufc.com/news/ufc-279-diaz-vs-ferguson-results-highlights-winner-interviews

Thirdly because a) there is no argument to be made that a brabo choke is even possible in UFC MMA events, b) that there is a dispute between the official website plus all other websites and sources on one hand, and Sherdog on the other hand, and c) that there is no source to be found anywhere on the internet that describes a "brabo choke" as anything but a gi-submission wherein one grabs the opponents clothing while there are countless sources that verify what I'm claiming, I will go ahead and edit the page to reflect reality.

If you continue to vandalize pages in this manner while relying on your clearly-inaccurate reading of the guidelines to justify it I will take this issue further up the Wikipedia ladder.

Best regards, Stosseled (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stosseled, I have reverted your edit. Please understand that UFC is a private company and it is not only not reliable source but also not independent. All the mma fighters page in Wikipedia is using Sherdog as source for there are many interpterion from other independent, reliable source for example one source would state TKO (punches) others would state TKO (punch) or KO (punch). There are many edit warring in the past and editors kept on changing the fight methods and causing many issues and the MMA guidelines stated to use sherdog and to solve the edit warring issue. The latest was in intervention from an admin who didnt understand how bad it can cause editing warring issue and settle for slightly change of the guidelines. We have over 2000 mma fighters pages in Wikipedia, you can check the fight method on anyone and the Sherdog source can be found at the bottom of the fight table. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 04:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Cassiopeia.

You have failed to address any of my concerns.

There is no legitimate reason in this world to have "brabo choke" as a method of victory in a no-gi fighting bout.

It is impossible. Literally impossible to brabo choke in the UFC. So how can you win by brabo choke?

If you want to fight me on this then please escalate this matter to an admin again.

I do not care about your opinion(s) on Sherdog or the use of the UFC and the numerous other sources reporting on the UFC's results as a source.

The official guidelines that I linked to as they stand clearly state:

"In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful."

I am going to edit the page again with reliable non-UFC sources.

Brabo chokes will not be a method of victory for the UFC from here on out just because there's some oppositional defiant disorder-esque resistance to conforming the methods with THE CLEAR AND OBVIOUS AND UNDISPUTABLE REALITY that no one can win by BRABO choke in a NO-GI CONTEST. Period. End of story. I will escalate this issue until it is resolved. Stop reverting my edits and instead go bring this up with whatever clique you associate with that discusses the guidelines.

I have already emailed Sherdog.

Best regards, Stosseled (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stosseled, Good day. I understand you message for I am also a bjj practiction and I have explained the above why we use Sherdog as the source for fight method. If you would like to change as per your source, you can do that but eventually, it will be changed back by other editors using Sherdog as source for it always has been since for the more than 15 years to avoid edit warrings. (if you have been a long time mma editor then you would know how bad the editing warrings and all fighting among editor just on fight method alone instead of collaboration). Cassiopeia talk 06:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate,

It is completely antithetical to the ENTIRE Wiki project to publish KNOWN INCORRECT information.

Not publishing KNOWN-TO-BE-INCORRECT information on the Wiki takes precedence over any petty decision-making some clique of MMA editors has participated in.

No one cares. About any of this nonsense you're talking about.

You can't create a policy that promotes the publication of lies.

You're now on notice that you are actively vandalizing Wikipedia by including blatantly incorrect information

AND REVERTING THE EDITS OF ANYONE WHO TRIES TO FIX IT.

Do you understand that? That you are vandalizing Wikipedia?

P.S. If you are a BJJ practitioner go ahead and explain to me how you would BRABO CHOKE someone WHO IS NOT WEARING ANYTHING FOR YOU TO GRAB IN ORDER TO BRABO CHOKE THEM.. Go ahead! I'm still waiting!

I'm going to go ahead and edit the page again to remove INCORRECT information and include numerous sources.

Revert it at your own peril, vandal.

Best regards, Stosseled (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verification from independent, reliable source and it is not about reporting the truth - See Wikipedia:But it's true!. Example if a person in real life has 4 sons but the independent, reliable source stay 3, we put 3 on the article. We will restate the info when the source correct itself; or if a person commit suicide but the independent, reliable source state it was an overdose, we state drug overdose in the article. I was and am stating if you want to change the fight method, do so. Cassiopeia talk 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

STOP DODGING THE ISSUE.

You can't simultaneously claim to train BJJ (which would allow you to easily verify that you CAN NOT brabo choke an unclothed opponent)

AND talk about the "reliability" of the source claiming that people are winning by METHODS THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE

and EVERY reputable and RELIABLE source disagrees with.

ALL reputable and RELIABLE sources agree that these are D'Arce chokes.

Every single fight organization (you've removed citations from two separate ones now) AND THE INDEPENDENT GOVERNING BODIES that license these events ALL AGREE that these are D'Arce chokes.

Why are you giving me nonsense hypotheticals and dodging the issue every single time I bring it up?

How dishonest and cowardly.

You revert edits time and time again that are trying to correct MISINFORMATION, blatantly inaccurate information, and in so doing you have become the vandal.

No one cares if you want to hold Sherdog specifically in high regard if that means you are operating IN OPPOSITION TO THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE WIKIPROJECT. Your desire (whoever "you" is in totality) to use Sherdog exclusively COMES SECOND to not having BLATANT MISINFORMATION on Wikipedia.

Do NOT try this nonsense "some other editors will revert it" like you're somehow unrelated to this clique of VANDALS. The ONLY thing on the user page of the VANDAL that just reverted my edit is a REWARD that YOU, Cassiopeia, gave them for quote "their valued contributions to WikiProject MMA".

"I, Cassiopeia, hereby award Nswix

the The MMA Barnstar for their valued contributions to WikiProject MMA." Stosseled (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, Wikipedia is about verification and not about the truth and Wikipedia does not care about your or my expertise/knowledge/opinions as all of us are unknown editors. As I say, if you want to add it back the info, you can do so. Nothing else from me. Cassiopeia talk 03:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're so dishonest. This is so UNBELIEVABLY dishonest.

You're talking to me about how Wikipedia is about verification?

I've referenced 1. The UFC 2. independent media organizations 3. the licensing regulatory body's official results 4. another fighting organization when relevant.

They all agree. Always. No one agrees with Sherdog that these are 'brabo chokes' because it's an insane lie - about as insane as claiming these fighters are winning these fights via gunshot.

All you do is vandalize Wikipedia and refuse to acknowledge that you're doing it.

I can not believe how dishonest you're being. This is disgusting.

You're a "NPP school and CVUA trainer/instructor and new user mentor" and you insist on inaccurate information/vandalism? Stosseled (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt revert again after you have added back the info. Bythe way, comment on the edit and not about the editor for it is considered personal attacked for this is the Wikipedia guidelines. Again, Wikipedia is not about accurate info but verification. If you provide independent, reliable source source for "the bout of the fight method" then change the edit as I have said it many times. (By the way UFC is not a reliable source for it is a private company just like Apple, AT&T, Citibank and etc. Use newspapers or books, media and etc for reliable source. Cassiopeia talk 04:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still here acting dishonestly, and it is clearly someone you associate with who has picked up your mantle and started vandalizing Wikipedia.

Since you brought up some irrelevant comparison earlier, allow me to make a relevant one:

Would you be OK with JFK's death being stated as "accident (parachuting incident)" on Wikipedia if it said so on Sherdog?

Even though every single other (literally every single other source!) person, page, reputable news outlet etc all claimed that both a) his death was not an accident and b) that being shot in the head in a car can never be considered a parachuting incident?

No one cares about your little gentleman's agreement to use only Sherdog if and when it works.

But when it doesn't work anymore? When Wikipedia is suddenly being vandalized as a result?

When the public's trust in Wikipedia is affected? When anyone with any clue about grappling goes onto thousands of pages (according to you IIRC) and sees it claimed that people are winning via gi-only chokes in no-gi competitions?

Then it doesn't work anymore. Then this can not continue to be the policy because it results in known falsehoods/vandalism that is antithetical to the entire WikiProject.

P.S. I already included multiple sources and you and your friends have STILL vandalized Wikipedia by reverting my page edits back to the blatantly obviously inaccurate state they were in when I found them.

P.P.S. Stop talking to me about how the UFC isn't a reliable source when a) I've told you multiple times that all other sources than Sherdog incl. the independent government body licensing the event agree that it's a D'Arce choke and b) the very guidelines that you lied about previously in this conversation specifically state that the official UFC page can be consulted Stosseled (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand 3 things - (1) if you have already found independent, reliable source about that specific fight's fight method, then add it in. I didnt revert your edit. (2) Wikipedia is NOT about truth or accuracy of the event but IT IS ABOUT VERIFICATION and verification is the core policy of Wikipedia. (3) all private companies, social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable sources. Again. Stop personal attack for you have done that several times and you will get blocked if you continuing doing so. I have stated the above to you many times and I dont have anything else to say. Cassiopeia talk 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You never address anything I'm saying you're just talking around everything and in circles..

I've already stated your position for you (that there are well hidden guidelines to use exclusively Sherdog that for some reason must be adhered to even if it means the obvious misinformation becomes the status quo).

Since you're refusing to address the issue and refusing to help me rectify it then please just stop responding on my talk page. You know my opinion of how you're behaving in this discussion and now you're threatening me for voicing that opinion. Very cool. Leave me alone. Stosseled (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Stosseled. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Cassiopeia talk 04:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTVAND as you have been calling others' editors "vandalism" wrongly. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nswix (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]