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).
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
@
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
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.
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 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
@
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
@
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 tworelated 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
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
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