User talk:Buddy23Lee/2014 Archive

Moughenda Mikala

Hello Mr Lee, I made a post under the wiki entry for Moughenda Mikala, with a citation from the Sheriffs department of Oakland Country, Michigan. Could you please clarify what part is not "constructive"? You said that it did not "appear to be constructive".

I said that he was wanted on a felony warrant out of Michigan, and this wiki entry was in fact set up by Moughenda Mikala as a scam. Perhaps it is not "flattering". Was that the word you were looking for? It certainly is constructive. I believe this falls within acceptable and responsible guidelines.

Thank you. I would happily hear any suggestions you would give in order for me to very clearly state the SAME THING as the sheriff's Department of Oakland County Michigan. The entry, as it currently stands, is completely fraudulent.

On a personal note, this guy has been accused of sexual assault multiple times. If he ever steps foot in the US, he may face multiple rape charges.

So, please help me construct an entry that says the same thing. "Wanted, felony warrant, fake credentials."

This is the right thing to do. The sheriff's page is legit. He abandoned a baby in the US. At least THAT is worth some honesty.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No matter what Mr. Mikala may have or have not done, your edit clearly appeared to be defamatory, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living people (also see WP:BLPCRIME, more specifically). If you think that your content is still appropriate for his article, I suggest you bring it up on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and see if you can find any consensus to support it. Alternatively/also, if you feel his article is part of a scam or otherwise unworthy of inclusion here, you are always free to nominate it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr Lee, I would like more information, so I can understand. Of course, leaving the link to this criminal's felony warrant is your choice. It is not based on guidelines. It certainly falls well within guidelines, and it is factual. You can real my link to the Sheriff's office. We can agree the link it legit, right? So, how can I write it? Please help me.

I politely ask you to please read the link I added.

http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

This last time, I added only the link to his felony warrant. That is not defamation. I am sorry, you have not made yourself clear. You are saying I need a public "consensus" to post a link to the Oakland Country Sheriff's Office. 

This last time, I only added the link. Are you saying that the Oakland County sheriff's department page is defamation? Please help me understand, because I do not understand. Also, you have suggested I have committed the crime of libel (defamation) by adding the link to the Oakland County Sheriff's department, and stating that Moughenda is in fact a wanted on a felony warrant, and all his credentials are fake. I stand behind it. It is all fact, and I would be happy to take a sworn deposition. My intentions are not malicious. This is about preventing the victimization of more people. So, please help me understand how the link to the sheriff's office is defamation. Thanks Mr Lee. I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so, to be more clear here, Wikipedia has a very high standard when it comes to adding real or even potentially defamatory content to biographies of living people (BLPs). Think of this notion as even aside from the content's underlying factuality. Because of this, I err on the side of caution before including such content to a BLP. More specifically, there's a section of a Wikipedia policy that governs alleged crimes which I'm keeping in mind while I consider this (WP:BLPCRIME, as referenced above). However, as you point out, you do have a citation that on face value supports your content (and a citation for this is very important) and there still may be room for some type of inclusion. To get a better idea of what type, if any, inclusion this might be, I again suggest that you bring the matter up at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Once or if you've achieved even a rough consensus, then you'll have nothing standing in your way of your edit. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You have taken the time to assist me in learning how wiki works. The "living person"-stuff is about libel, or affecting legal outcomes. I understand why it would not be appropriate to talk about ongoing legal proceedings. In this case, it is not 'ongoing proceedings'. It is a fugitive, and the sources are as legit as they come, so I think it is different. (I'm not arguing, you and I are done. You win. I'm just saying that my post does not conflict with your protocol.) If somebody (allegedly) does something pretty serious, then runs away international for a year because of that warrant, at least you can say they ran away for "allegedly something", right? I dont think it is right to ignore it all. These are real people who have been affected. I get it. It doesn't sit well with you. I hope you reconsider, or perhaps even do your own research, and make your own entry to his page. Wouldn't it be great if wikipedia could influence him to take care of his child? It's just a baby. No daddy, and poor in Detroit. Or... not. I would be a coward if I did not try. If you are curious, I have never met him. Never spoke with him. Never met his wife, ex-wife, or anyone associated with the guy. Just a lot of research, and a strong sense of justice. Unfortunately, he never made a "Doughnut shop clerk and Garbage man" facebook fan page. It is hard to get all the background on an immigrant con man from a third world country. There is very little paper trail. I am a little shocked that the police website was not enough. As a reward for your service, go to youtube and look up Tony Cecchine. Yea, ouch! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trust me 71.34.134.131, there's no winning or losing here, just trying to maintain an online encyclopedia as best we all can. In fact, if you were to look at it from an adversarial perspective, I'd say you look to be the ultimate winner here - Mr. Mikala's article seems to be headed for deletion. You handled the noticeboard with little issue and you seem pretty sharp; why don't you consider making an account and becoming an editor here? There's always plenty to do and I'd enjoy seeing us working on the same side of the next contentious issue. Cheers. Buddy23Lee (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Mountain Mall

Shopping mall articles are not supposed to include listings of interior tenants. It's okay to mention the anchor stores, just put them in text format (e.g. "The mall was formerly anchored by X, Y, and Z"). Individual stores should not be mentioned in the text unless they hold some sort of notability (for instance, The Mall of Monroe mentions a bookstore that attempted to sue the mall; The Village of Rochester Hills mentions that it has the first Coldwater Creek and largest Talbots in Michigan; or "Several stores in the mall closed in 200x, including X, Y, and Z" so long as you have a source). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I sound disagreeable, and I do acknowledge your evident authority on this matter, but I was wondering if you could direct me to what guideline or the like gave you direction on this matter. I notice you referenced WP:NOTDIR on your original edit, but without any further explanation I disagree with this being the appropriate policy for this situation. Please advise. Thank you. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing the former tenants would constitute a "directory entry". See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers/Archive_May_2007#63302844569, where a loose consensus was formed way back in 2007 not to put store listings in articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the response good sir. Especially with the archive link, it does help to see what others were thinking on this matter. I know that the point of all this will be moot in a years time, when a new and functioning mall replaces the dead one, but I do have to say that I'm pretty disappointed that even a small and incomplete list of former stores loses out to exclusionist concerns. In my personal case, I was able to use the list that existed on Wikipedia to find a particular store that meant a lot to me as a kid (my father worked there for a brief while) but the name of which I did not know. The Wikipedia article formed the only repository for this information, which I would not have located without. Now it's gone, and while I'm able to articulate my concerns here I imagine that there could conceivably be others with similar situations who cannot. Is it really to much to ask that this list be restored? I specifically put it into navbox form so that it would take the most compact and least onerous structure I could imagine. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Number one, there is no purpose to the list if it's unsourced beyond your own recollection. Number two, a navbox should never, never be hardcoded into an article. If you can find a source verifying something like "In year X, stores Y, Z, and A closed", then that's fine. But that's just the general consensus here, not to include store listings, and I see no reason to break rank here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So be it. You make a good point about the sourcing. Personally, I consider that more compelling than WP:NOTDIR, but that's beside the point. I never knew that about navboxes, but again, I'm not as well versed as you. Consider me ten pound hammered. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

Re

No problem; sometimes stuff like that happens. I've experienced similar things before, at least everything seems to be working right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon

			You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202). Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gladstone, Oregon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Gladstone_City_Library_Bond_Measure_%28November_2012%29 |title=Gladstone City Library Bond Measure (November 201 |website=Ballotpedia |accessdate=4 September 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

10th Degree Jiu Jitsu

Hello, I am contacting you in regards to the article listing belt rankings that you undid my edits. This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brazilian_jiu-jitsu_practitioners

I had noticed that the only information under the 10th degree was incorrect, stating the only people to receive their 10th degree were the Gracies. This is incorrect, there are several Jiu Jitsu 10th Degree Grand Masters other than the Gracies that should be honored. Men like Francisco Sa who spent their entire lives dedicated to this sport received this 10th degree honor. This is the truth of this, correct me if I am wrong: The International Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) only honors the Gracies as 10th Degree Jiu Jitsu GrandMasters. The Ibjjf (although sounds very official), is not the worlds governing body on jiu jitsu and was made and owned by the Gracie Family (which is the source on this page). The IBJJF does not recognize the other 10th degrees as having been IBJJF CERTIFIED as such so they say that only the Gracies can be awarded it. Jiu Jitsu history should not be lost because of 1 family's business declaring themselves the governing body of the sport. I included in my edit that the IBJJF only recognizes these black belts (kept the list the exact same), and then stated that there are numerous others who did reach the 10th Degree mark in their lifetime. I must ask for you to please respond back to me if I have anything incorrect. If I do not have anything incorrect, please understand why I believe it is wrong to let our true Jiu Jitsu history be lost. These men dedicated their lives to this sport and have earned the right to be honored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casutton910 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Casutton910 first, let's start by what we wholeheartedly agree upon. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the few non-Gracie linage practitioners such as the great Luiz França and his star pupil Oswaldo Fadda, who decend directly from Mitsuyo Maeda and not from one of the Gracie brothers. They were great men who contributed much to the art and I think the relatively recent grassroots campaign to recognize and re-popularize these men is how it should be. That said, I think there are a few things to keep in mind. First, the modern (and stress the word modern) belt rank system in BJJ came about much more recently than these men. And yes, while you are quite right in that the IBJJF is not a world-wide agreed officiating body of sport BJJ (if such a thing could exist) it is the predominate organization within North America (and is directly connected to it's Brazilian counterpart, Confederação Brasileira de Jiu-Jitsu, sharing its rules and regulations) and it is what we use when explaining the belt rank system in the current article. Also, keep in mind that you would need to find a valid citation declaring someone other than the original Gracie brothers as having being awarded the 10th degree, something which would seem nigh impossible. Finally, remember that BOTH the 9th and 10th degrees are RED BELTS, which is the highest (grandmaster) honor in BJJ. I don't think you should let the fact that one red belt is a 9th degree and the other is a 10th degree bother you, as both are clearly extraordinarily high honors that denote their wearers as great men who have given much to the art and literally wear the same color of belt. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

−Buddy23Lee Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. I would like to begin by saying that I completely agree that the 9th degree is still a huge honor and truly shows someone committed themselves to the life of Jiu Jitsu. With that said I believe what I wrote was completely accurate and should not have been omitted (especially since you know it was correct information). I stated in my post that the IBJJF only recognized the Gracies having been awarded the 10th degree (which is true even by the sources previously provided) and that there are other not certified under the IBJJF that had reached this achievement. Takeo Iano was Grandmaster Francisco Sa's Master and awarded him the honor of 10th Degree Dan. This happened in Brazil, and I have pictures of Grand Master Sa (A Brazilian) with his 10th Degree Red Belt on after being awarded it. ^[1]. In the picture on that link he is even wearing his red belt with 10 stripes. That is a verifiable site with a picture of the disputed item (His 10th degree). You say that the modernization of Jiu Jitsu came after these men yet GrandMaster Sa just passed away in 2013. He directly influenced the entire "Modern" Brazilian Jiu Jitsu way. GrandMaster Fadda modernized jiu jitsu just as much as anyone else. He was the first person to fundamentally lay out a strategy to attack legs in Jiu jitsu. He was ridiculed and called names for it. Now attacking legs is pivital to winning tournaments in modern jiu jitsu. Difference between Fadda and Sa is Sa was awarded the 10th degree and should be remembered as such, not just a grandmaster but a 10th degree Grand Master. I do not see why you have a problem with this being posted as I had written it since I included they are not recognized by the group used for citing the Wiki page. What I am seeing is a possible conflict of interest between the cited Federation and the subject of 10th degree GrandMasters. I have seen how in previous "talks" on Wiki that your know the Wikipedia laws and are a very intelligent person so I believe you understand what I am trying to say. If the Gracie founded IBJJF only recognizes Gracies as having reached the 10th degree and there were other Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Grand Masters to achieve this rank of 10th degree, then it should not be up to you to omit them from this 10th degree GrandMaster title. I wrote my change to include the IBJJF not acknowledging anyone else besides the Gracies and believe that what I wrote will not be contested by anyone saying it is false. I believe that you should reinstate my changes as it is a very pivotal part of our history that will be lost forever if we do not save the little shreds we have left. Wikipedia is about neutrality and making sure the closest to the absolute truth is posted. Money can buy websites, federations and belts but honor is something earned. Grand Master Sa (and others I am currently working on verifying, language barrier making it rough) earned his ranking and should be honored. Please reconsider how I worded my entry and look at the picture for yourself. I do not want this mans hard earned struggles lost in history. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. Casutton910 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Oshi Shinobu

Casutton910, In due respect my friend, Grandmaster Francisco Sa was also a 9th degree Red Belt. I'm not exactly sure where you got your 10th degree information from as I could not find it in the citation you provided, but it appears he wouldn't have even had the authority to award a 10th degree belt. Would this have been a different organization's belt system perhaps? Does Nova União have it's own belt system? Right now we are just citing the system defined by the IBJJF (again, since they are the currently predominant officiating body) perhaps if you could provide citations to an alternate system we could use that to cite for a 10th degree under that system? I hate to say it, but even when you physically count the number of degrees on Grandmaster Sa's belt in this article, there appears to only be 9. I know you don't want anything lost to history any more than I do, but if you wish to include it in a wikipedia article, you need to include valid citations which meet or exceed our rigorous standards. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Buddy23Lee I appreciate you trying to work with me on this issue, however you have to understand that placing a 10th degree in the 9th degree is not exactly what I am going for. I'm not really understanding why you did not use the cited page I provided to you for the picture. Instead of using the link I provided, clicking on the picture and counting the ten stripes, you decide to cite a separate article. In the article you cite you can also see a tiny piece of the tenth degree stripe at the belt knot. The picture on the website I cited had a better picture to positively ID the 10 stripes. I brought up a valid correlation between the IBJJF and the Gracies being crowned the only 10th degree and that being a conflict of interest (not posting the true history of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to ensure the Gracie name would be the "valid" family bloodline), and after all of that you tried using an article from GRACIEMAG to counter my claims of GrandMaster Sa's 10th degree (which if you look close at the knot, the stripe is still visible.) I am starting to wonder if you are opposed to changing the history of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu on Wikipedia to include the other 2 bloodlines the absolute unobstructed truth because of personal reasons. Everything I will be making changes to (hopefully with your help) will be in a respectful manner and done to mimic the true origins and evolution of our sport. If we do not preserve the truth now, we will lose this part of history. I will make sure to abide by all your wishes for citations and sources and will let you help me write out these articles in a way to not upset the absolute Richest family in Jiu Jitsu, The Gracies. If a picture of Grandmaster Sa wearing his 10th degree belt does not satisfy your own personal requirements to what you deem valid (although it should suffice for Wikipedia), I can exchange personal information with you and get you in touch with the living heir of Grandmaster Sa (who still has his personal items including his belt), so you can hear straight from the source as to his family's lineage. This obviously wouldn't be for Wiki but more for your own personal learning if you were interested. As far as Wikipedia goes, this is my first of a few alterations I intend on making and would honestly love your guidance in this journey. My goal is to get the entire, uninhibited truth of jiu jitsu including the Original Japanese Masters who came to Brazil, to the rival schools, to even the families that merged under unified banners. I want this page to be for every Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioner, not just the ones taught under the family that made it famous. Thank you for taking the time to do what you have done for Jiu Jitsu on this site already. Hopefully you will help make my dream of getting this site filled with valid Jiu Jitsu History a reality. Casutton910 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Casutton910, don’t get too hung up on the picture thing. I’m almost sorry I brought it up, but I did think it was interesting. Anyway, and again, I’m sure Grandmaster Sa was a great guy and far be it from me to disparage his name or whatever rank he may have possessed and by whom, but without a valid source I’m afraid we can’t list him as at 10th degree (see WP:SOURCE) I doesn’t matter what you or I personally believe, those are just the Wikipedia rules. We shouldn’t use the testimony of his relatives or things of that nature because they are primary sources and we need good secondary sources to establish something like this. I think you mentioned that English wasn’t your first language and I’m hoping this isn’t too confusing but the point is that we need things like books, newspaper articles, even some internet sources to be able to say that someone other than the original Gracie brothers are 10th degrees. If you find me those type of sources, even if they say Grandmaster Sa was recognized in another system or by a different organization than the IBJJF I will be glad to help you add it. But without those, the ranking article remains the way it is and Grandmaster Sa will be listed as a 9th degree. I hope that helps. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seaweed cultivator, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saltwater and Net. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I need some help with Securities Class Action

In re link-rot etc.. --Lfrankblam (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lfrankbalm: Sure thing. I'll format some of them for you so you can see how it's generally done. You can find the general template for it at Wikipedia:cite web. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks - next stop fraud on the market theory.--Lfrankblam (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lfrankbalm:Thank YOU for creating these articles here. You know much more about this stuff then I do. Hopefully, that formatting of the citations makes sense. Wikipedia prefers them in some version of that rather then just as bare URLS (hence the 'linkrot' template). Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.. let me review the links some more.. This topic is very important because it will reshape how securities litigation is conducted... I fell into it because the wikipedia bot suggested I edit Efficient market theory; which is actually applied in this context (even though it might not really work!) mathematically or otherwise.--Lfrankblam (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for BJJ

I've been experiencing a lot of glitches like here when editing pages ever since my PC died and I had to use a laptop, it just seems to randomly flit around to different parts of the screen, I think what happened here was that it highlighted a whole paragraph and then I had typed 'p' and it replaced it and I didn't notice what was happening. Ranze (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries Ranze, most of my own mistakes here are caused of pure ignorance rather than technical difficulties. Thanks again for your time and efforts. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Gracie

I am putting this article up for deletion review. I might further develop this article and speak about how rivalry with his brothers and possibly being written out of history. I userfied the article so any help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Jorge_Gracie CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Personally, I think this article has met notability guidelines for a while now, but I'm just one editor. Hopefully we can find some consensus to that effect! Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		Good Job on working with other editors and helping them when you can! CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)