Talk:Bodybuilding/Archive 1

message: The article says "Kyle Richards (one of the few Asian bodybuilders)". When I looked it up at google, I couldn't find a bodybuilder with that name but a gay porn star. Is this a joke? The name also doesn't sound very asian. Maybe someone knows.
:Looks like some sneaky vandalism that got through. I've removed the text in question. Good catch. Yankees76 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyle Richards

message: I added a few male bodybuilders mainly to get attention to the articles although they're better than most bios... I feel this page needs a lot of work. The list isn't really necessary, all the links to BB erotica seem completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia. I suppose the basic content is OK though. Anyone else interested in improving Wikipedia's bodybuilding coverage? --Slux 12:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't this be more appropriate for the List of bodybuilders article mentioned below? Tyciol 16:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added male bodybuilders

message: Have just made some edits to the introduction paragraph. Bodybuilding refers to the process of getting more muscle - not necessarily the sport. I've therefore added a separate section specifically for the sport of competitive bodybuilding.  If you disagree please discuss/revert as you see fit.
On the subject of the list of bodybuilders i think we should start an article called List of professional bodybuilders and move it all there.  In the main article we can then list "notable bodybuilders" and include why they are important to the bodybuilding scene (e.g. Ronnie Coleman, seven times Mr. Olympia).  I know this creates more work in deciding who is "notable" but i feel the lists are too long at the moment and isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article. johnSLADE (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure it refers solely to building muscle? I thought it could also have more to do more with shaping it, building it selectively for appearance rather than sole mass-pursuit. You find both variations within the pursuit, so we must represent both (I'm not sure if they are) Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction paragraph

message: I have moved the list of bodybuilders to List of professional bodybuilders.  IMHO the list was too long for an encyclopedia article and also encouraged people to add links to female bodybuilding erotica sites.  As i have said before i feel the article needs a list of notable bodybuilders - but since i don't follow the pro bodybuilding scene i don't know who do add (would suggest arnie, coleman, yates, and hanly purely for winning mr olympia a number of times). Any suggestions? johnSLADE (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of bodybuilders

message: A couple of small edits: I replaced references to good in "good nutrition" with "specialized".  Diet is contorversial, and the bodybuilding diet is in particular.  Calling it good is an opinion, and one that I share with some qualifications.  For article purposes though, I think we have to be more careful. As for rest, I replaced "quality rest" with "adequate rest", since "quality rest" is both ambiguous and stylistically ugly. -Unknown
A few questions on the vitamins/supplement sections:
First, it is not clear how anaerobic excersize is "highly oxidizing" ... is there an source or explanation?  Doesn't anaerobic respiration involve less oxidation of glucose and less generation of reactive oxygen species than aerobic respiration?
Second, doesn't glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM seems go in the supplements section?
Prithason 05:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added clarification on this. Frankg 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutrition and Rest

message: What is body sculpting? How does it differ from bodybuilding? - Matthew238 04:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds made up to me. Bodybuilders trying to sound dramatic. TastyCakes 17:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Body Sculpting

message: Just out of interest, should Arnold be in the introductory paragraph? He's an important figure in body building, but it's not like he invented it or did anything particularly special other than draw attention to it. TastyCakes 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's his publiciziing it which is what he did for it... that's all you can really do, other than developing theories on better bodybuilding, or winning competitions (which he has done too), or developing some kind of machine (largely useless) or selling food for it. Tyciol 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I have removed the links to magazines.  If you look up cars you don't have links to a bunch of car magazines, I don't think they can be justified as anything but advertisements for them.  If they are important enough to have their own wikipedia articles then maybe, but I don't believe that was the case here. I removed some of the ad links on the basis that I went to them and got the distinct impression there wasn't any useful information that didn't relate to them selling me something.  Some seemed borderline so I left them in.  Does anyone disagree with these changes?  TastyCakes 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do!  I disagree with you 100%.  I don't know why some of you think that you can just go around deleting people's information without consulting with them first.  You should ask or verify (the least) to get proper information on the link. I placed an external link for my website. The difference between us and some of the other magazines is simply this.... we have morals & values and we do not condone to "unnatural" ways to get into shape.  We do not accept ads that sell viagra, or anything that is "sex" related.  We are setting a standard which gains a respect in the industry. So if you don't mind, let us do our job by allowing us to set a good example to the readers that there are still good people out there who are not all about money, sex, and power. Thank you kindly for reading. --Webmistress Diva 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As per the Wikipedia:External links policy, "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates" should not be added. I've removed the link to your website based on this. Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You've been warned about this in the past. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a resource that anyone can edit. Your consultation is not required when adding to, or removing information that is either uncited or deemed inappropriate based on Wikipedia guidelines. You're welcome to contribute to our encycolopedia by adding relevant information to the article. If you need further clarification on what Wikipedia is and isn't please refer to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Thank you.Yankees76 14:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeing with Yankee here, magazines are usually biased and sell things. Mind and spirit, while definately complimentary with bodybuilding, aren't really the main focus. Even so, I'll check your magazine, but it doesn't belong on the main page, what mainly belongs is articles directly about it... although your site could be perfect, I haven't looked yet. Tyciol 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad Links and Magazines

message: Note: This matter has been discussed extensively to the point of sheer exhaustion here and on user talk pages and whilst I admire Yankees76's patience, mine has officially run out. The site does not qualify per WP:EL. Period.
:I will be blocking any user that adds a link to www.ntpowerhouse.com to this article, and will look to have the link blacklisted per 
I trust this is the end of the matter. Glen 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow! what animosity for this simple matter! and those words of praise for Mr Yankee... but did you notice that this guy has never ever replied to my objections? He's just assuming from the beginning that I'm a owner of a site and want to put a link to it. He has never commented my 'copy & paste':...should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article... I was just asking to respect the Wikipedia rule of 'neutrall point of view' by putting ANY link to ANY site dealing with African bodybuilding. No way! Now I am accused to waste your time! Thanks. Glen, to avoid any more waste of time, I suggest you support your friend by putting a WARNING on top of the Bodybuilding article: "ANY CHANGE TO THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FIRST TO MR YANKEE, WHO IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY HERE TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD", since I noticed that I'm not the only victim of Yankee's removals. Well now the link is back and I know that you will remove it again. I just want to be banned and show my friends in Africa the way you deal with minorities. That was just a test and I thank you to open my eyes. Now I know that it would have been a waste of time spending hours writing an article and then be banned by a few from North America.Yembi 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, because I posted 4 reasons above why your link doesn't belong - all cut and pasted from the same guideline you accuse me of not reading. But if you want to ignore that, please be my guest - you're only hurting your case by coming here and making accusations of racism and poor treatment of "minorities" as the reason why we've removed the link. Spam and sockpuppetry are two reasons without even getting into the evidence from a google search that suggests you are either employed by this gym or affliated with it. I also question your intentions of writing an article in first place, and the more you post here the more obvious it is that this is just a game to you, and that you have no serious intentions on Wikipedia at all. Maybe you could ask "Steve from Miami" to help you write an article on African bodybuilding while you're blocked. Yankees76 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ntpowerhouse spamming ends. Now.

message: "Like most sports, some bodybuilders choose to use drugs to gain an advantage over results due to natural hypertrophy, especially in professional competitions."
This is misleading. Anyone who knows anything about Professional Bodybuilding knows that 99.999% of contestants (probably 100%) use Anabolic Steroids, among dozens of other drugs. Steroids, GH, Diuretics are rampant in Professional Bodybuilding.
For this reason, maybe "Professional Bodybuilding" should be separate from "Bodybuilding."
People who live healthy lifestyles and "build their body" hate Professional Bodybuilding.
Bodybuilding is healthy...whereas Professional bodybuilders are walking science experiments.
Just my .02.
:That's nice. This isn't a message board though - wikipedia is NPOV, and all "facts" must be verifiable. Yankees76 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Elephant in the room 

message: I added a "forums" category text, with two external links for examples of bodybuilding forums. Please do not remove these, they are not spam. 
Thank you.
:I removed them. The Bodybuilding.com forum is blacklisted, I removed the other because it falls under the category of "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and because it is a "Links to foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables; per the foreign-language sites guideline." Thanks. Yankees76 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums category