Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fightloungemike (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 15 March 2012 (→OMMAC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2008 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 2011

UFC event pages

I've noticed something for a couple months now, but have been to lazy to actually bring up the topic till now.

The UFC event pages are, in my opinion, in need of fixing. I find it odd that the PPV event pages are named numerically (ex. UFC 140, UFC 141, UFC 142) but the free cards (ex. UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos, UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller) all have "special" names to them. I don't understand why we do it one way for half the cards, and a different way for the others.

So, in my opinion, we should either change all the PPV cards to the names that the UFC dubbed them (UFC 141 would be UFC 141: Lesnar vs Overeem and UFC 142 would be UFC: Rio), or we remove the Fighter vs. Fighter from all the fight nights. It just looks silly to me that we have it half and half. What do you think? Hopefully this makes sense, and doesn't look like I'm a completely idiot. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the MMA WikiProject talk page in hopes others may want to participate in the discussion. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi TreyGeek,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited ProElite Inc., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Ellis and Ed Carpenter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SDSF page edit

Hi TreyGeek, This is regarding the revert of my edits in article - SDSF. I have added the source for my edit in the See also section, and also I have just explained the options available in the SDSF panels not like instruction manual. May be we need to re-phrase my edits instead of reverting to make this article better. and also I would appreciate if you can provide me any inputs on what can be added in this article. Thanks! - Karthik Sripal (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A "See also" link is not citing a reliable source. Listing the commands that can be used in SDSF and what those commands do is very much like an instruction manual. Same thing with listing the specific columns available in the SDSF interface. (Incidentally, I also really dislike the listing of "Features" listed in the article, but that's not your fault.) Rather than a listing of commands and columns, a better alternative would be to have an actual paragraph of well written sentences that state something along the lines of: The SDSF status panel contains information about a batch job's x, y and z. Or: The features of SDSF include a, b, and c. At the same time, these sentences/paragraphs need to cite references. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

ProElite

Hello! Just to give you a heads up, the significance of this promotion seems to be increasing due to their new partnership. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never doubted the significance of ProElite or advocated the deletion of the ProElite article. However, the first two events under the ProElite banner and so far the third fail to meet Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even so, then it is simpler to just redirect them and then that way anyone looking for the information would at worst come to the main article and if their notability does increase, then editors have a basis to build from. On another note, it is strange to think we will be Misplaced Pages free for a day! --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting the event articles to ProElite is a perfectly acceptable alternative. People can choose to !vote for redirect in the AfD discussion of the events. Also, assuming the consensus is to delete the event article, nothing stops someone from coming in behind to recreate the articles with a redirect to ProElite.

As for being Misplaced Pages-less tomorrow, I don't know wtf I'm going to do. Play more The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim until night class I guess. ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it will help, I will add some stuff to the articles? I found and added one source already. I am not one for the AfD discussions. I commented in some a time back, but I just really am not around enough for the creating an account type of stuff anymore, but I can at least add enough to the articles that can be merged or something. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copywright

I quoted a few sentences in quotation marks and provided links citing the original authors. Journal articles and books do that all the time. That is not a copyvio. A copy vio would be just copying and pasting the whole articles, not a few sentences within quotation marks and a footnote linking to the original source. If you would prefer to paraphrase instead of quote, okay, but removing it altogether is a bit extreme. And by the way, I do not want to be any adversary of yours. Why don't we work together to help each other on this? Thanks! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Response is on the other user's talk page to keep discussions in one place (another Misplaced Pages guideline). --TreyGeek (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

External links and WP:LAY

Hi TreyGeek. I noticed you are adding External links sections to articles. I thought you be aware of the article layout guidelines. Specifically, the External links section always comes after the references/notes section. I would appreciate it if you could go over the articles you edited and correct this. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on that. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. FWIW, I've posted a response. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Perez (fighter)

Hi. I saw you've just made some small edits to the Daniel Perez (fighter) article. Could I ask you to take a longer look at it, I suspect it has been vandalized. Compare the diff from today vs July 31st . I did leave a message on the original authors page (User:Falcons8455) but he has not recently edited. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sync'ed the information in the article to match what Sherdog has. Should take care of it until more source are found to flesh out the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Brian Warren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

mmaBot

Hi there, nice work with the MMAbot. However, I think task 10 is incorrect. Blpunsourced should only be used if there are no <ref tags AND there isn't a sherdog or boxrec link. If there are no ref tags but there is a sherdog or boxrec link then {{BLP sources}} and {{no footnotes}} should be used. Cheers The-Pope (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had similar concerns when I noticed that an admin was going around behind MMABot changing many of the {{BLP unsourced}} templates to {{BLP sources}}. I asked them about the situation and they gave me to the go ahead to continue as it has been. It only flags a small number of articles as unsourced, and once this first pass finishes (I'm almost half-way though) then I expect it'll rarely flag an article as unsourced. If it gets to be too much of a concern, I have no problems making modifications. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm pushing my own POV on this matter, but it's based on two important concepts. technically, new unsourced BLPs can be deleted via Blp prod and whilst the arguments on refs vs links remain unanswered, it isn't unheard of for linked but not reffed articles to be nominated for deletion. Secondly and most importantly, the "needs more sources" and "your links should be refs" messages given by the two templates I suggested give inexperienced editors a much more accurate idea of what needs to be done than a straight unreferenced tag. I wonder if your bot with some code changes could be used to help standardise articles in other sports? The-Pope (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points in regards to the usage of the two templates. (Even if I don't necessarily agree with the consensus that a link to Sherdog or other databases in an infobox is a reference.) Tonight, I'll review the code that puts those templates on articles. I think the initial concern resulting in making the change complex is recognizing all possible "sources" in an article. This would include:

• Infobox parameters for Sherdog, Boxrec, and website
• An external links section with links.
• Raw URLs placed inline within the article.

There may be other possibilities as well, particularly in the very poorly written/formatted articles. The last two may be accomplished by looking for "[http://", though some external link templates such as {{imdb}} would still be an issue. Something to look into I guess.

As for MMABot editing other sports articles, I'm not sure. Certainly a lot of code could be reused, but it has been tailored to editing {{Infobox martial artist}} and MMA record tables. If a request were made on MMABot's talk page I'd consider looking into it in a month or two when I'm finished with the current round of MMA fighter articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of you tweaking the bot to NOT tag articles with the Sherdog or Boxrec link as being {{BLP unsourced}}, but instead have it tag with {{No footnotes}} and {{BLP sources}}. Still getting a few each day. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there are a lot of potential corner cases of when {{BLP unsourced}} should and shouldn't be used by the guidelines you are saying are in effect. Therefore, I'll be removing the functionality of MMABot flagging articles as unsourced due to the complexity of the issue. I may manually flag articles myself, but there will be no guarantees that I will do so consistently. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Super Fight League 1 wiki page

I just noticed that you removed the ] for the SFL 1 on the event section of this page. Now it weren't there for no reason, I have made a entire page for the event in my sandbox, so if you would like to look at it, and then let me know what you think, I will create a page for it. BigzMMA (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say that an article about "Super Fight League 1" is very borderline in terms of notability. It seems that the focus of the article, if one exists, is not on the MMA fights, but on the entertainment aspect since that would be the notable part. The MMA fights, as shown in your sandbox, consists almost entirely of non-notable fighters. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not many event pages have a lot of notable fighters on them yet I've seen them on there, but I think that the fact that 1) big name celebrities are performing prior to the fights, 2) the SFL event has been given enough attention by independent media sources to meet notability and 3) I have seen pages that were practically full of notable fighters has been deleted (Cage Rage 15-19 comes straight to mind). So for these reasons I will put up the articles as soon as I can. Also I would like to talk about those Cage Rage events at some point. BigzMMA (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of the event articles full of non-notable fighters have yet to receive attention for AfD. There are a number of event pages and fighters that I think should be deleted, but I've been busy with other things to get around to putting them up for AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Phil De Fries

The reason I edited his name to that is thats is the name the UFC website lists him as, not Philip De Fries, it's like calling Frankie Edgar Frank Edgar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock17gen4 (talk • contribs)

The preference should be to link directly to the article in question and not go through a redirect. That is what I am resolving. Your example of "Frank Edgar" vs "Frankie Edgar" doesn't work too well because the name of the article is Frankie Edgar with the alternative name redirected to it. There are two possible solutions to maintain a wikilink that appears at "Phil De Fries". Either move the article to that name or use a piped wikilink ]. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You've apparently already done this so contacting me and my replying was probably not of much use. However you did a copy/paste move rather than a real move with screws with the page histories. *sigh* --TreyGeek (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Andre Winner

You have to have a source for his name? There are a lot of things on that page without sources. Now you are going to make me go back and fix it? Anyway, here is the source:

http://boxing.nv.gov/2011%20Results%20Web/07-02-11%20MMA.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When the full name is not quickly found in a Google search, yes, it definitely should be sourced. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing contenct based on shady intentions.

Why are some edits categorized as "spam" while others are not? In the case of fighter rankings, why are sherdog.com and mmaweekly.com the only acceptable sources of information, and others are removed by the bot? What it is doing is monopolizing MMA rankings which is illegal. I demand this to be explained and fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Refer to this discussion at the MMA WikiProject. FYI, "demands" and making accusations of "illegal" activities (WP:THREAT) will get you no where quick. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

top10MMArankings.com

It is not accusation it's a fact. You can't remove some sources of mma rankings and leave others, unless you favour some of them, which means corruption. You either allow all the relevant sites to publish links on their perspective or you don't allow any of them. I'm not stating that this is intentional case, but objectively - this is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you really need to read WP:THREAT at this point. It looks like you just stated that it is a fact that not supporting the inclusion of Top10MMARankings.com on Misplaced Pages is illegal. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

top10MMArankings.com

What I stated is that suppressing it in favour of another ranking site, in a public openaccess database is a form of denying rights and freedom of speech. I am not going to debate over this, it's realy up to you to decide what you stand for. It's not about top10MMArankings.com, clear it out if that seems right to you, but what you are doing is simply monopolizing information. (I would be surprised if you can deny that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are debating this, poorly I might add. It is likely because you lack the knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines that I have acquired over the last four years as a registered editor. What you have failed to do thus far is:

• Show how Top10MMARankings meets Misplaced Pages's General Notability Guidlines.
• Show how Top10MMARankings meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability of websites.
• Shown any sources for Top10MMARankings that are independent of the site.
• Shown any reliable sources for Top10MMARankings that are independent of the site.

I am not trying to monopolize information, what I am trying to do is ensure that content on Misplaced Pages conforms to its policies and guidelines. As it stands the closest the MMA WikiProject has come to addressing a fighter's ranking in their article leads is to say they shouldn't be there (discussions here and here), although this is obviously not enforced. You came in here being combative and argumentative. What you should have done was asked established editors for help and advice. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edgar

I've got no issue as long as there's an actual source backing that claim. There wasn't before (just the Sports Illustrated article, which said something else). Nice job finding one. -- James26 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sherdog is the "go to" source for MMA fight results and the defacto standard for the MMA WikiProject. If in doubt, they are usually right. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I updated the Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard article. -- James26 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Stevenson & RFA (Resurrection Fighting Alliance) Update

Hey TreyGeek. My computer is down for about another week, so I use my daughter's laptop from time to time with brevity. I haven't made any contributions to any pages for awhile either. These are the primary reasons I made so many mistakes on the Joe Stevenson article. Thank you for catching my mistakes. Sadly, I must go to work this morning and I will be very busy this week. I wish to share more with you about Joe Daddy's article, but I probably won't for awhile. For now, I hope you find the two "?inserts?" I posted as appropriate. I am sure that the RFA contribution is fine, but you might find the "3 minutes into the bout" out-of-line. 3 Minutes for a takedown to occur in MMA is not "early on"... espescially when Florian grabed the fence to avoid being taken down and was avoiding being takedown for the majority of the first 3 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12--61P0lm0 I remember how many fans wanted to see Florian & Sanchez get a shot against Penn, so the UFC & media was very one-sided against Stevenson at that time. Stevenson was the stepping-stone, and there were constant spins about Florian & Sanchez performing much better than they did. Florian did win that fight obviously... Sanchez didn't do so well as he ran even more than Florian. I know that we are to document the facts and not interpret or spin, but there is nothing wrong with Wiki-contributers not posting everything a skewed reporter spins. We can edit out the overt opinion-part of a source. My argument for taking out "early on" and putting "3 minutes" is more accurate. I know more about Stevenson and will try to make time to share it later, but I will get proper citations.OmniMaster (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob Sapp

What are you doing telling to me that I vandalize Bob Sapp page ?! He has his next fight with Thompson. Everything is on official sites. Maybe after this fight you will realize that this event took place(?)I added fight with rolles gracie and volkan duzgun on Bob Sapp page too. These battles have proceeded but someone (maybe you) for some reason was deleting these continuously. Why? Tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzadzal (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the messages I left on your talk page? Here it is again:

The MMA WikiProject has an established consensus that future fights should not appear in a fighter's fight history record. A number of thing could occur for that fight to be canceled. If the fight is notable it can be discussed in the prose of the article, however, the fight itself should not be placed in the fight history table until the fight actually occurs.

You continued to add future fights to the fight table, going against this established consensus, without discussing the matter. That is considered non-constructive edits and eventually becomes vandalism. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

List of It's Showtime events

I see the AfD was closed. I just removed all of the fight cards that Thai Striker added. This article is now down to it's original purpose--a list of events. If you still want to delete it, then put it up for AfD by itself. The removal of the fight cards does seem to have removed all references, but I'll leave that decision up to you. I also posted a response to you on my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The closing admin of the Glory Events article and I tossed a couple messages back and forth. Now that It's Showtime is a proper list, I've withdrawn the AfD. Since the Glory Events AfD is closed I don't think any other action is needed. Now on to a vandalism search and possibly run MMABot for the first time in more than a week. -TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ultimate Fighter

Reverted 1 edit by Viriditas (talk): "plans are" is grammatically correct.

I'm sure it is. Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that I even made that edit. Apparently, my finger must have inadvertently brushed the rollback button on my watchlist. Thanks for reverting it. Strangely enough, it didn't even show up in my contributions until much later. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MMA articles

hey TreyGeek, whats up? so... I'm creating some articles to promote MMA events in Brazil, its sad but is very short the number of articles related to mma in Brazil on Misplaced Pages.en

My intention is create articles about organizations and event results from Amazon Forest Combat, Max Fight and Jungle Fight. you're indicating my articles to "Nominating for deletion" I'm new in wiki, I'm not sure what it is, but I really hope your support and understand that my articles are well appropriate ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoPixx (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A number of articles that you have created have been nominated for deletion. If you look at the messages left on your talk page and on the nominated articles there are links to the relevant deletion discussions. In about a week, following the results of those discussions the articles will either be kept or deleted from Misplaced Pages. Reasons that articles could be deleted is if they fail to meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies regarding notability, routine new coverage, and/or sporting events. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited André Pederneiras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OMMAC

Can I ask why all the OMMAC event (that I spent a whole day adding) may be up for deletion? they are are all real, true, and should be on wikipedia! I have done absolutely nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) is explained in the AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask now why all the posters I uploaded have been deleted for the OMMAC events?? What is going on?--Fightloungemike (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for deleting the posters. I imagine it was because you claimed you were the creator of the posted and put them up with the usual CC license. If those images were found elsewhere on the Internet (such as OMMAC's website) then those posters would not belong to you and have copyright restrictions on them that are not compatible with the CC license. That's would be a copyright violation and makes the image eligible for speedy deletion. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have added reliable sources are the articles remaining on wikipedia?--Fightloungemike (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That depends on the results of the AfD discussion and the admin who closes the discussion. AfDs are usually closed a week after they are opened. I will say that simply adding one or two references is not going to help those articles. WP:SPORTSEVENT says that "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats", which your articles fail. You should also be sure that the articles assert that these really are notable events and passes WP:GNG; specifically that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Coverage in MMA media is okay, mainstream media is better. The cited references should contain "significant coverage" of the event and therefore should hopefully contain more than X is fighting Y at OMMAC Z. --15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, but as you should be fully well aware, MMA isn't a mainstream sport yet, and you wouldn't even find much coverage of the UFC in mainstream media, mostly just MMA orientated websites and magazines - of which I have added, plus a couple of newspaper websites. What you are asking is near enough impossible. It's like an early message I got about the Norther Ireland flag being added and the one of you guys wanted proof of details from the sporting body separating Northern Ireland for fighters in MMA. Well if you guys actually knew something about the sport, you would also be aware that there isn't a sporting body in the UK for mixed martial arts! I spent a long time adding these as a favour to the promoter and less time working on my own business, just for you lot to go power mad! You lot simply don't know anywhere near what I do about MMA, yet you question me? You only have to look at the fighters who have their own wiki page and then look at their record to see the fights on OMMAC are real. It's not hard--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was telling you what would need to be done to the articles to ensure they they do not get deleted. I fully recognize that many MMA events, particularly those by smaller promotions, do not get much coverage. But this is Misplaced Pages. It has guidelines and policies in place to ensure that only notable topics have articles here. There are other wikis that focus on MMA and have less stringent guidelines in regards to notability and sourcing. A lot of the MMA content here on Misplaced Pages would be better suited to those specialist wikis, in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand but I think you are being too strict, especially sine there are pages for BAMMA, Cage Rage/UCMMA and Cage warriors events even though OMMAC are just as big as them promotions. Also, 90% of OMMAC champions make it to the UFC (example, Etim, Sass, Maguire, Blackledge, Struve, Wain etc) and for fans who don't know the background of those guys it would be good to have on here seing as it is the worlds biggest encyclopedia.--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that some of those other promotions event pages have already been deleted and those that exist are only a nomination away from being deleted. It really comes down to a matter of time. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

none should be deleted as they are all important to the sport. Also by just check the UFC event pages, they have the same sources as the ones I added, which is a case of "okay for one but not for the other". You stated that only notable subjects should be on wikipedia yet I can find millions of pages on a whole manner of subjects that are not notable (or not notable to me). Isn't it all opinionated?--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Simply because a topic currently has a Misplaced Pages article doesn't mean it should. It could simply mean that editors haven't had time to deal with it. I spend most of my editing time fighting vandalism and standardizing the format of MMA fighter articles. I try not to put up too many AfDs at any one time. Currently there are about 10 AfDs (some with multiple articles) on the martial arts deletion list. Some of these AfDs includes UFC event articles. When this list clears out, I'll be happy to nominate the rest of the Cage Rage events and the BAMMA articles.

As I said before, there are other wikis that focus on MMA and have less stringent guidelines in regards to notability and sourcing. Perhaps there should be an effort to make those the "go to" wiki for MMA information. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe Misplaced Pages should allow all real MMA events have a place on the site, seeing as there would be no UFC if there was no other MMA events. Just a thought. Concentrate on cleaning up vandalism, and leave the stuff I put on seeing as I am an expert on the subject--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe people shouldn't ignore Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines creating articles that do not belong on it. Stick to the Fight Lounge and leave Misplaced Pages alone as I'm more of an expert on it than you are. Yes, I was intentionally being snotty by giving you the same attitude you just gave me. It looks like nothing more constructive will come of this conversation, so hopefully it will end. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing constructive will come of it as you are being power mad. Why have Misplaced Pages given you a job of looking over MMA subjects when you know little to nothing about the sport (except you probably own a Brock Lesnar t-shirt). You asked for sources, so I put sources. Then you change your request and ask for sources from places that don't cover the sport. Ridiculous. --Fightloungemike (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish Misplaced Pages were paying me and I don't have a Brock Lesnar shirt (I don't own any MMA shirts actually). I've only been a viewer of the sport since 2006 and editing Misplaced Pages articles on it since 2008. But it doesn't matter. However, you need to read more carefully. I said sources from MMA media are okay, mainstream media is better. I am not power mad. I'm just an editor on Misplaced Pages who can't do much of anything on his own. If my nomination of the OMMAC event articles is wrong, then the Misplaced Pages community will respond as such in the AfD and the closing admin will rule that the articles will be kept. Continuing to comment on my talk page will not change that. Being border line uncivil and WP:OUTING people serves no constructive purpose and can only lead to the potential block of your editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong and I hope the community can see sense then. MMA fans would enjoy reading them and use for revision purposes - far more important than wiki pages on certain sausages and the wizards of waverly place, and I apologize for outing (was wrong but you annoyed me)--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming a joke. We now have at least four new users who's first edit is to vote keep against the articles. Not sure if it is worth looking at ANI for some action? Bjmullan (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a joke when the the existing batch of folks !voted keep but couldn't explain how their !vote or the article complied with Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies. It seems that they think because something is notable in their mind, it is notable for Misplaced Pages which is not the case. I can only hope that the closing admins will look at the arguments being made and not simply count the !votes. At worst, it looks like some of the AfDs will result as a no consensus.

As for ANI, I suppose something could be brought up there, but I'm not sure exactly what. To simply complain that a several users don't understand Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines isn't going to be effective. To say a bunch of new accounts have been created as possible meat puppets won't do much, I think, though I could be wrong. If they are sock puppets and we had something to say why they are socks, then it'd be different. I'm open to suggestions. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the off-site canvassing: . --TreyGeek (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So if Mike Clarke can just make himself know we can get him blocked for this. Hello Mike Clarke are you reading this? You also need to read this and WP:SOCK. Bjmullan (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoever he is knows he is violating Misplaced Pages policies. On the second page of the thread the admits as much and will be deleting the thread. So I took screenshots. I think I know which Misplaced Pages user is the admin of the forum is though. I'll work on that in a little bit. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

After the last personal attack I felt enough was enough and have raised this at ANI. Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong again. I added the delete apparently I'm not allowed to do this after I was shown on here. I couldn't care less if you know my name - is that supposed to scare me or something? I'll give you a link to my facebook page, house address and phone number if you want a little chat--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

oh and you have shown yourselves to be hypocrites by outing me. How do I make a formal complaint? I too have taken a screenshot of everything ready to show the masses--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Afds

Hey man, I'm not looking to start a row with you, but seriously, it gets old seeing some of these other accounts do nothing but try to delete other people's work. I actually use Misplaced Pages as a source for keeping track of MMA fighters and events and so when I come here and they're gone, it's just beyond aggravating and I really see no good reason why they should be gone. ALL this significant coverage stuff just seems like elitism. But, hey, did you catch Bellator or Ultimate Fighter Friday? I switched back and forth myself, but I must confess, Spartacus was where it was at! Later! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to store all information about MMA. It is a place to find information about notable topics. That is why Misplaced Pages has its many policies and guidelines. What I can't stand are people who cannot understand that, cannot read the policies and guidelines, and then complain when others want to enforce them. As I mentioned in the conversation above, there are other wikis with a focus on MMA that have less stringent notability guidelines. Maybe more effort should be in putting the lesser notable MMA article on one of them. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be, though? I think Misplaced Pages should be the umbrella wiki that covers everything that is verifiable rather than forcing us to have to search across all sorts of other wikis. Looking at the edit histories of guideline and policies pags, they are updated and changed so regularly that even in the course of an AfD, they may be slightly manipulated to one side or the other's favor. So, truthfully, I just go with common sense. And to me common sense suggests that it is a net benefit to cover something like UFC 140 than not to and what really frustrated me there is that I see after your edit about potential, an IP editor went ahead and actually did start sections on reception, DVD release, etc., but Papaursa even then still falslely said, "Nothing but results", which is just patently not true. I can somewhat understand arguing with people with different viewpoints about what we should cover, but some of those guys really are just saying to delete with boilerplate responses that are not even factually accurate. Plus, the whole notability thing seems rather arrogant to have as a criteria, because it is subjective. It is clear that there is no universal agreement on what does and does not constitute "significant coverage". But again, you look at UFc 140. You got a championship match and articles in Sports Illustrated and USA Today and yet the one guy says, "Only covered in MMA specific sites". What?! I don't know, man, it's just....UGH! Well, bath time for me. Have a nice night! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently what you think Misplaced Pages should be is different from what it really is. Nothing more to say about that. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Patricio Freire

You have undone changes I have made to the page, saying that I need to cite a relieable source. All I have done is updated a page that is clearly outdated and have put in a few links to other Misplaced Pages pages that support what I have written. The pages says 'Warren is now expected to face Alexis Vila in the promotions season 5 Bantamweight tournament.' This fight took place back in September 2011 and Warren has since lost a title defence to Pat Curran. Both fighter profiles support this, so why do I need to cite a reliable source. If those pages aren't reliable sources, why don't you go in and correct them. Maybe Bellator is not under your radar and you don't know anything about it. If you don't know a subject, there are others there that can contribute and make changes if necessary. Surely it is better to have updated text rather than something that that is clearly old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everything that you added was obviously true facts. The burden is on the editor who posts the material to ensure that it is properly sources per Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in it's existing form is outdated, and therefore no longer true. It also does not have any citations. At which part am I supposed to add citations? You follow the link to Joe Warren and you see his last two fights in his record, you follow the link to Pat Curran you see the fight with Warren on his record and you follow the link to the Summer Series and you can see Pat Curran won the tournament. I don't understand the problem, there are many instances within the page that don't have citations, do you go around deleting them? Or maybe it's ok because you wrote them and think a fight which occured in September 2011 is still upcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get much of an opportunity to actually add new material to Misplaced Pages because I'm kept busy dealing with vandalism and dealing with people who don't understand that most everything on Misplaced Pages needs cited sources and that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a lousy excuse. I've readded the information about Freire's hand. Since the bout with Warren never happened I removed that information. Any information about a fight between Warren and Curren is not directly related to Freire and thus doesn't belong in his article. If Freire is expected to have a match in the future, that needs to be sourced. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, for your interest, the Warren v Curran match was just as relevant as the Warren v Vila that was mentioned there previously. I just tried to update the text, not add irrelevant content. I didn't see you remove that 'uncited' sentence or others like it on pages you have reviwed. Maybe you should get off you high ground and realise not everyone is a 'vandal' and maybe they want to fix something they see is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything about a "Warren v Vila" fight at Patricio Freire, maybe I'm blind.

Since you gave me a suggestion, I'll give you one. Quit complaining on my talk page and make constructive edits that comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Hopefully, this matter is done. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You obviously was blind because it was there since last July and was only removed after I made a point of it. I guess it was a constructive edit after all. All you had to do was read my initial comments rather than going on with your holier than thou nonsense. If you don't know a subject, I'm sure there are others that can also do a job of cleaning articles they know more about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.45.140 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you meant it currently had reference to that fight. There are more than 2000 articles under the MMA WikiProject banner. It is impossible for me to remember all past versions (or even the current versions) of every one of those articles. Chill dude. As I said before, hopefully, this matter is done. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)