Talk:UFC 168

County flags?
Hey guys, do you think you could put beside the name of the fighter, the flag of the country that they're from? It's a small thing, but I think it would work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.227.189 (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally like the idea, but the issue has been discussed a lot, and consensus seems against it. See these search results from Wikiproject MMA for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be cool, it'd be like an almost... Olympic kind of thing, but like I say, small thing, all cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.227.189 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013
Remove the stupid Buffalo Wild Wings controversy. This should belong under that as this has nothing to do with ufc 168. It has to do with what some bar owners were showing on TV.207.6.37.231 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is newsworthy and related. It is supported in third party reliable sources.  It could be re-worded and edited, but I'm against removal of the section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree While sourced, this isolated incident does not have anything to do with the event or the UFC itself.--Ppt1973 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment but it does have to do with the broadcast of the event. And until we create an article about the broadcast of the event, I believe it is worth mentioning here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.197.209 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Technical 13 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree I agree with Ppt1973, this is a nonissue that sounds more like a personal grudge than anything worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. 189.120.152.26 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Moved to the end of the discussion by User:Paulmcdonald)
 * note comments made after the conclusion of the discussion have very little impact. I'd be open to a new discussion if necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree I agree with the removal. This editor has no updates whatsoever related to mixed martial arts and all of the sudden he adds something completely trivial and unrelated to this article. Still, he believes that people here saying to remove it are = nothing. He will probably fight till to the end just to have his update, even if this one has nothing to do with the article. Considering that, I'm removing it once again as several people did. Which means it's only this editor that believes it should be here. Grab everyone involved recently in mma articles and you'll see. If you want to, I can make that clear. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree I'd easily agree with the removal. It's just so irrelevant and has nothing to do with the article. Adding to that, the user who wants to add this to the article has no experience in editing articles relating to MMA. Thus, he doesn't know what would belong in an MMA article or what's considered relevant to an MMA article. I don't normally agree with IP's, but "Remove the stupid Buffalo Wild Wings controversy. This should belong under that as this has nothing to do with ufc 168. It has to do with what some bar owners were showing on TV." sounds right to me. And why argue about this after 2 years? No one cared about Buffalo Wings back then and they certainly don't present day. Like Felipe said, Grab everyone involved recently in MMA articles and you'll see that you're alone on this. WWE Batman131 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of WP:OWN, a Wikipedia Policy. No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl issue
We are approaching the three revert rule on this issue. I see the content as significant and verifiable with coverage, yet I do not believe we need to create a separate article on the broadcast controversy. I am of the opinion that the subject is worth mention in the article. This was discussed previously and as I read it, the removed of the content in question was closed as "not done" by a third party. The user that opposes the inclusion of the information (at least, according to the user's talk page appears to have recent history in what may be considered disruptive edits. My last revert to the regular layout included a request to discuss the edit before removing which was met with what I perceive as a harsh response.  I will not revert the edit at this time because disagreement has become apparent.  Therefore, I will post notice at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.  I am most certainly open to a discussion on the issue and wish that it had not come to this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite 4 users (2 of them registered) opposing this edit, you still complained. I said that if you kept the discussion, I would grab the required people to improve even more the numbers. So it will happen. They're users that update regularly articles related to MMA and I'm sure their opinion would be valid. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see none of those users in the discussion above or any other discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither was I. I happened to see it one day. If that's your argument, how do you ignore the majority of users back then? I'm requesting people that I know that contribute to mixed martial arts articles. As I said, you do not. I do not mean any disrespect by that, but it's only the truth. While it's great to have new people helping, It should be like other articles are updated. Such edit does not belong here. That's why I brought this people to see the situation and give their opinions. Even though we already had people involved in it giving their insight and you still kept the update coming. You can check their updates and other discussions just looking at their contributions. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not me. User:Technical 13 made the decision when the discussion was closed on December 30, 2013.  But even without that, many editors consider it disruptive to blank entire sections of articles without discussing it with other editors.  There's a process outlined at Content removal that is worth it to take a look at.  You've stated that you won't discuss it and appear to be canvassing by threatening to campaign (post notifications of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner) and/or votestacking (posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions).  It looks like you're relatively new to Wikipedia so I don't think you are aware that these measures can be considered inappropriate.  I called in a neutral third party to look it over because I've been involved with this particular article in the past and the issue could benefit from a different point of view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From another person not involved in these type of articles? No, I'm not new. I'm closing 2 years as an editor here and I do know some of the basics. I had arguments with User:WWE Batman131 for example, but I asked him here because he is an user who's used to update MMA articles. Why would I bring here other editors if there aren't any other? I can't call IPs not registered and I called everyone I know that's been updating MMA articles. As I said on the noticeboard, I have no problem with what the IP requested. Why would he request semi-protection if he's an IP (and wouldn't be able to update) and you wouldn't be affected by it? I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the fact that 3 users opposed your update. When I saw the update, it was way after it happened. I removed it based on what I saw here and my opinion. I disagree with the supposal of canvassing. Once again, people I've brought here are users that have a background on updating these articles. If you bring someone used to update culinary articles (even if he's an administrator) just to give a third opinion, it could just as well feel that your update is ok because it's some sourced info and not something brought from nothing. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add another editor that I believe has enough background to also give his opinion. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was asked to weigh in here. First, I edit a lot of MMA articles but I have no interest in the subject. I got sucked in as a neutral observer to handle some edit warring stuff.
 * So reading the proposed section I am amazed that it was ever part of the article. It is the very definition of trivia. And is only tangentially related to the UFC and is more of a coatracking issue in that this article is being used as a place for someone to complain about that restaurant.
 * It definitely does not belong and if anyone insists that it does and will not back down then there needs to be an RFC. SQGibbon (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try to Assume good faith. Editors are free to disagree on issues.  If you want to open up a WP:RFC because I disagree, you certainly can.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I not assume good faith? You should assume good faith before you start telling others to assume good faith. In any case everyone who has participated, with the exception of one person, has agreed that the section does not belong and they have argued the point within the policies, guidelines, and general practice of Wikipedia. If the one holdout wishes to maintain an opposing view then they should open it up to the larger community via an RFC. This is a pretty standard observation. SQGibbon (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "if anyone insists that it does and will not back down then there needs to be an RFC" >> threatening conflict over a disagreement is specifically covered in Assume good faith. See paragraph 2: "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict."--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is suggesting an RFC threatening conflict? That makes no sense at all. This has been going on for over a year now and taking this to the next level if consensus cannot be achieved here is the next step. There is no threat, explicit or implied. If consensus cannot be reached after a year then RFC is the next step. SQGibbon (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)