User talk:Drr-darkomen/Archives/2009/July

Future UFC events
Hey, good job keeping the articles for upcoming UFC events clean from rumors etc :) Just wanted to drop you a line that I believe the consensus is indeed that MMABay is unreliable as you wrote. Also, you proabaly know already but WP:SPECULATION, WP:FUTURE, WP:CBALL and WP:CRYSTAL are all handy links to the policy regarding rumors in case you need to point it out to someone. Cheers and keep up the good work! -- aktsu  (t / c) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

AFFLICTION "Trilogy" Edits

Who the hell are you to say what's a credible source and what's not. I've been going to FiveKnuckles.com for over five months and they are a combination of well respected writers from MMAJunkie, CagePotato, Fightline, Sports Illustrated and other well respected publications. They were the ones who broke the story that you kept editing and giving credit to a site, Five Ounces that didn't break anything, just copied other peoples hard work and rewrote it, and had their lead writer, Sam Caplin leave a longtime ago with all of their credibility. They haven't broken a real story in months, basically since Caplin left. If you were really a part of the MMA community you would know this already and you would know that FiveKnuckles is a reliable source. Here I am trying to contribute to the wiki community and this is the thanks I get. Some wannabe know-it-all changing my edits. It took me a long time to figure out what I was doing. I had never made any edits before and here you go screwing it up and attributing the info to a third party who had nothing to do with breaking the info in the first place. Very bad form sir. I'll make sure not to make the mistake of attempting to contribute to this BS "open" source project again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.202.57 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

user Astrosin99
ok. you must be a fan of mma. =) How is a source by you deemed acceptable?  When the fighter is quoted from his own mouth, would this not be appropriate?  there are thousands of news-stations, newspapers, news sources.. why are you the dictator of regulating facts?  people that read these articles on wikipedia should know truth and the facts.. you're simply withholding that from them by reverting edits with proper sources.  you will remain civil.. however, you are unfair.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrosin99 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

haha ok i concede. just trying to help76.117.2.50 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

MMAJunkie is a gossip site, it is not a reliable source. Mirko CroCop is signed with Dream, and the UFC have made no announcement that he is going to be fighting at UFC 103. So until they do, stop listing rumours under "Announced Fights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.141.254 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the page rules, only fights that have been announced are to be listed, the UFC have NOT announced the fight, it's only been mentioned on a gossip website.--78.137.141.254 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and even the source you give for the fight states that the fight has not been announced, it's only a rumour. Therefore, it should not be included under announced fights, nor should it be mentioned on either fighters page. It could be included under a rumoured fight banner but not announced fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.141.254 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete garbage. Have the UFC announced it? No. Have Dream announced it? No. Has Mirko announced it? No. Your "source" is MMA Junkie. If you have a look at their rumoured fight page it very clearly states that no fight for him has been announced. --78.137.141.254 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case they should be classified as Rumoured Fights, not Announced fights. --78.137.141.254 (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what you have decided is a reliable 3rd party source? Despite them being gossip sites and nothing more. A fight is only announced when the promotion staging the event announces it. Until then it is only a rumour. Nothing more. CroCop vs Dos Santos has not been announced by anyone, it has been rumoured by MMA Junkie. They can't announce anything, they can only "report" rumours until the promoters announce it. --78.137.141.254 (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing reported with announced. Theres a difference between rumoured and reported. If a news reporter talks to a fighters manager and then reports a fight that has not been announced, the fight is reported, but it's still not announced. --78.137.141.254 (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's having people like you in charge of things that has made this site a laughing stock. --78.137.141.254 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirko
Hey, if you haven't already could you watchlist the Mirko Filipovic-article? I can live with not listing the Mirko-dos Santos fight until it's officially announced (though that seems to be a formality at this point) but I see no reason to remove that Fertitta flew to Zagreb to speak with him (as the IP seems to think we should). Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For edit warring there's only one warning needed -- then it's straight to WP:3RRN. I've reported him and asked an currently-online admin to look at it :) -- aktsu (t / c) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe one day :) You're only at 2 out of 3 reverts at Mirko Filipović (it's the fourth revert that strikes you out) so think you could restore what he removed? -- aktsu (t / c) 00:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

UFC 100
Look: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.eventResults

The "Making History" was only to say that was making history, but it was not real name of the event, the name was the very same "100", the official site not says the name was "Making History." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caio Morone (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim Dong-hyun
I just used my last revert of the day to revert his revert of all my recent edits to the page. Feel free to do any edits you deem necessary :) -- aktsu (t / c) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported at 3RRN. -- aktsu (t / c) 04:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

- SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 Result -

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=8 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-1-6543

Denis Kang, Jae Young Kim, Young Choi(japanese nickname is RYO), UFC Stun Gun. This event is not amateur. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 is professional.

ex) SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 5 Result

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=20 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-5-4977

[Denis Kang vs Jung Gyu Choi] is SPIRIT MC +80kg(heavyweight) title match.

http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/files/game_result/smci5_16m_L1759_resize.jpg

Denis Kang worn SPIRIT MC heavyweight champion belt after INTERLEAGUE 5`s winning.

Amateur event don`t play host to title match. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE is professional event. 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.124 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

UFC 103
You read the entire story? The news says that "Cro Cop vs. Dos Santos" is in the official card. Or put this fight on the official card or remove the "Henderson Vs. Franklin" there.

(Caio Morone (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

UFC 105
So your rumors are allowed but anyone else's isn't? Riiiight. definition of tentatively = "Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional"

where does it say rumors aren't allowed either? "This article contains information about a future sporting event or team, and is likely to contain information of a speculative nature. "

Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led420 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fights
Yeah, but all that basically means is that the UFC is thinking about having them fight. Listing them as we did is the equivalent of saying they've signed to fight -- which doesn't appear to be the case. Some prose echoing the report (i.e. that they're tentatively booked) would be another matter, but I think it's borderline trivia since - in the grand scheme of things - what the UFC initially envisioned (unless it's a major fight or something) is of little importance once the event has happened. -- aktsu (t / c) 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In some ways I guess it comes down to whether we want Wikipedia to be a news agency or an encyclopaedia. I tend to favour the latter. MMAJunkie etc. is still there for people who want to know the latest in what the UFC is looking to do with its upcoming cards, but I feel our time here could be far better spent than dealing with that stuff since it's ultimately unimportant. That's why I've mostly left the articles to themselves unless things are getting too out of line. -- aktsu (t / c) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is of course not to say I think they should be left to themselves, just that I personally hate dealing it. What you're doing is important exactly because you're keeping things in line, as they should be. I'll stop giving you yellow bars now, cheers :) -- aktsu (t / c) 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify; the line I struck above (and the above post) was in regards to anons adding stuffs and not implying that the content we're talking about is the sort of breaking-new-this-fight-might-happen we should avoid. Sort of made it seem I was saying you were on par with the anons in regards of what belongs on the page. I have no problem with mentioning it, just that it should be presented accurately. In a perfect world where the article would grow to sort of what UFC 94 is now, this is the sort of thing that would belong in the "Background" section. -- aktsu (t / c) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

189.62.155.252
Hey, since the IP is in this cast obviously vandalising (blanking content) edit warring doesn't really factor in. You should rather just escalate the vandalism-warnings and report him to WP:AIV (there's a button at the top of his userpage if you're using Twinkle) if he continues after a final- or only-warning. I've reported him now. Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 04:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch, you've been going at it manually? :P Sorry about that, I would have mentioned it before had I noticed. You added it to your monobook.js but you could also have activate it under "Preferences -> Gadgets" where there's a couple other tools as well. "Navigation popups" is incredibly useful for hovering over the "diff" button to see what the edit changed without having to actually click it (when viewing page-history and the watchlist). Regarding Twinkle, you should probably be a little careful on what you label as vandalism. This, while you and I know it's actually vandalism, is better to label as "unsourced" -- and warn the user as such (there's a bunch of different warnings). Same goes for the "revert as vandalism"-button added by Twinkle. See WP:VANDALISM for what's considered vandalism.
 * Anyway, keep up the good work! I absolutely hate dealing with rumours regarding upcoming fightcards, and often let things slide for days because it would be readded the moment I reverted before you showed up, so I for one really appreciate what you're doing. :) Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 04:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Affliction: Trilogy
No, but my spellchecker is :P I guess I should have the American one installed as well so I'll do that now and correct it :) -- aktsu (t / c) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the guideline is simply to be consistent within the article but that in articles with ties to one of them that variant is often preferred. Otherwise it's the initial author's choice. Anyway, fix'd :D Sucks about Affliction, but thankfully World Victory Road is there to save the day!  -- aktsu  (t / c) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering/hoping if Strikeforce might look to salvage some of the matches with them having lost both Riggs-Diaz and Werdum-Overeem on their August 15 card though. Would probably be the best outcome for all parties; fans get fights, fighters get money (and to actually fight), Strikeforce improves their card and Affliction makes/recovers some money. Will in any case be extremely interesting to see what happens with Affliction going forward... Without knowing how much the cancellation cuts their losses, I almost think going ahead with the event would have been the best choice with all the buzz Barnett testing positive gave them -- especially since a new event can't possibly get as good a headliner as Barnett-Fedor (which it would need to generate anywhere close to as much interest as they have now even though Barnett's gone). Oh, well... -- aktsu (t / c) 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true, though I'm sure at least some of the guys would appreciate the opportunity to fight even though they'd be paid a bit less. Affliction's ridiculous salaries is really what's at the heart of their problems... It was nice to see fighters finally getting paid what they deserves, but it makes you wonder what could have been if they had been a bit more realistic :\ -- aktsu (t / c) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)