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

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- aktsu (t / c) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edits, but you can get blocked even though you're "right". I'll help out if he reverts you again. Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Lordvader2009 up on ANI
Hi there. I know you are often having to "deal" with edits by this user. I want to mention to you that there is a discussion on the Admin Notice board in regards to this person. The initial complaint was blanking of their own talk page, which is okay. But it seems that the folks there might be willing to listen to issues of incivility, (borderline) edit warring, and other incidences of being unhelpful. Thought to bring it to your attention in case you wanted to add anything to the discussion. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

UFC 101
Actually I did.I just figured UFC would have put this on UFC 101 event (Even though I don't think it will be the main event because Silva-Griffin would probaly be it.).I mostly did it like the Bonnar-Coleman thing and was waiting for it to officaly be put on the card.But nothing wrong with keeping it on the Main Card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You had to remind me of that lol *shivers*.I don't think Leites should be put on TV for quite some time (which he pretty much won't for UFC 101 since the main card is pretty much done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

UFN 19
I mostly did that because I heard the UFN 19 wasn't suppose to be until 9-16 in Oklahoma City.I didn't want to put that on their because it was only a rumor

http://mmajunkie.com/news/14866/ufc-fight-night-19-could-take-place-sept-16-in-oklahoma-city.mma

(The Link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

UFC 99
My reading of WP:LINK is that we should link both the first occurrence of each fighter, as well as the occurrences in the results table. WP:LINK says "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item" and then "Table entries are another exception; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." For a great example of this in practice, consider UFC 94. Each fighter is linked the first time they're mentioned, as well as in the results table. The UFC 99 article is short, so it's not a big deal, but in general I think it's good to consider the table and the text separate for linking. -- Intractable (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The General Principles section of WP:LINK says that "Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to find relevant information on other pages with just a click of the mouse. [...] These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions". The problem with overlinking is that it reduces the utility of links in articles. I think in the case of UFC 99 however, adding a link to the fighters at their first occurrence in the text improves the utility of the article. It definitely doesn't harm the article, and WP:MOS (of which WP:LINK is a subpage) specifies to "Use common sense in applying it". We both have understandable interpretations of WP:LINK -- let's strive to choose the interpretation that improves the article the most. -- Intractable (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

UFC 97 / 98 and others, billing order
UFC website is highly unreliable, as it more often than not provides wrong data not only on the billing order, but also fighters' age, weight and records. The billing order errors probably happen when they don't bother to correct the content after originally scheduled fight changes due to e.g. an injury and a higher/lower ranked fighter steps in as a replacement.

I go with how the bouts are announced on the show which, unlike the website, remains consistent with the system (higher rank/champion) vs (lower rank/contender):

Magalhaes vs Marshall screenshot

Sonnen vs Miller screenshot

B-Twin (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

user BILLFOLDMAN
hey sry 4 messing up ur UFC posts.i like 2 see other MMA fans.and thx 4 keeping me updated on who is fighting on the upcomeing events,by the way check out my home user page USERBILLFOLDMAN,i made a very cool greatest fighters tournament and put the predicted winners of the fight,check it out and let me know what u think of it.

(Billfoldman (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC))