User talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/April

ufc events pages
Why are you ruining the ufc events page? This new format is absolutely horrendous, the old one was significantly better. I haven't seen one person on any of the major mma forums agree with what your doing, in fact they all hate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelspackersrock (talk 22:44, 30 March 2012
 * If the MMA forums don't like it they have the option of creating a new MMA wiki or updating any of the existing ones, what seams to have past everyone by is that this is an encyclopedia and NOT a fan site. Mt  king  (edits)  22:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to stop saying that. As a member of WP you need to stop driving people away. Your actions are becoming reckless and you are not following protocol. Please STOP telling people to go elsewhere. Perhaps they don't like your way of doing things, and from the sounds of it on the other talk pages, it seems that the discussion is clearly showing that your current 2012 article is poorly constructed and quite useless at the moment. Nobody said it was a fan site, we can all come to a consensus on how to go from here but you need to stop telling people to go away. This is NOT your encyclopedia but a community based system. A contribution is always accepted and recognized but close mindedness isn't. Eidetic Man (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

considering that mma fans are 95% of the people looking at these articles it makes sense to have it in the previous format. But hey if you are doing it for the 5% go ahead and make these crappy changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelspackersrock (talk 22:44, 30 March 2012

You know, those Superbowl articles are still up for each individual event having it's own page, with stats and everything included! When are you going to get busy conglomerating them into one unreadable mess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.220.77 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the combined UFC page is horrendous, and I have no idea why it was created. It simply removes information, which is the opposite of what Wikipedia should be doing. I don't see the point of making it harder to find information about UFC event.

Why not have all the useful individual event pages in addition to the worthless combined page? That way everyone will be happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.88.92 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see my talk page is keeping sine bot in work today, as for the Superbowl, that meets the guidelines, it is covered by independent sources long after the event has ended. As for why not both, simply WP has policies and guidelines worked at long and hard, in place for meany years, all detail what, as an encyclopaedia it covers, and these events are not what WP classes as notable events. Mt king  (edits)  23:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Really the notability page states that the event has to have a lasting effect, each UFC event has a lasting effect. The result of each fight during the event changes the landscape of whatever division the fighter is in. A fighter has to rack up wins to get to the top so are you telling me that a fighter winning a fight doesn't have a lasting effect? Also, it talks about how an individual event has to be covered by different sources long after the event. This happens all the time in mma. Sites like MMAjunkie, Sherdog, UFC, MMAweekley and many others refer to previous fights or events all the time when they talk about a fighter. If your willing to ruin it then at least change it to the bellator format. Have one page for each year, it would keep all the events on one page but still have the previous format. --Angelspackersrock (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Every MLB match changes who might make the playoffs - we still don't have a article on every MLB game. Mt  king  (edits)  23:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

that's not a lasting effect, only one season and thats a terrible example considering there is close to 160 games in one season. You can view each game during the football season when you click on a teams name. Then it gives you a link to the box score of each game. All you have to do is set up the format like bellator so it will keep it on one page and provide the same information. If not set up like the NFL and provide a "recap" link that shows the results on a major mma website like the nfl does. --Angelspackersrock (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 in mixed martial arts events
While chaos is going on at 2012 in UFC events, so fast that I cannot keep up, I've completed a starter version of 2012 in mixed martial arts events. As I get time I'll attempt to add in information from other promotions. Of course, others (and I don't necessarily mean Mtking) could help with it, but it looks like people would rather complain than help. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We tried to help, but you dont listen! How can we help if you dont listen? Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Help with what? Restoring the pages back to the format that the community preferred? That should be your job seeing as you were the one that destroyed it. Hollaluuie (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

MMA
I've told TreyGeek the same, that I support what you both are doing. If I can offer moral support on any pages that I haven't already contributed to, let me know. I'm clueless as to what is the best content or format, but I do understand the policies involved and what you guys are doing is a good thing. As long as you guys listen to input from others, it will end well. Others are already beginning to see the value in what you at TG started. While it may seem thankless, your efforts haven't gone unnoticed. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann". Thank you.

What?
What are you talking about? I made no personal attacks on anybody. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. See... I can do it, too. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Message
05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A note from a friend.
I think your arguments might be stronger if you didn't reply to so many of the !votes at AFDs. I used to do that a lot (and sometimes fall back into) but I've found that pulling back a little works better, as the closing admins always see through weak arguments of SPAs and such. The less text that is there, the more obvious a weak argument is. It's one of the reasons I wrote the essay WP:BLUDGEON a few years ago, to remind myself. I still read it regularly to remind myself that each time you use the same argument in a discussion, the weaker it becomes. I don't think you are bludgeoning or doing anything wrong, but it is still a good read. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My intent is to (try and) explain why to those who have not !voted before at MMA event AfD's what the issue is and why there is a need for good sourcing is needed that lasts beyond the event, so that they don't form the view that they are being ignored, because for a lot of people they would assume that it is a vote. Mt  king  (edits)  22:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, and I will tag the SPAs when I find them, and answer a time or two myself. I've just found that addressing too many !votes tends to get on the wrong side of many editors and admins who might see it as being confrontational, even when the tone isn't.  Was just sharing a concern, that is all.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Mt  king  (edits)  23:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please help fix uploads
Just a reminder-- always rehabilitate new uploads whenever possible. I am not 'that good' at the image upload process, but most editors are even worse. When people ask me for help uploading an image, I help them. If I didn't help them properly, please help them yourself so we can see how it's done. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

thx for restoring that template--  I missinterpreted you. I'm in a hard spot. I know lots about law and little about how wikipedia runs things. Editors want images, I know how to find and upload images-- I just don't know how write the rationales.

Could you help us over at Shooting of Trayvon Martin? As you're probably aware, it's getting international attention, even our coverage of it is getting attention, and the absences of some images would create a edit warring (not to mention look bad).

I've been trying to help out, but obviously I'm not doing the job well enough. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hello. How can I contact you, Mister Mtking? Can you please post an email for people who need help? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illovecoffee (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-enabled the e-mail link. Mt  king  (edits)  00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Please see my queries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illovecoffee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the redirects
Anytime you feel the omni is ready, go right ahead with my blessings. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddity
Perhaps it's me, but does the contents of User:MMADon101/sandbox remind you of a certain editor we've both had the pleasure of interacting with? My *Puppet sense is tingling and based on the fact that the "sandbox" was created the day after "our friend" was indeffed and that both of them use the same "User Page" userbox I'm thinking we got a stealth sock. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since BigzMMA already has an SPI page, I've reopened it for MMADon101. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, BigzMMA's sock has asked for a topic ban from MMA topic for you and I at ANI. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like others are all over it and will be closed out quickly. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already sent his sandbox to MfD after he was confirmed a sock. I don't expect much of a fight.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MMA event card tables and headers
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability has gotten to be a bit of a mess and conversations quickly get lost, particularly for this possibly quick question. I know you've invited Gamezero05 to update 2012 in UFC events to use the newly designed table for the fight cards. Does it seem to you that the format of the table and the order of the columns has been pretty much decided? I'd like to update 2012 in Super Fight League and possibly Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six to use the same table format. I don't want to jump the gun too much if it's being debated still. I think you and I would like to see a different ordering of the columns, but I'm willing to concede the, possibly minor, issue if it means moving the larger issue along. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you would be jumping the gun, I am not sold on the order but I don't think it is a major issue so willing to go with the flow, I do think that Ravensfire's point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability with regard to the order is worth adopting. Mt  king  (edits)  00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TransporterMan ( TALK ) 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC: Kampmann vs. Alves
Nice try with the revert and redirect. Per the dispute resolution discussion that I know you're aware of, if you want this page gone, you have to follow procedure and nominate it for deletion as the mediator suggested. Udar55 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD's are not for redirects, if I were to nom at AfD it would be for out and out delete, per WP:BEFORE there is a redirect as an alternative. Mt  king  (edits)  21:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned on Edit Warring noticeboard talk page
User:131.123.122.38 has for some reason decided to "report" you for edit warring, but at the wrong place. It's on the talk page for Edit Warring noticeboard. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have already addressed the main points there, not sure anything else is needed there at this point. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion for redirect at Project OWS
In case you had guideline concerns or wanted a general discussion to accept the redirect etc., I have begun a discussion here .--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your intent
Hello my friend. Just wondering what your plan is. Are you after the replacment of all UFC events with omnis? Some? Maybe I can offer some feedback if you tell me what sort of outcome you are ultimately after. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no plan as such, other than to assess each article on its merits, if there is no reasonable and sourced claim to lasting significance than it fails our current policies and should not be a stand alone article, there for I will nominate it for deletion. Mt  king  (edits)  07:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the heads-up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI
For what it's worth, I thought you might be interested in User talk:86.135.85.88. Take a look at their ProxyEditing request and my response. Feel free to weigh in if you want. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Mt  king  (edits)  13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

K-1 Rising 2012 ~ K-1 World MAX Final 16 ~ in Madrid
the press release is from the official site. you should read it please: http://www.k-1.tv/en/images/top/20120412en.pdf I have also added now another link see the EVENT INFO: http://www.k-1.tv/en/index.html this is the Final 16 and 7 events this year of total prize money of 2 million dollars. they will host events in Los Angeles and New York, I hope it is fine! no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozumi-k1fan (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hello my friend. Please don't take anything personally. I callz em as I seez em. :)

It looks very much like the vast majority of UFC events will stand. An effort to AfD many will result in a huge drain of energy, only to have many remain. If this is the case, are you really happy with gaping holes in the navbox/series -- some going to the omnibus, while others being articles? That seems messy to me. In fact, that seems like a worse outcome than letting them remain.

There is a growing list of practical reasons why all these articles should remain. There is a diminishing list of rather weak arguments for deletion based on vague guidelines that are really not well-related to this particular issue. Maybe it's time to abandon this effort. Honestly, seeing an (randomly picked) article like UFC Fight Night: Thomas vs Florian, and thinking it and dozens like it will be deleted, is not realistic. I can't see it happening, and I can't see it being a good thing just because a guideline says vaguely that maybe, it might not comply. Remember, 1.5 k visitors a day to each of these. They are being used. Wanting to delete them sounds like bureaucracy out of touch with reality.

The best that can be hoped for is a few UFC articles deleted with gaping holes everywhere. I just don't see how that's a good thing. What kind of outcome would be satisfactory to you in order for you to give this one up? Please tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your premise, what MMA fans want is not at issue, this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite, the community long ago decided that it will only cover events which are of enduring significance, I fail to see any enduring significance claimed or demonstrated in these, they are no different to the countless other sporting events that occur every day all over the globe. Mt  king  (edits)  07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Enduring significance does not require enduring media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. So they do require a minimum of some sources written after the initial news cycle. Mt  king  (edits)  09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And you are AfDing a January 14, 2012 event which, 3 months later, is still getting some media coverage. Plus, the guideline says the word "likely". That doesn't mean always. What sayeth thee? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal from the UFC matter
I've decided to walk away from this. My involvement probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. I don't like the backpages of Wikipedia. I really don't understand or care about such sports. This is Wikienergy that I can spend elsewhere. Good luck with the whole thing. I am curious how it will all look in a year. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Anna Frodesiak. Our discussions have led nowhere. However, as a last ditch effort, I am considering another inherent notability thread, and accompanying RfC. Perhaps we could initiate it together, with each side preparing a position summary, with a finite size, and agreed-upon format (maybe bullet or numbered form for easy reading, and to facilitate responses to specific points.) This may be in the best interest of the project, considering the likely gaping hole outcome that may emerge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The quality of articles at the encyclopedia
I know you care about the project. Why not put your energy where it's needed most. This project is filled with hundreds of thousands of corporation articles.


 * Monthly page hits in ten years after they merge or go out of business: 7
 * Enduring notability (0-10): 0

In fact, apply to these organizations all of these guidelines you cite. Hundreds of thousands of them fail. Yet you fight so hard to remove 21 UFC event articles.

I don't get it. Why does UFC draw your attention and not those? 40 million page visits a year to these UFC articles, and you think they are not fit for the project. It's sort of like designing the perfect VIP club, but with no members allowed. Who are you here to serve, the project or the visitors? If you pick the project, then it begs the question "Who is the project here to serve?" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ScottMMA
I'm fairly certain that this is a sock of an indef banned user. Now, whether it is User:BigzMMA or User:Temporary for Bonaparte or another blocked editor, I'm not entirely sure (though I will lean towards Bigz). While I've been around a few years now, I'm not entirely sure of how to handle this situation. It's a possible WP:SPI situation, but I don't know exactly where to point the finger to. What do you suggest? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AIV is likely the way to go, I have a report prepared, but since he just got his Level 4 warning...--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The user shows advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices. The user essentially closed AfDs that it disagreed with and then blamed User:Mtking of vandalism.  In my experience, a level 4 warning to AIV earns a one week block.  This situation seems to be an experienced editor, using a duplicate/additional account to avoid a block and/or doesn't want their primary account blocked.  That should result in an indef block of the account in question (User:ScottMMA).  That's why I'm unsure of the correct path as stated above.  WP:AIV is a temporary block for a situation that appears to deserve an indef block, except I can't point specifically to the indef blocked user.  (and I'm rambling because I really don't know where this should go.)  --TreyGeek (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try SPI, but edit summarywise, neither of them have similar patters, and Scott hasn't contributed to any articles While he closed the discussion, he put the warnings at the tops of the pages (BigZMMA puts notifications at the bottom), and hasn't signed any posts, which suggests that he isn't that familiar with Wikipedia, unless he is acting the newbie, I don't think that SPI would accept it, but maybe they would based on the similar username and the disruption.  Although given where his interests lie, the MMA isn't all that surprising. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with TreyGeek likely to be someone we all know, edit time wise not so sure that it is BigzMMA unless BigzMMA was up at 2 am; User:A Pocket Full of Sunshine (the sockmaster of ToB) is more likely also given his location. Might have to give him/her more room to spot a better patten then go to SPI as a checkuser won't go fishing without at least a likely connection to another named editor.  Mt  king  (edits)  07:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sledge Hammer (pornographic actor)
Your listed reason for nomination, WP:BLP1E does not apply to deceased persons. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E does. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  07:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I always thought there should be a WP:BDP1E, for people that are notable for being dead...--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

63.3.19.129
I told you you are everywhere! Ya beat me to it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 145
Yes, you're right; thanks for the notice. I simply reverted back several edits and manually added all the productive changes that I noticed, and apparently this template avoided my gaze. Please watch for the edits of Cabj1905, who is repeatedly violating WP:BLP. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (the essay)
This essay says: "...These guidelines were created by WikiProject Mixed martial arts to help assess the notability of articles...." Guidelines? Really? That's a bit misleading.

This essay, WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, a.k.a. WP:MMANOT a.k.a. WP:MANOTE a.k.a. WP:MMAEVENT is cited as rationale in dozen and dozens of AfDs. On at least one occasion an article was deleted exclusively per that essay: User:Jayjg erred in closing Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (2nd nomination) with "...The result was delete.. Fails WP:MMANOT..."

The result of a number of these faulty AfDs was for you to redirect the pages to your newly-created omnibus article. The AfDs were started in conjunction with the omni, clearly intended merge via AfD. That is not allowed.

Furthermore, the lack of validity of an essay as rationale in an AfD was pointed out to you, several times. However, you just nominated another article for AfD citing this same essay.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (the essay's talk page)
I am astonished to see that you started an actual Support/Oppose on that page. It is, after all, a very difficult page to find. It is a talk page of an essay, which is a subpage of the MMA project talk page.

Beeblebrox suggested you consider an omnibus article. You used his paragraph verbatim as the proposal itself, and immediately "Supported" it. He did not write it as a proposal. He suggested that you consider the idea. You have also pointed out at talk pages numerous times that this was an admin suggestion. Again, very misleading.

With the rationale "As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles", you then deleted the following articles, replacing them with redirects to your newly-created omnibus article:


 * UFC 142
 * UFC 143
 * UFC 145
 * UFC 144
 * UFC 147
 * UFC 148

No consensus was reached. You moved the articles 12 hours after the discussion started. You had no right to do it. The discussion page was nicely hidden from those with little Wikipedia experience.

I am appauled. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Preface: Mtking, sorry for my about to go off on your talk page. Feel free to move it to my talk page)  Anna, you're appauled[sic], I'm tired and pissed off at people simply bitching about the situation and doing nothing to attempt to be constructive.  I do not understand your little rant here.
 * First, WP:MMANOT and WP:MANOTE are two different articles created by two different WikiProjects.
 * "This essay ... Guidelines? Really?" Mtking wasn't involved in writing WP:MMANOT and it wasn't up to him whether the lead claims it is a guideline or an essay.  Also of note, the article's history shows that the essay template was added sometime after the page was created.
 * I am astonished that you are going to misconstrue what Mtkind did in regards to the "Support/Oppose" on WT:MMANOT. User:Beeblebrox, who for the record, really is an admin, began the discussion suggesting an omnibus article as an alternative to individual event articles.  Mtking simply chimed in supporting the suggestion.  He didn't start a formal WP:STRAWPOLL.
 * Mtking has deleted no articles, he doesn't have the admin tools to accomplish that task. He blanked the articles, leaving the previous contents available in the article's edit history, and redirected them to the omnibus page as suggested by User:Beeblebrox (and at least one other admin in AfD closing comments) when no one was joining in the discussion to oppose the suggestion or to offer feedback.  He did this more than 48 hours after the discussion was started.
 * Finally, I really am tired and pissed off at this situation. People have come out of the woodwork not to offer feedback, constructive critisim(sp)?, or have intelligent discussion/debate.  They have popped up on pages including User pages to simply bitch and complain that they don't like it.  Mtking and I have been attacked on Wikipedia for it and there have been threats on off-wiki forums to track down who we are in real life (I've been outed twice on Wikipedia in the last month).  If people came in, which a few have, and made suggestions on how to improve articles (omnibus or not) then it would be a different situation.  But the level of discussion has largely not been at that level.

Anna, if it is your goal and the goal of the "MMA fans" to push established editors who have tried to add actual prose to articles (so that articles can attempt to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT) you have accomplished that goal. I guess "they" win as it looks like I am now useless to the MMA WikiProject after all this time. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant "appalled". Just so you don't think I'm a total balloonhead, I do know how to spell. Heck, I can even spell subpoena and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It's just years in China and not enough coffee. Appauled?? What was I thinking? :) Okay. Now I will read your post. It looks dangerous. I'm not looking forward to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Response


 * "...WP:MMANOT and WP:MANOTE are two different articles..." Both essays and both cited as AfD criteria.


 * "...doing nothing to attempt to be constructive..." What you and Mtking are doing is considered destructive by the majority.


 * "...little rant..." Please be polite.


 * "...WP:MMANOT and it wasn't up to him whether the lead claims it is a guideline or an essay..." Nevertheless, he used it as criterion for AfD


 * "...essay template was added sometime after..." It was still never a guideline or policy.


 * I've always known Beeblebrox is an admin.


 * A strong pattern has emerged, in my view, of using every advantage, manoeuvre, and tactic to gain advantage. Beeblebrox presented that as a suggestion to consider. You used it verbatim, jumped on it with "Supports". Less that 12 hours later had the omni ready. Then, knowing full well that zapping 6 established articles was a huge no-no, wrote: "...Just do it, if we get into a edit war situation with IP's et. al. then we ask any of the number of admins who have helped out to step in and protect the redirects..." Frankly, the method stinks. I'm astonished that you can defend that conduct.


 * "...simply chimed in..." That's a nice way to put it. Jumped on it and pushed it through is another.


 * "...He didn't start a formal WP:STRAWPOLL..." He did worse. It was ad hoc six gun justice, held in a courtroom out of sight, and the accused were hung without a guilty verdict in the middle of the mock trial.


 * "...Mtking has deleted no articles...He blanked the articles..." Semantics. In effect, the same exact thing.


 * "...and redirected them to the omnibus page as suggested by User:Beeblebrox (and at least one other admin in AfD closing comments)..." Really? All 6 articles?


 * "...I really am tired and pissed off at this situation..." I understand. Part of it is because you put ages into pushing it the way you wanted. The problem is that there was resistance. Not very well spoken resistance, but it was there. But in response, it seems that you pulled out all the stops, bent the rules, and employed very unfair tactics to get things your way. Backlash? Par for the course. I know you went into this with best intentions, but this is a collaborative project. Just because there were only two of you with this vision, it doesn't mean you can push 50 times harder.


 * "...threats on off-wiki forums to track down who we are in real life..." That sucks and I'm sorry to hear about it.


 * "...if it is your goal..." My goal is to stick up for fair dealing, and use some common sense.


 * One thing neither of you have addressed is the unfair tactics. I bring it up. You ignore it.


 * Another thing I would love for you to address is the common sense position that we are here to serve visitors, not a rule book. We have IAR for a reason. You obviously have a vision of what this living thing should be shaped like. The big question is why do you insist on an omnibus prose summary article when there is a huge outcry that the people who acutally use these articles would better served by stand-alones? And please don't WP:XXX me. I've been dying to know why your vision supersedes all else. Please do tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your point?
Why are you going on this slash and burn tirade against the UFC pages? No one besides you and TreyGeek want it and I realize that you guys want to rule the little kingdom you've built here in Wikipedia, but why don't you do something useful with your time that actually adds value to something? The vast majority of UFC articles meet notability critera and will stand. If anything, you and TreyGeek are simply creating what will amount to a few gaps in single event articles and duplicate data living on these stupid omnibusses. That makes no sense if your interest is honestly for the better of the Encyclopedia which you claim it is. Get a better argument or move along. You have way too much free time on your hands. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP is not a news reporting service the MMA fanboys have been using it as such, take a good hard look at the articles, on the actual event all there is is a table of results no prose, no discussion on what occurred, zip, and if you also look at the discussions there are numinous others who also feel the same way. If thoes advocating keeping, rather than keep questioning motives, actually got down and improved the articles, cited sources that demonstrate that there is genuine lasting notability, then there would be no need for this. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the argument fundamentally comes down to this: "this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite". These two purposes are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for a page to be useful to fans and be of notable historical value. For example, prior MMA events have bearing on current and future ones, and therefore are quite frequently references by those interested in the background tree leading up to any subsequent upcoming event. The hits for each event page tell the tale of this inherent usefulness. I can only assume that Mtking's argument is being perpetuated by someone who knows practically nothing about the specifics of the subject/sport at hand therefore cannot contribute a meaningful opinion. Agent00f (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is completely and absolutely untrue. The results are listed for every single event including every match, outcome, time, round, method of victory, any notable circumstances, etc. That is standard and exactly what I am looking for when I need to research MMA history. Considering it's bar-none the fastest growing sport in the world and that you've deleted cards that featured fighters who would go on to be extremely notable if not world champions, what the hell is wrong with you? You're clearly just doing this out of some sort of grudge or desire to troll. Get a life. (Personal attacks retracted).Beansy (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! Don't attack him. He's trying to help the project. You just happen to disagree. I don't agree either, but it doesn't give me the right to call him names. That's a no-no around here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I came back here to retract the personal attacks. Those sorts of comments are not useful for discussion or resolution, and unnecessary and rude. For that I apologize to Mtking. I do think the amount of enduring fanaticism with which Mtking has been going after MMA articles when he does not have any familiarity with the subject is very odd, to the say the least, and very counterproductive to the situation in my opinion. It's also arguably harmful to practitioners of the sport (I'm not one by the way) when things like disclosed athletic commission salaries are deleted from Wikipedia and suddenly much harder to find. Furthermore, you know how this has become a battleground situation? Please keep in mind that the current situation is not even common knowledge among the online MMA community yet, but it is on the verge of spreading like wildfire. In a couple weeks there might be ten times the number of people descending into this, many of whom will be completely inexperienced with wikipedia (I am not a newbie but I've only quite modest editing experience), and I'd really like to see a positive resolution to this situation at least partially in place before things potentially deteriorate into chaos. Beansy (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice of you to retract. I appreciate what you are saying. I think we should all, ASAP, get some sort of consensus on what's notable, and get the whole MMA community to be part of the solution. They could be a tremendous asset if we all push in the same direction. Let's get organized. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DBF Locustification (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Pot, I see you have met the Kettle already. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just an average user who finds the individual event pages to be a useful resource, and was particularly surprised by the single-mindedness of this crusade. Sure, I recognize that my link doesn't exactly contribute to the dialogue in a particularly constructive way; I'm not changing anyone's mind with it, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. This appears to be a case of an individual who is now so invested in being right, that basic common sense is being lost in the shuffle. You can try and lump me in with some of the crazier element if you like - I don't have the patience to hang out here to defend myself - but I'm practically an impartial observer here. If you guys choose to turn some moderately useful articles into some less useful articles and delete a few of them as well, it's not going to ruin my day. Still, I'm willing to take a moment out of my life to point out what appears to be bad behavior - especially when it has no benefit to anyone. Locustification (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice
In case you missed it, because I injected it into a wall of stuff, please search "Excellent point TreyGeek" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)