User talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/March

Talkback
ApprenticeFan work 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

ANTM 17
Good day. All is not calm down? Then remove all the contestants who quit or eliminated outside the judging panel. The decision has been made ​​public more than two weeks. Two weeks everything was fine, and you will once again intervene. Two weeks no one reverting. I do not want to start a war update edit warring, but if you want this, I'll make it or complain to other. Think again before you revert edit. Thank you for your attention. KIRILL95 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see any discussion about it, the issue is the matter of the POLICY of Verifiability so as we know you can't source anything to say she was in the call out then she has to stay out. Mt  king  (edits)  19:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good day. I urge you not to remove Angelea from the table. What she did not participate in the call-out, it is so important? Magdalena, Cassandra, Kimberly, Hannah, Rachel, Terra and Ondrei did not participate in the call-out too, but their names are listed in the table. See Top Model series, and you see, that all names in the table are listed. Here is the link, the contestant Vera disqualified, but she listed in the table. KIRILL95 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please. KIRILL95 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Vera took part in a regular judging in which she WAS called, whereas Angelea was clearly eliminated prior to the final judging. Unless there are sources that suggest her name should be on the table, it should not be placed there.Trafalk09 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * KIRILL95 added Angelea disqualification all over again with unreliable sources in the call-out order table. It's been too disruptive. ApprenticeFan  work 08:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Angelea
You said yourself give links!!! I give!!! What they you are not satisfied??? KIRILL95 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those links say that she took part in the call out.
 * None of the links are what WP calls reliable sources.
 * To include her in the call-out table you are going to need to show that she was part of the call out/panel by the use of reliable sources, and as most have seen the show and know she was not there you are going to have a hard time showing that. Mt  king  (edits)  08:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever read them before you remove?? Or Wikipedia for you holy site??

And do not threaten me!! You are not administrator! I'm not doing anything illegal! KIRILL95 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did read them, you are being disruptive. Mt  king  (edits)  08:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of United Glory events
I'm not sure if you noticed, but List of It's Showtime events was included in Articles for deletion/List of United Glory events that you closed out. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did miss that, it is up to you, feel free to revert my NAC it you want, but I think it may just be best to re-nom List of It's Showtime events. Mt  king  (edits)  18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like there have been recent changes that have made it a proper list now. I'll just withdraw the AfD.  Hopefully, just removing the template on the article should be enough.  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

98.206.38.163 and not understanding the consensus in America's Next Top Model call-out orders in foreign versions
I had just something this unregistered user (existed since October 2011) reverted the new absentee layout which is similarly to "Magdalena - Hannah - Rachel - Terra" call-out layout in America's Next Top Model cycles. I just removed them because they were absent in judging panel or call-outs. You may please revert all them to my revisions. ApprenticeFan work 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, but expect not for the last time. Mt  king  (edits)  07:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifibility and No Original Research
And with all due respect, I think you've greatly misunderstood these concepts.

If you would take a look at how these two policies are defined and in which cases they apply you'll see they apply to concepts which are used to convey 'facts'. Not definitions of words.

A citation is used to provide support to a stated fact, in order to back up it's credibility, thus ensuring that facts given on wikipedia are not first party and instead are externally shown to be factual. This constitutes to No original research.

I could link you to the topics I provided again, but it's evident that instead you did not read them and simply chose to respond with a 'No, I'm right and you're wrong' rhetoric, which is quite disapointing for an individual clearly capable of articulation as yourself.

I would like to remind you that your opinion is in no way more important or valued than that of any other wikipedian and as such you are at all times still acountable to the accepted norms and policies of wikipedia, this includes the limitations of said policies and norms. Part of which is in what cases citations are needed.

If you take the time to read the links I provided, you will find exactly what I mean.

As for WP:SHED, actually no I did not misunderstand it but allow me to give you a brief synopsis of it since again, it's clear you did not read through what it means.

WP:SHED describes the scenario in which a group of people come together to discuss a topic, however are quickly sidetracked by a single pedantic detail and end up dedicating the vast portion of their time to said pedantic detail, leaving the core topic unadressed.

In this scenario, your zealous assault on the definition of ranking within a competition has lead to the sizeable portion of time and effort on the article being dedicated to whether to use outcome or rank, thus leaving the content of the article severely underdeveloped and a point of concern.

I have no interest in contributing to what appears to me to be a case of an editor who feels they are in some way entitled to a greater weight of opinion in respect to others or simply a case of an articulate troll who is enjoying causing such disruption to the development of the article.

As a result, If you choose to once again impose your opinion on said article and abuse various wikipedia policies and guidelines as your basis for your actions, so be it, however if you really do care about making the wikipedia a better collection of information, and by extension, improving the functionality of an article (which now represents you as an editor, thanks to how much focus you appear to have given to it), then I suggest you step back and take a moment to think if the use of a single word is really that important to the content of the article and it's ability to provide information.

I hope that those with a personal interest in said article will realise you are not the say all end all arbiter of said article or even go as far as to request external staff support to deal with your inability to see reason or comprehend the concept of compromise.

It's also clear through reading other sections of your talk page that this is a behaviour you appear to impart upon editors and articles on a regular basis, be it the belief you are improving wikipedia or instead, and what I feel is more likely, intentional disruptive behaviour.

That is all.

Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Wifione  Message 05:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD for UFC 140
I am curious how you chose UFC 140 for nominating for AfD. I'm not questioning that, at least some, UFC event articles are eligible for deletion under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm more interested in your selection of UFC 140 for this, as I see it, test run. The reason I ask is that UFC 140 included a championship fight. That would, potentially, be more notable than UFC 141 or UFC 139 which included no championship fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I picked picked it by date, it is 3 months since the event and as it it has nothing but routine sources, is a clear WP:EVENT fail. Mt  king  (edits)  20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a clear pass of WP:EVENT. Not only does it have a title fight, it was televised, released on DVD, featured multiple current and/or former champions participating (Jones, Mir, Ortiz,Nogueria), is from the biggest promotion in MMA history), is covered not just on Sherdog, but on Yahoo Sports and in USA Today, is still mentioned in more recent news articles discussing those fighters, etc.  --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:MMANOT and you will see that it is not. Mt  king  (edits)  22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well,even though it clearly passes that,seeWP:IAR. Deleting these article would be counterproductive and would be of no benefit to the project, our readers,or anyone.  There is NO way a call to delete an article about a championshipmatch from the most notable promotion in the worldis anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider stating sock status at AfDs
I have to go offline now. Consider noting below the IPs entries at the AfDs that they are suspected socks. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MattParker 119 (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War
I suggest you read up on what an edit war is, because I am not engaging in a edit-war. If you read what it was, you would know that. With that said, I'm going to take this dispute to other editors. Also, it is not up to me to explain my non-change. The format you keep changing is the format done ON ALL OTHER WIKIPEDIA ELECTIONS PAGES! America69 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion: . America69 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON
Due to the number of times you have continuously made negative comments under people's votes that are the opposite of what you believe, I must warn you you are violating WP:BLUDGEON. Read the section on how to avoid this in future debates :). BigzMMA (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice essay. Mt  king  (edits)  11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

SFL 2
See section header name and do what you will. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA
Hello, I see you're also familiar with Bigz. I wanted to draw your attention to User:Hasteur/BigzMMA Draft and see if you had any thoughts. I'm intending to go to AN with this within the next 12 hours or so. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI
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. Thank you. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 140
With UFC on FX 4 getting redirected to 2012 in UFC events it looks like this alternative to deletion will gain more traction. Earlier this month you nominated UFC 140 for AfD. It was a no consensus with the admin's comments about investigating the omnibus article idea. I could see the no consensus coming and started working on improving the article before the AfD was closed. When you have a few minutes, can you take a look at the progress on the rewrite of UFC 140 and tell me what you think? I figure I might be getting close to done in writing prose for the article. I still need to discuss what occurred during the main card, what's happened as a result of the event, then figure out what to do with those three sections I didn't write. Anyhow, if you think the article looks to be improving and could survive AfD with where I'm taking it, say so and I'll keep working on it. If you think that no matter how much fluff I write it may still need to be redirected to the "year in" article, that's cool too. Just figuring out where to spend my time. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For me the test is not on the amount of prose, but the existence of diverse sources that demonstrate the lasting effect of the event, written at least a month after the event. Following a scan (I did not open them up so correct me if you think I have missed one) of the refs I cant see any; therefore in this case would still think a redirect is in order as it fails MMAEVENT. Mt  king  (edits)
 * You have a point there. I think all of the sources are from the time frame immediately around the event.  I think current sources would be passing mentions ("XXX last fought at UFC 140").  The majority of the sources are from MMA media, though I've been trying to work in USA Today and ESPN references in the prose.  I guess I'll try to finish off the article, just so it's not half-written and then focus on the omnibus articles for 2012 and then work backwards.  Thanks for the feedback.  --TreyGeek (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC Events
I see you have removed the individual events from the template and I understand why. I wonder if it might be preferable to keep the individual events listed, but link them to the omnibus article. For example, if someone looking at the template is trying to find UFC 140 they may not remember if it's 2011 or 2012. But the '140' number is there to click on and will go to the omnibus article, and can even be targeted to that event's summary in the main article. Just curious if you think that might be a reasonable idea. BTW, prepare for the backlash. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, see your point, how about next to the year i.e 20zy (UFC abc-def, UFC on ABC 7 & 8, xxxxxx ) ? Mt  king  (edits)  22:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a possibility too. For 2012 it would contain: (UFC 141-154, UFC on Fox 2-4, UFC on FX 1-4, UFC on Fuel TV 1-3, The Ultimate Fighter 15 Finale).  With it that long each year would end out taking up it's own line, or two, in the template, or at least recent years would.  I'm not sure I have a preference either way.  The UFC event template is quickly becoming unmanageable as it is with their weekly events all being listed.  I'll wait and see how things go.
 * Six of one half a dozen and all that - we have the option of using &  . Mt  king  (edits)  22:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you get into a 3RR possibility with the event articles, toss a note on my talk page which ones you need help with. Any IPs or users in particular who revert without explanation can be given their incremental warnings and blocked quickly.  (At least, that's my perspective.)  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Will do. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  22:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback from TreyGeek
But it's not terribly important or need an immediate reply. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the people's voice and try and use a twisted interpretation of the rules to justify your actions?
No one except TreyGeek thinks you're improving Wikipedia, everyone loved the old UFC pages and hate this new one. Everyone thinks all UFC events are notable enough that they dont need to be clumped together. And how is having the fights and results make the page into a stats book? Thats ridiculous. Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that all UFC events are notable. So I guess that isn't everyone.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people who know alot about MMA to consider them all notable. Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't know what I'm referring to, I'm sure you can look at the talk pages and ANI discussions that have been recently created to find out more.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people who know a lot about MMA is not everyone, and most people who know a lot about MMA do not write the standards that Wikipedia follows. You can add me onto the list of people along with Mtking and TreyGeek who thinks that this is an improvement, and subtract me from the group of everyone who loved the old UFC pages and hate this new one.  I'm going to stop now, as I have already done enough hijacking of anothother user's talk page.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the old format.
Because this new one is absolutely terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou diamond phillips (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2
Hello my friend. Waiting a single day before moving ahead was inappropriate, in my opinion. This is a major change in the way this information is presented, and in my opinion, not a favourable one. Please allow the debate to continue before proceeding further. Also, we should consider an RfC.

If I'm coming in late and have missed a huge chunk of the story, my apologies for seeming daft. :) Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

lol @ TreyGeek
People don't want to help? Maybe going full retard on a perfect system had something to do with it. This is gaining a huge amount of attention on Sherdog (numerous threads, lots of pages). You guys seemed to have pissed off the entire MMA community. EvolutionarySleeper (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 144
Hello. Regarding this: You reverted citing "...As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles redirecting to 2012 in UFC events...", yet no consensus for the redirects has yet been achieved in that thread. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could just have easily pointed to the number of AfD's closing with that outcome. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Will restore the articles
I will restore the articles listed here. I suspect that the omnibus article will end up being the way to go. But, right now, the redirects are clearly controversial and were clearly done without consensus. Please allow the original articles to remain without restoring the redirects or nomming them for deletion until the omnibus discussion is completed. Nomming them maybe be seen by the community as vindictive, and a waste of the community's time. As an established editor, it might put you in a bad light, and nobody wants that. Allowing them to remain during the discussion would best serve the project and visitors alike. Many thanks, and no offence intended. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)