User talk:TreyGeek/Archives/2012Q1

UFC event pages
I've noticed something for a couple months now, but have been to lazy to actually bring up the topic till now.

The UFC event pages are, in my opinion, in need of fixing. I find it odd that the PPV event pages are named numerically (ex. UFC 140, UFC 141, UFC 142) but the free cards (ex. UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos, UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller) all have "special" names to them. I don't understand why we do it one way for half the cards, and a different way for the others.

So, in my opinion, we should either change all the PPV cards to the names that the UFC dubbed them (UFC 141 would be UFC 141: Lesnar vs Overeem and UFC 142 would be UFC: Rio), or we remove the Fighter vs. Fighter from all the fight nights. It just looks silly to me that we have it half and half. What do you think? Hopefully this makes sense, and doesn't look like I'm a completely idiot. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion to the MMA WikiProject talk page in hopes others may want to participate in the discussion. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi TreyGeek,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited ProElite Inc., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Ellis and Ed Carpenter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SDSF page edit
Hi TreyGeek, This is regarding the revert of my edits in article - SDSF. I have added the source for my edit in the See also section, and also I have just explained the options available in the SDSF panels not like instruction manual. May be we need to re-phrase my edits instead of reverting to make this article better. and also I would appreciate if you can provide me any inputs on what can be added in this article. Thanks! - Karthik Sripal (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "See also" link is not citing a reliable source. Listing the commands that can be used in SDSF and what those commands do is very much like an instruction manual.  Same thing with listing the specific columns available in the SDSF interface.  (Incidentally, I also really dislike the listing of "Features" listed in the article, but that's not your fault.)  Rather than a listing of commands and columns, a better alternative would be to have an actual paragraph of well written sentences that state something along the lines of: The SDSF status panel contains information about a batch job's x, y and z.  Or: The features of SDSF include a, b, and c.  At the same time, these sentences/paragraphs need to cite references. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

ProElite
Hello! Just to give you a heads up, the significance of this promotion seems to be increasing due to their new partnership. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never doubted the significance of ProElite or advocated the deletion of the ProElite article. However, the first two events under the ProElite banner and so far the third fail to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for notability.  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even so, then it is simpler to just redirect them and then that way anyone looking for the information would at worst come to the main article and if their notability does increase, then editors have a basis to build from. On another note, it is strange to think we will be Wikipedia free for a day!  --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirecting the event articles to ProElite is a perfectly acceptable alternative. People can choose to !vote for redirect in the AfD discussion of the events.  Also, assuming the consensus is to delete the event article, nothing stops someone from coming in behind to recreate the articles with a redirect to ProElite.


 * As for being Wikipedia-less tomorrow, I don't know wtf I'm going to do. Play more The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim until night class I guess. ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if it will help, I will add some stuff to the articles? I found and added one source already.  I am not one for the AfD discussions.  I commented in some a time back, but I just really am not around enough for the creating an account type of stuff anymore, but I can at least add enough to the articles that can be merged or something.  --24.154.173.243 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copywright
I quoted a few sentences in quotation marks and provided links citing the original authors. Journal articles and books do that all the time. That is not a copyvio. A copy vio would be just copying and pasting the whole articles, not a few sentences within quotation marks and a footnote linking to the original source. If you would prefer to paraphrase instead of quote, okay, but removing it altogether is a bit extreme. And by the way, I do not want to be any adversary of yours. Why don't we work together to help each other on this? Thanks! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response is on the other user's talk page to keep discussions in one place (another Wikipedia guideline). --TreyGeek (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

External links and WP:LAY
Hi TreyGeek. I noticed you are adding External links sections to articles. I thought you be aware of the article layout guidelines. Specifically, the External links section always comes after the references/notes section. I would appreciate it if you could go over the articles you edited and correct this. Best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll work on that. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. FWIW, I've posted a response. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Perez (fighter)
Hi. I saw you've just made some small edits to the Daniel Perez (fighter) article. Could I ask you to take a longer look at it, I suspect it has been vandalized. Compare the diff from today vs July 31st. I did leave a message on the original authors page (User:Falcons8455) but he has not recently edited. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sync'ed the information in the article to match what Sherdog has. Should take care of it until more source are found to flesh out the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Brian Warren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

mmaBot
Hi there, nice work with the MMAbot. However, I think task 10 is incorrect. Blpunsourced should only be used if there are no <ref tags AND there isn't a sherdog or boxrec link. If there are no ref tags but there is a sherdog or boxrec link then BLP sources and no footnotes should be used. Cheers The-Pope (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had similar concerns when I noticed that an admin was going around behind MMABot changing many of the BLP unsourced templates to BLP sources. I asked them about the situation and they gave me to the go ahead to continue as it has been.  It only flags a small number of articles as unsourced, and once this first pass finishes (I'm almost half-way though) then I expect it'll rarely flag an article as unsourced.  If it gets to be too much of a concern, I have no problems making modifications.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm pushing my own POV on this matter, but it's based on two important concepts. technically, new unsourced BLPs can be deleted via Blp prod and whilst the arguments on refs vs links remain unanswered, it isn't unheard of for linked but not reffed articles to be nominated for deletion. Secondly and most importantly, the "needs more sources" and "your links should be refs" messages given by the two templates I suggested give inexperienced editors a much more accurate idea of what needs to be done than a straight unreferenced tag. I wonder if your bot with some code changes could be used to help standardise articles in other sports? The-Pope (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points in regards to the usage of the two templates. (Even if I don't necessarily agree with the consensus that a link to Sherdog or other databases in an infobox is a reference.)  Tonight, I'll review the code that puts those templates on articles.  I think the initial concern resulting in making the change complex is recognizing all possible "sources" in an article.  This would include:
 * Infobox parameters for Sherdog, Boxrec, and website
 * An external links section with links.
 * Raw URLs placed inline within the article.


 * There may be other possibilities as well, particularly in the very poorly written/formatted articles. The last two may be accomplished by looking for "[http://", though some external link templates such as imdb would still be an issue.  Something to look into I guess.


 * As for MMABot editing other sports articles, I'm not sure. Certainly a lot of code could be reused, but it has been tailored to editing Infobox martial artist and MMA record tables.  If a request were made on MMABot's talk page I'd consider looking into it in a month or two when I'm finished with the current round of MMA fighter articles.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance of you tweaking the bot to NOT tag articles with the Sherdog or Boxrec link as being BLP unsourced, but instead have it tag with No footnotes and BLP sources.  Still getting a few each day. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, there are a lot of potential corner cases of when BLP unsourced should and shouldn't be used by the guidelines you are saying are in effect. Therefore, I'll be removing the functionality of MMABot flagging articles as unsourced due to the complexity of the issue.  I may manually flag articles myself, but there will be no guarantees that I will do so consistently.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Super Fight League 1 wiki page
I just noticed that you removed the for the SFL 1 on the event section of this page. Now it weren't there for no reason, I have made a entire page for the event in my sandbox, so if you would like to look at it, and then let me know what you think, I will create a page for it. BigzMMA (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that an article about "Super Fight League 1" is very borderline in terms of notability. It seems that the focus of the article, if one exists, is not on the MMA fights, but on the entertainment aspect since that would be the notable part.  The MMA fights, as shown in your sandbox, consists almost entirely of non-notable fighters.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not many event pages have a lot of notable fighters on them yet I've seen them on there, but I think that the fact that 1) big name celebrities are performing prior to the fights, 2) the SFL event has been given enough attention by independent media sources to meet notability and 3) I have seen pages that were practically full of notable fighters has been deleted (Cage Rage 15-19 comes straight to mind). So for these reasons I will put up the articles as soon as I can. Also I would like to talk about those Cage Rage events at some point. BigzMMA (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the event articles full of non-notable fighters have yet to receive attention for AfD. There are a number of event pages and fighters that I think should be deleted, but I've been busy with other things to get around to putting them up for AfD.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Phil De Fries
The reason I edited his name to that is thats is the name the UFC website lists him as, not Philip De Fries, it's like calling Frankie Edgar Frank Edgar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock17gen4 (talk • contribs)
 * The preference should be to link directly to the article in question and not go through a redirect. That is what I am resolving.  Your example of "Frank Edgar" vs "Frankie Edgar" doesn't work too well because the name of the article is Frankie Edgar with the alternative name redirected to it.  There are two possible solutions to maintain a wikilink that appears at "Phil De Fries".  Either move the article to that name or use a piped wikilink Phil De Fries .  --TreyGeek (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've apparently already done this so contacting me and my replying was probably not of much use. However you did a copy/paste move rather than a real move with screws with the page histories.  *sigh*  --TreyGeek (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Andre Winner
You have to have a source for his name? There are a lot of things on that page without sources. Now you are going to make me go back and fix it? Anyway, here is the source:

http://boxing.nv.gov/2011%20Results%20Web/07-02-11%20MMA.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When the full name is not quickly found in a Google search, yes, it definitely should be sourced. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing contenct based on shady intentions.
Why are some edits categorized as "spam" while others are not? In the case of fighter rankings, why are sherdog.com and mmaweekly.com the only acceptable sources of information, and others are removed by the bot? What it is doing is monopolizing MMA rankings which is illegal. I demand this to be explained and fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Refer to this discussion at the MMA WikiProject. FYI, "demands" and making accusations of "illegal" activities (WP:THREAT) will get you no where quick.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

top10MMArankings.com
It is not accusation it's a fact. You can't remove some sources of mma rankings and leave others, unless you favour some of them, which means corruption. You either allow all the relevant sites to publish links on their perspective or you don't allow any of them. I'm not stating that this is intentional case, but objectively - this is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you really need to read WP:THREAT at this point. It looks like you just stated that it is a fact that not supporting the inclusion of Top10MMARankings.com on Wikipedia is illegal.  --TreyGeek (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

top10MMArankings.com
What I stated is that suppressing it in favour of another ranking site, in a public openaccess database is a form of denying rights and freedom of speech. I am not going to debate over this, it's realy up to you to decide what you stand for. It's not about top10MMArankings.com, clear it out if that seems right to you, but what you are doing is simply monopolizing information. (I would be surprised if you can deny that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are debating this, poorly I might add. It is likely because you lack the knowledge of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that I have acquired over the last four years as a registered editor.  What you have failed to do thus far is:
 * Show how Top10MMARankings meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guidlines.
 * Show how Top10MMARankings meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of websites.
 * Shown any sources for Top10MMARankings that are independent of the site.
 * Shown any reliable sources for Top10MMARankings that are independent of the site.
 * I am not trying to monopolize information, what I am trying to do is ensure that content on Wikipedia conforms to its policies and guidelines. As it stands the closest the MMA WikiProject has come to addressing a fighter's ranking in their article leads is to say they shouldn't be there (discussions here and here), although this is obviously not enforced.  You came in here being combative and argumentative.  What you should have done was asked established editors for help and advice.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Edgar
I've got no issue as long as there's an actual source backing that claim. There wasn't before (just the Sports Illustrated article, which said something else). Nice job finding one. -- James26 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sherdog is the "go to" source for MMA fight results and the defacto standard for the MMA WikiProject. If in doubt, they are usually right.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I updated the Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard article. -- James26 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Stevenson & RFA (Resurrection Fighting Alliance) Update
Hey TreyGeek. My computer is down for about another week, so I use my daughter's laptop from time to time with brevity. I haven't made any contributions to any pages for awhile either. These are the primary reasons I made so many mistakes on the Joe Stevenson article. Thank you for catching my mistakes. Sadly, I must go to work this morning and I will be very busy this week. I wish to share more with you about Joe Daddy's article, but I probably won't for awhile. For now, I hope you find the two "?inserts?" I posted as appropriate. I am sure that the RFA contribution is fine, but you might find the "3 minutes into the bout" out-of-line. 3 Minutes for a takedown to occur in MMA is not "early on"... espescially when Florian grabed the fence to avoid being taken down and was avoiding being takedown for the majority of the first 3 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12--61P0lm0 I remember how many fans wanted to see Florian & Sanchez get a shot against Penn, so the UFC & media was very one-sided against Stevenson at that time. Stevenson was the stepping-stone, and there were constant spins about Florian & Sanchez performing much better than they did. Florian did win that fight obviously... Sanchez didn't do so well as he ran even more than Florian. I know that we are to document the facts and not interpret or spin, but there is nothing wrong with Wiki-contributers not posting everything a skewed reporter spins. We can edit out the overt opinion-part of a source. My argument for taking out "early on" and putting "3 minutes" is more accurate. I know more about Stevenson and will try to make time to share it later, but I will get proper citations.OmniMaster (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob Sapp
What are you doing telling to me that I vandalize Bob Sapp page ?! He has his next fight with Thompson. Everything is on official sites. Maybe after this fight you will realize that this event took place(?)I added fight with rolles gracie and volkan duzgun on Bob Sapp page too. These battles have proceeded but someone (maybe you) for some reason was deleting these continuously. Why? Tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzadzal (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the messages I left on your talk page? Here it is again:
 * The MMA WikiProject has an established consensus that future fights should not appear in a fighter's fight history record. A number of thing could occur for that fight to be canceled. If the fight is notable it can be discussed in the prose of the article, however, the fight itself should not be placed in the fight history table until the fight actually occurs.
 * You continued to add future fights to the fight table, going against this established consensus, without discussing the matter. That is considered non-constructive edits and eventually becomes vandalism.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

List of It's Showtime events
I see the AfD was closed. I just removed all of the fight cards that Thai Striker added. This article is now down to it's original purpose--a list of events. If you still want to delete it, then put it up for AfD by itself. The removal of the fight cards does seem to have removed all references, but I'll leave that decision up to you. I also posted a response to you on my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The closing admin of the Glory Events article and I tossed a couple messages back and forth. Now that It's Showtime is a proper list, I've withdrawn the AfD.  Since the Glory Events AfD is closed I don't think any other action is needed.  Now on to a vandalism search and possibly run MMABot for the first time in more than a week.  -TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ultimate Fighter

 * Reverted 1 edit by Viriditas (talk): "plans are" is grammatically correct.

I'm sure it is. Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that I even made that edit. Apparently, my finger must have inadvertently brushed the rollback button on my watchlist. Thanks for reverting it. Strangely enough, it didn't even show up in my contributions until much later. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MMA articles
hey TreyGeek, whats up? so... I'm creating some articles to promote MMA events in Brazil, its sad but is very short the number of articles related to mma in Brazil on Wikipedia.en

My intention is create articles about organizations and event results from Amazon Forest Combat, Max Fight and Jungle Fight. you're indicating my articles to "Nominating for deletion" I'm new in wiki, I'm not sure what it is, but I really hope your support and understand that my articles are well appropriate ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoPixx (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of articles that you have created have been nominated for deletion. If you look at the messages left on your talk page and on the nominated articles there are links to the relevant deletion discussions.  In about a week, following the results of those discussions the articles will either be kept or deleted from Wikipedia.  Reasons that articles could be deleted is if they fail to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding notability, routine new coverage, and/or sporting events.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. When you recently edited André Pederneiras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OMMAC
Can I ask why all the OMMAC event (that I spent a whole day adding) may be up for deletion? they are are all real, true, and should be on wikipedia! I have done absolutely nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) is explained in the AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask now why all the posters I uploaded have been deleted for the OMMAC events?? What is going on?--Fightloungemike (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for deleting the posters. I imagine it was because you claimed you were the creator of the posted and put them up with the usual CC license.  If those images were found elsewhere on the Internet (such as OMMAC's website) then those posters would not belong to you and have copyright restrictions on them that are not compatible with the CC license.  That's would be a copyright violation and makes the image eligible for speedy deletion.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have added reliable sources are the articles remaining on wikipedia?--Fightloungemike (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on the results of the AfD discussion and the admin who closes the discussion. AfDs are usually closed a week after they are opened.  I will say that simply adding one or two references is not going to help those articles.  WP:SPORTSEVENT says that "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats", which your articles fail.  You should also be sure that the articles assert that these really are notable events and passes WP:GNG; specifically that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Coverage in MMA media is okay, mainstream media is better.  The cited references should contain "significant coverage" of the event and therefore should hopefully contain more than X is fighting Y at OMMAC Z.  --15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, but as you should be fully well aware, MMA isn't a mainstream sport yet, and you wouldn't even find much coverage of the UFC in mainstream media, mostly just MMA orientated websites and magazines - of which I have added, plus a couple of newspaper websites. What you are asking is near enough impossible. It's like an early message I got about the Norther Ireland flag being added and the one of you guys wanted proof of details from the sporting body separating Northern Ireland for fighters in MMA. Well if you guys actually knew something about the sport, you would also be aware that there isn't a sporting body in the UK for mixed martial arts! I spent a long time adding these as a favour to the promoter and less time working on my own business, just for you lot to go power mad! You lot simply don't know anywhere near what I do about MMA, yet you question me? You only have to look at the fighters who have their own wiki page and then look at their record to see the fights on OMMAC are real. It's not hard--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was telling you what would need to be done to the articles to ensure they they do not get deleted. I fully recognize that many MMA events, particularly those by smaller promotions, do not get much coverage.  But this is Wikipedia.  It has guidelines and policies in place to ensure that only notable topics have articles here.  There are other wikis that focus on MMA and have less stringent guidelines in regards to notability and sourcing.  A lot of the MMA content here on Wikipedia would be better suited to those specialist wikis, in my opinion.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand but I think you are being too strict, especially sine there are pages for BAMMA, Cage Rage/UCMMA and Cage warriors events even though OMMAC are just as big as them promotions. Also, 90% of OMMAC champions make it to the UFC (example, Etim, Sass, Maguire, Blackledge, Struve, Wain etc) and for fans who don't know the background of those guys it would be good to have on here seing as it is the worlds biggest encyclopedia.--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that some of those other promotions event pages have already been deleted and those that exist are only a nomination away from being deleted. It really comes down to a matter of time.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

none should be deleted as they are all important to the sport. Also by just check the UFC event pages, they have the same sources as the ones I added, which is a case of "okay for one but not for the other". You stated that only notable subjects should be on wikipedia yet I can find millions of pages on a whole manner of subjects that are not notable (or not notable to me). Isn't it all opinionated?--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Simply because a topic currently has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean it should.  It could simply mean that editors haven't had time to deal with it.  I spend most of my editing time fighting vandalism and standardizing the format of MMA fighter articles.  I try not to put up too many AfDs at any one time.  Currently there are about 10 AfDs (some with multiple articles) on the martial arts deletion list.  Some of these AfDs includes UFC event articles.  When this list clears out, I'll be happy to nominate the rest of the Cage Rage events and the BAMMA articles.
 * As I said before, there are other wikis that focus on MMA and have less stringent guidelines in regards to notability and sourcing. Perhaps there should be an effort to make those the "go to" wiki for MMA information.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe Wikipedia should allow all real MMA events have a place on the site, seeing as there would be no UFC if there was no other MMA events. Just a thought. Concentrate on cleaning up vandalism, and leave the stuff I put on seeing as I am an expert on the subject--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe people shouldn't ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines creating articles that do not belong on it. Stick to the Fight Lounge and leave Wikipedia alone as I'm more of an expert on it than you are.  Yes, I was intentionally being snotty by giving you the same attitude you just gave me. It looks like nothing more constructive will come of this conversation, so hopefully it will end.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing constructive will come of it as you are being power mad. Why have Wikipedia given you a job of looking over MMA subjects when you know little to nothing about the sport (except you probably own a Brock Lesnar t-shirt). You asked for sources, so I put sources. Then you change your request and ask for sources from places that don't cover the sport. Ridiculous. --Fightloungemike (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish Wikipedia were paying me and I don't have a Brock Lesnar shirt (I don't own any MMA shirts actually). I've only been a viewer of the sport since 2006 and editing Wikipedia articles on it since 2008.  But it doesn't matter.  However, you need to read more carefully.  I said sources from MMA media are okay, mainstream media is better.  I am not power mad.  I'm just an editor on Wikipedia who can't do much of anything on his own.  If my nomination of the OMMAC event articles is wrong, then the Wikipedia community will respond as such in the AfD and the closing admin will rule that the articles will be kept.  Continuing to comment on my talk page will not change that.  Being border line uncivil and WP:OUTING people serves no constructive purpose and can only lead to the potential block of your editing privileges.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong and I hope the community can see sense then. MMA fans would enjoy reading them and use for revision purposes - far more important than wiki pages on certain sausages and the wizards of waverly place, and I apologize for outing (was wrong but you annoyed me)--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a joke. We now have at least four new users who's first edit is to vote keep against the articles. Not sure if it is worth looking at ANI for some action? Bjmullan (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a joke when the the existing batch of folks !voted keep but couldn't explain how their !vote or the article complied with Wikipedia guidelines or policies. It seems that they think because something is notable in their mind, it is notable for Wikipedia which is not the case.  I can only hope that the closing admins will look at the arguments being made and not simply count the !votes.  At worst, it looks like some of the AfDs will result as a no consensus.
 * As for ANI, I suppose something could be brought up there, but I'm not sure exactly what. To simply complain that a several users don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines isn't going to be effective.  To say a bunch of new accounts have been created as possible meat puppets won't do much, I think, though I could be wrong.  If they are sock puppets and we had something to say why they are socks, then it'd be different.  I'm open to suggestions.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the off-site canvassing: . --TreyGeek (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if **** can just make himself know we can get him blocked for this. Hello **** are you reading this? You also need to read this and WP:SOCK. Bjmullan (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever he is knows he is violating Wikipedia policies. On the second page of the thread the admits as much and will be deleting the thread.  So I took screenshots.  I think I know which Wikipedia user is the admin of the forum is though.  I'll work on that in a little bit. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After the last personal attack I felt enough was enough and have raised this at ANI. Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

oh and you have shown yourselves to be hypocrites by outing me. How do I make a formal complaint? I too have taken a screenshot of everything ready to show the masses--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I added the delete apparently I'm not allowed to do this after I was shown on here. I couldn't care less if you know my name - is that supposed to scare me or something? I'll give you a link to my facebook page, house address and phone number if you want a little chat--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppression of WP:OUTING can be handled at Requests for oversight. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you. you have **** out my name once, but not the other?--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't done anything with anyone's name, Wikipedia or real. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the first instance, but didn't see the second. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Fightloungemike, I've berated the editor who put it up there--I hope that satisfies you. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Drmies - I know I'm coming across as a nuisance. I'm sorry - just irritated--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Afds
Hey man, I'm not looking to start a row with you, but seriously, it gets old seeing some of these other accounts do nothing but try to delete other people's work. I actually use Wikipedia as a source for keeping track of MMA fighters and events and so when I come here and they're gone, it's just beyond aggravating and I really see no good reason why they should be gone. ALL this significant coverage stuff just seems like elitism. But, hey, did you catch Bellator or Ultimate Fighter Friday? I switched back and forth myself, but I must confess, Spartacus was where it was at! Later! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to store all information about MMA. It is a place to find information about notable topics.  That is why Wikipedia has its many policies and guidelines.  What I can't stand are people who cannot understand that, cannot read the policies and guidelines, and then complain when others want to enforce them.  As I mentioned in the conversation above, there are other wikis with a focus on MMA that have less stringent notability guidelines.  Maybe more effort should be in putting the lesser notable MMA article on one of them.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be, though? I think Wikipedia should be the umbrella wiki that covers everything that is verifiable rather than forcing us to have to search across all sorts of other wikis.  Looking at the edit histories of guideline and policies pags, they are updated and changed so regularly that even in the course of an AfD, they may be slightly manipulated to one side or the other's favor.  So, truthfully, I just go with common sense.  And to me common sense suggests that it is a net benefit to cover something like UFC 140 than not to and what really frustrated me there is that I see after your edit about potential, an IP editor went ahead and actually did start sections on reception, DVD release, etc., but Papaursa even then still falslely said, "Nothing but results", which is just patently not true.  I can somewhat understand arguing with people with different viewpoints about what we should cover, but some of those guys really are just saying to delete with boilerplate responses that are not even factually accurate.  Plus, the whole notability thing seems rather arrogant to have as a criteria, because it is subjective.  It is clear that there is no universal agreement on what does and does not constitute "significant coverage".  But again, you look at UFc 140.  You got a championship match and articles in Sports Illustrated and USA Today and yet the one guy says, "Only covered in MMA specific sites".  What?!  I don't know, man, it's just....UGH!  Well, bath time for me. Have a nice night!  --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently what you think Wikipedia should be is different from what it really is. Nothing more to say about that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Patricio Freire
You have undone changes I have made to the page, saying that I need to cite a relieable source. All I have done is updated a page that is clearly outdated and have put in a few links to other Wikipedia pages that support what I have written. The pages says 'Warren is now expected to face Alexis Vila in the promotions season 5 Bantamweight tournament.' This fight took place back in September 2011 and Warren has since lost a title defence to Pat Curran. Both fighter profiles support this, so why do I need to cite a reliable source. If those pages aren't reliable sources, why don't you go in and correct them. Maybe Bellator is not under your radar and you don't know anything about it. If you don't know a subject, there are others there that can contribute and make changes if necessary. Surely it is better to have updated text rather than something that that is clearly old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything that you added was obviously true facts. The burden is on the editor who posts the material to ensure that it is properly sources per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in it's existing form is outdated, and therefore no longer true. It also does not have any citations. At which part am I supposed to add citations? You follow the link to Joe Warren and you see his last two fights in his record, you follow the link to Pat Curran you see the fight with Warren on his record and you follow the link to the Summer Series and you can see Pat Curran won the tournament. I don't understand the problem, there are many instances within the page that don't have citations, do you go around deleting them? Or maybe it's ok because you wrote them and think a fight which occured in September 2011 is still upcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get much of an opportunity to actually add new material to Wikipedia because I'm kept busy dealing with vandalism and dealing with people who don't understand that most everything on Wikipedia needs cited sources and that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a lousy excuse. I've readded the information about Freire's hand.  Since the bout with Warren never happened I removed that information.  Any information about a fight between Warren and Curren is not directly related to Freire and thus doesn't belong in his article.  If Freire is expected to have a match in the future, that needs to be sourced.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, for your interest, the Warren v Curran match was just as relevant as the Warren v Vila that was mentioned there previously. I just tried to update the text, not add irrelevant content. I didn't see you remove that 'uncited' sentence or others like it on pages you have reviwed. Maybe you should get off you high ground and realise not everyone is a 'vandal' and maybe they want to fix something they see is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsddp (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about a "Warren v Vila" fight at Patricio Freire, maybe I'm blind.
 * Since you gave me a suggestion, I'll give you one. Quit complaining on my talk page and make constructive edits that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Hopefully, this matter is done.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You obviously was blind because it was there since last July and was only removed after I made a point of it. I guess it was a constructive edit after all. All you had to do was read my initial comments rather than going on with your holier than thou nonsense. If you don't know a subject, I'm sure there are others that can also do a job of cleaning articles they know more about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.45.140 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you meant it currently had reference to that fight. There are more than 2000 articles under the MMA WikiProject banner. It is impossible for me to remember all past versions (or even the current versions) of every one of those articles.  Chill dude.  As I said before, hopefully, this matter is done.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Note
I saw your comments in the now-closed ANI thread about FLM, and just wanted to say I'm sorry; I think in hindsight we (the admin corps) probably let you down here, and let him get away with much more disruption than we should have. It's just not an optimal place sometimes, and when things are happening on different pages quickly, it's hard to always know what's going on, or what to do. It's especially tricky to balance not biting newbies with protecting others from attacks.

So, looking back, knowing what I know now, I would have blocked him relatively early on, yet at the same time it's a little too stale now to do anything about it. But if this starts up again, I will block him, and probably would insist on mentorship or a topic ban or something to unblock. If that happens, based on your mention of a previous similar experience, I'll probably solicit your input on that previous editor, as I am not familiar with what happened there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and reaching out to me. I understand why the admins were hesitant to pull the trigger on FLM.  Looking back, there wasn't any one point in time in which I (or anyone else) could claim he is doing the exact same thing over again (he went from truly abusive bullying to simple complaining then moved to other, different, forms of disruptive-ness).  For a new user, it is hard to justifying blocking them for a specific behavior if they haven't been warned about it yet.
 * At the tail end of the second ANI, Papaursa and I briefly discussed who had a similar start on Wikipedia in terms of being controversial (although Bigz has never really been a bully or abusive, just firm in his convictions).  Bigz was given a quick block for recreating articles that were deleted through AfD.  Bigz still has issues today, in my opinion, with fully understanding Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding notability.  I now wonder if Bigz were given a mentor to help him become a constructive editor and learn how to operate here, as opposed to only blocking him for a period of time, if he would be one less source of drama within AfDs.
 * Of course, it is entirely possible I am also a source of drama in AfDs. I try not to take things on Wikipedia too seriously, but last weekend was rough.  I took a step back and stopped my near-constant vandalism watch over the MMA WikiProject and attempting to deal with non-notable articles within the project.  Instead I began to work on some articles (both in and out of the project) and tried to get away from the drama.  We'll see where it goes from here.
 * Anywho... again, thanks for reaching out to me. These instances have been rare over the years though I think harder to manage as we have fewer active people in the MMA WikiProject.  Feel free to contact me in the future if you have questions about my experiences or what I know of other editors.  --TreyGeek (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive
I saw you struck his comments, but I didn't see block tags on his pages. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a block notification on their talk page. However, they are indefinitely blocked: .  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's the discussion where an admin advises striking their comments. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. We were all striking like crazy, and wanted to make sure it wasn't a simple mistake that would start yet more wikidrama from that editor.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... I understand. All of the sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, striking of comments, etc has been absolutely ridiculous this week.  Never seen a set of AfDs get like this.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I remarked on one of the AFDs, once you got rid of all the socks, they were overwhelmingly "delete". One or two people socking all the rest.  Obviously, there needs to be some refining and clarity added to the guidelines for MMA and other sports.  I don't get why everyone who has played ONE pro soccer, football, baseball game is instantly "notable" either.  Wikipedia is turning into an almanac for sports trivia.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible for someone to be involved in one play of one game of an NFL football game and become notable? Maybe that's changed, I haven't looked lately.  But, I agree that some of the notability guidelines are quite permissive.  WP:MMANOT is an attempt at clarifying notability guidelines for the MMA community, particularly when we had to define what "fully professional" "at the highest level of the sport" meant for MMA. I think the guidelines set there are reasonable, however it is largely ignored until someone takes an article to AfD.  Then the fans come out of the woodwork to complain.  More clarifications and refinements may be good.  MtKing has a proposal on WT:MMANOT to clarify MMA event notability and I'm working in my sandbox on constructing a 2012 in UFC events article.  The biggest thing I think needs to happen is a cleaning of house of non-notable MMA articles so that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are less common.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible to make one play and be notable. Go to bat your first time, hit a home run, retire instantly with the only 1000 average in history.  My issue is making it automatic, regardless of contribution.  Sports, just like music, attracts a higher percentage of fanboys and socks.  I guess that makes sense, I wouldn't expect a bunch of comments like "nuh uh! You are teh sux! He is notable!" for an AFD for a scientist or philanthropist.  But it does seem that the majority of the time spent on music and sport AFDs is dealing with socks, personal attacks and guideline novices who don't care about policy and simply want the article they "rightly own" to be included at any cost, even getting banned.  They defeat themselves, and wear me out.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand the "wear me out" part and I think Papaursa in the conversation below would agree. Fanboy-ism with MMA articles has in the past usually been the standard vandalism (I like my guy so I'm going to change his fight record to all wins!), people practicing their future careers as fight commentators by putting their unsourced WP:OR opinions of fights in articles, and those who swear they saw Bruce Buffer announce that Demetrious Johnson defeated Ian McCall at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann and so calling it a draw is wrong!.  (It's actually quite funny to describe those behaviors now, but irritating as hell to deal with.)  The AfD drama this past week or so was completely new.  So, thanks to you and the others who jumped in to help sort out the puppets (socks and meats) and provide support in the AfDs, ANIs and my talk page.  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work
It was a tough week of MMA discussions, but I think you did a very good job of keeping your cool and making sure things were handled reasonably. I don't think I would have had the patience you showed. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the article for Dan Barrera. My first thought was to put it up for AfD, but I think redirecting it to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs Team Serra Finale makes more sense. I just don't know how much of a battle I can stand to do it. What do you think of the idea and, if you think it's a good one, how do we go about it? Frank Lester (fighter)is another article that I think falls into the same category (not notable individually, but could be redirected to the appropriate TUF article). I wouldn't be surprised if there are others. Papaursa (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh... thanks. I think the biggest thing I did was take a huge step back and refined what I do on Wikipedia.  As I mentioned a couple conversations above, I stopped doing the near constant vandalism watch over the WikiProject and moved to trying to write actual content.  It's possible there are a lot of articles now royally screwed up from anon IPs vandalizing articles, but I feel better trying to move some articles forward (including a non-MMA article I think is moving close to GA).  The fact that established editors from outside of the WikiProject came in to offer support in the AfD drama also helped.


 * The explosive drama in the AfDs this past week did another beneficial thing. It revealed a number of sock puppets/masters who now have indef blocks.  So attempts to purge some of the truly and extremely non-notable articles (Jungle_Fight) should be more rubber-stampish than dealing with asinine "cuz I said so" arguments.


 * In the mean time I've been progressing on the possible 2012 in UFC events article in my sandbox. I'm liking how it is turning out, though some of the paragraphs and event details may be a little weak.  I figure at the very least, it's providing a decent stub for improving the main articles.  Feel free to offer your feedback on what I've got or to even make modifications to what I have so far if you want.


 * As for Dan Barrera, be bold and redirect it to the TUF article. If need be we can point to a number of fighters who redirect to TUF articles.  Same with Frank Lester (and probably a boat-load of TUF competitors who didn't survive more than one or two professional fights in the UFC before going back the regional promotions or were never seen from again).  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 149
Please keep in mind that the AfD resulting in the merger/redirect of UFC 149 was closed only four days ago. Sufficient time has likely not passed to change the consensus as judged by the closing admin. Recreation of the article this soon could be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a discussion at the MMA WikiProject on this article and its status. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't create it, I just edited it. So I don't know what you want me to do.--BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)


 * You were actively editing it so I'm just letting you know that it is best to leave it as a redirect until more time has passed. I told the other two folks who were active editing it today the same thing.  --TreyGeek (talk)


 * I reworded 1 sentence, hardly worth contacting me about the matter.--BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
 * I was just trying to be fair by passing the same message along to everyone who was editing the page. My apologies if it was a bother.  --TreyGeek (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

SFL 2
Hello, I saw thay you previously had commented on Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). I wanted to draw your attention to the Articles for Discussion occuring currently. You may find it at Articles for deletion/SFL 2. Please feel free to comment. Hasteur (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazareno Malegarie
Hello, i have added some info to the NM ,his bjj world title , and south american bjj titles , all with the link to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.20.70 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And your point is? --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Zion Controller
The people at wiki don't realize Zion controller is essential to the story in parts four and five

so why erase michael budd as Zion Controller? http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1337683/Michael-Budd/filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.175.190 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to argue this established consensus take it to the article's talk page.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA
I'm planning on filing a AN/ANI thread in regards to BigzMMA's behavior and failure to get the point. I'm either going to ask for an indefinite block based on continued warnings and failure to heed them or ask for an indefinite topic ban on MMA related events topics. Do you think this is reasonable?

Of note I happened to discover a "backup" of articles that have been deleted at User:BigzMMA/sandbox with the apparent plan to restore them to mainspace as is. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that BigzMMA doesn't WP:GETTHEPOINT. I'll have to do some looking back at the circumstances regarding his last block of editing privileges.  I remember it was him recreating articled that were deleted via AfD, but don't remember if the admins did it automatically or if there was an ANI/AIV about it.  A topic ban on MMA topics would essentially be the same as an indefinite block since that is all Bigz edits on, though with a focus on UK MMA fighters/promotions/events (plus SFL).  Is a topic ban simply a "gentleman's agreement" or is there something admins can do behind the scenes to enforce one?  I'm afraid that Bigz wouldn't be able to follow a topic ban if it were up to him to not violate it.  I'm not sure what the solution is, but Bigz really does need something to help him understand Wikipedia's mission as well as its guidelines and policies.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A topic ban is a gentleman's agreement with the stick of "If you violate it for any reason, block with escalating duration". I intend to make the full case by permlinking to each of the times they've been at one of the notice boards or deletions and told that they were wrong. During a previous spate, a few admins considered indeffing him on NPA grounds. Hasteur (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys do know I can read this??? BigzMMA (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also one thing - WP:BOOMARANG BigzMMA (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone imagined you couldn't read. As for any WP:BOOMARANG issues, I am generally confidant that how I have treated people and my editing practices on Wikipedia have rarely been construed as abusive, being personal attacks, or just plain un-constructive.  --TreyGeek (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion on Sandboxing
Good day TreyGeek. Love what you have done with the UFC 2012 article in your sandbox (I had heard a propsal for that as part of a WWE discussion, had no idea you had done it already), however, if I may make one suggestion. When you create an article in your sandbox, it is best to start from scratch, and move it into mainspace, and delete the redirect, rather than cut and paste for a couple of reasons. First, if more than one editor works on it in the sandbox (frequently happens in mine when I have someone proof read it, or they find it interesting), you have to move the history for proper attribution. Second, if you do move it over, rather than copy/paste, the history is consistant. For example, in your UFC sandbox page, you have this part about Texas State University, and this essay on MMA, and this draft of Old Main, all as part of the history. If somebody started to edit or proofread the page, you would be required to move, not copy/paste (attribution requirements, etc.) and the history would be quite confusing. What I do when I create an article is create a page called (for example in your case) User:TreyGeek/2012 UFC events (with the section after the / being the final title), draft the article there, and then move it, and remove the User:Name portion. That way it doesn't matter who has edited it, the history is preserved. It also allows multiple articles to be drafted at the same time. You can still keep the Sandbox title if you want, I just like being able to start two or three articles at a time, and not have to call them sandbox 1, sandbox 2, etc. Just a suggestion, cheers, and happy editing.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I don't think I've had an occasion where someone other than me was working in my sandbox, so it hasn't been a problem... yet.  This may in fact be the first time I've "created" a new article in my sandbox.  There hasn't been a lot of interest in the "year in" article I've got started there.  If it looks like it may gain traction and needs more work in a sandbox before being created in mainspace, I may take your advice and move the contents to its 'own' page.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, it is a pointless thing to merge UFC events on Wikipedia, all pages are clearly notable hence the pages constant survival of AfDs being thrown their way, and by messing around with the articles you are going to ruin the look of the articles, and this will create a backlash effect! BigzMMA (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am curious about this backlash effect, is Ken Shamrock going to come fight TreyGeek? Really I am kidding, this comment is not to be taken serious by anyone, at any time --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that BigzMMA just dosesn't like it. As for Ken Shamrock, he's old, I'm fat, it wouldn't be an interesting fight. ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When you made 2012 in UFC events, did you copy/paste from the original articles? If so, attribution is required, usually a history merge would be required, but since not all the articles are merged/redirected, a comment with the links to the articles on the talk page may be sufficient.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the content was written by me for that article. The exceptions would be:
 * The table at the start of the article, which is pretty much the same as the table at List of UFC events. Considering it is a list of facts, I'm not sure if there would be a copyright/attribution issue.
 * A few of the first sentences for event summaries are copied or at least a close paraphrase. I struggled to find different ways of saying "XXX is expected to take place on *date* at the *arena* in *city, (state,) country".
 * UFC on FX 3 has a paragraph regarding Johnson-McCall match that contains text I originally wrote for The Ultimate Fighter 15 Finale but has been moved from article to article as the target event has changed.

That's it as far as I recall. The original event articles contain practically no prose so much of the 2012 in UFC events article had to be written from scratch. If you see anything in particular that needs to be resolved, let me know. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I just wanted to check, I hadn't gone and looked at the individual article histories. Thanks. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was a valid concern. It is something I see happen with MMA event articles.  For example, currently 2012 in Super Fight League is a copy/paste of the deleted SFL 1 and, the up for AfD, SFL 2.  I'm going to attempt to rewrite that article tonight so it includes actual prose and has fewer issues meeting WP:SPORTSEVENT.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 145
Can you swing past UFC 145 Mt  king  (edits)  00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks can you swing past UFC 146. Mt  king  (edits)  02:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm of a mind to let the IPs and new editors vent at Talk:2012 in UFC events without a reply. Judging from the ANI on this issue there is support from established editors and Wikipedia admins that this is the best route to go.  Personally, I'm not going to try and feed the trolls.  As I'm thinking of posting in the ANI thread, I'm guessing the complaints will heat up as the weekend goes by.  A week from now people will simply chalk it up to "Wikipedia Nazis" or nerds (I wonder if there is a userbox to proudly admit to being a nerd? ;) screwing things up by their opinion.  At that point things will blow over and people will rely on MMA news media for what they've gotten from Wikipedia until now.  Heck, if one of the MMA news media sites is smart, they'll put up a quick wiki to fill the void that is being created now that Wikipedia policies are being enforced in the MMA corner.  [And for any of those sites that come across my user talk page, I am looking for full-time work. :) ]  Anyhow, I need to update The Ultimate Fighter: Live and work on 2012 in mixed martial arts events.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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 thread is 2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption. Thank you. Mt king  (edits)  01:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 in UFC events page is terrible and nobody likes it
We want our individual articles back, there was no point in getting rid of them. Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No point other than Wikipedia policies. I grow tired of people arguing over this matter, particular those, like you, who ignore Wikipedia policy: What Wikipedia is not, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:REQUIRED, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.  If you want raw fight announcements and results then go to MMA news sites or other MMA wikis.  But don't complain that established Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being enforced.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't hide behind those rules, You are bending and interpreting those rules to your liking in order to justify the horrible reformatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.94.169 (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Creates new format, nobody reads it anymore, stupid power tripping geek on Wiki
Just admit what you reformatted was not as good as the one before.

Change it back because no one that cares about MMA will ever read you new format because it sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.94.169 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "No one cares about MMA"?! Well, okay, in that case.... I suppose it doesn't matter what I do.  --TreyGeek (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He said "no one THAT cares about MMA", blatant twisting of words, we know you dont care about MMA TreyGeek, but we all do, and thats why we dont want this horrible new format! Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to read things, that's your perogative. Frankly, if the sockpuppets, IP users, and fanboys (as Astudent0 calls them) want to leave WP it would probably improve things for the remaining editors who want to create an encyclopedia instead of an MMA blog. Papaursa (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You violated some rules
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Report me? --TreyGeek (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you insist, check the WP:ANI ;) Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I already noticed and was working on a response. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, well, looks like the admins have noticed as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)