User talk:TreyGeek/Archives/2012Q2

MMA
I am clueless as to what would be the best formatting and content, but if you need any moral support on the different pages during the transition, let me know. I think several are coming around and starting to like what you Mtking and others are doing, and as long as both you and they stay open to new ideas, I think it will end well. It has been a thankless task, for the most part, but what you guys have been doing is a good thing and I'm sure many others appreciate your efforts. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I think the discussions going on at Talk:2012 in UFC events are the productive ones and is where I'll focus my attention.  The discussion over at WT:MMANOT seems to be mostly just a bitch session and less productive so I'll not comment there.  I do appreciate your suggestions on formatting and general content.  I know you aren't very familiar with MMA, but I still think your feedback is valuable on what you are seeing in the omnibus articles versus the stand-alone articles in addition to some of the formatting stuff we've started delving into.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:43, 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. Udar55 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Complaints
So what you are telling me is that it is okay for you guys to do it to other people, but then you get upset and remove it when people do it to you. Sounds mature. P.S., my time here has been quite fun, and I have done nothing wrong. Instead of posting little warnings that try to threaten me and only make me laugh at the ridiculousness of a peer simply editing my page with fancy text in an effort to scare me, get an admin in here right now. Get one right now and see what they say. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay to do it if it is a legitimate warning. I have not attacked you personally (although you have attacked me).  The warning you placed on my talk page was an incorrect warning and no admin would have followed up on it.  This afternoon I first left you a friendly message explaining why people were telling you that you were being uncivil as well as why it could be considered personal attacks.  Instead of actually stopping to think about what I was trying to explain to you, you've decided to go off throwing warnings at everyone else.  I'm busy trying to be constructive and productive on Wikipedia.  That's why in the last 24 hours or so I haven't responded to the complaint sessions going on in other places.  If you don't like that, you can go to the admins.  In the mean time, if you don't want to be constructive, then please stay off my talk page.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, looks like the situation is being taken to the admins for us. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the only solution that works. I did everything I could to allow him to back off and avoid action, but he only became more disruptive.  We don't need more disruption right now, and you and I both know, ignoring it only empowers it.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Gamezero05
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. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could probably sit this one out. He is doing a fine job of presenting evidence all by himself.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems that way. It's kind of a shame that people would rather bitch and complain about the situation, get overly heated and do things that result in blocks.  Things would be much better all the way around if they would help offer solutions than being part of the problem.  I'm waiting to see what other, uninvolved, people say at the two ANIs (though one I think is pretty much done) and the DR before I say anything.  Most anything I say will probably simply be links to what I've already said.  Anyhow, back to writing content at UFC 140. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I fixed alot of the issues with the page
But I need your feedback, anything to add? I think it's good but I still think the articles name should be changed from "2012 in UFC events" to just "UFC events in 2012", I think that would make it eaiser for search enginers to find and also eaiser to organize on wikipedia. I think the page now looks better than the old ones though. Glock17gen4 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is probably a topic for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, which covers all these types of articles, and your suggestion would affect all the dated articles in MMA, not just this one. That is one of those things you want a broader consensus on before changing.  I want to say that similar articles lead with the date instead of trailing with it, but there are probably exceptions as well.  In short, I don't have enough experience to really have an opinion one way or another, but that is still the right place to bring up a serious discussion of changing the name.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:TreyGeek/BAMMA 8
I have userfied this deleted article per your request. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:38, 3 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) 12:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a duck sock of User:BigzMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since BigzMMA already has an SPI page, I've reopened it to include MMADon101. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: M-1 Challenge 31
Hello TreyGeek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of M-1 Challenge 31, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The article would likely fail at AfD anyhow.  One step at a time.  Thanks for looking at it.  I'm off to clean up more copyvios from the same editor.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:34, 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) 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering it's from an indef banned user this won't go anywhere to require a response from me, eh? --TreyGeek (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, seeing as the ANI has been closed already, it doesn't matter.
 * Don't worry, I bet he never, ever tries to sockpuppet again. (trying to keep a straight face here...nope, can't do it.) Dennis Brown (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... yeah, well, I've added to my watchlist BigzMMA's favorite articles. The drawback of his editing practices is that he's easy to spot.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FIRSTRULE Come on... How else are we going to get our kicks if Bigz knows what his tells are? Hasteur (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is like playing a game of whack-a-mole. Socks just can't resist the urge to pop up in the same old places, and give themselves away pretty easy, then doing stupid things like going to ANI to report an old nemesis.  The harder they try to look inconspicuous, the more obvious they are.   Dennis Brown (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

afd
Let me know if you send UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann to AFD to get a merge. Really, this is the wrong way to go about it, but it has become the accepted way to deal with it, unfortunately, when users won't engage or consider prior AFD consensus. This was at DR but no participation and closing admin suggested AFD. The long list isn't as impressive once you look at the sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep it looks like despite the debate it is back to AfD, I had wanted to wait for some comment from User:Beeblebrox it looks like they are not going to be about for a while. Mt  king  (edits)  20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Transportman was correct in that you are going to need to get to RfC at some point and get a larger consensus. Not a venue I've had experience with, and since he has agreed with your basic premise, he would be a good candidate to assist, as he has already expressed an opinion on the issue.  A well thought out discussion that is convincing enough to establish a consensus would make the rest of the tasks ahead much easier.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with going the RfC route, my experience is limited though. But it seams rather tiresum for what by my count is only one editor (Udar55) (discount all the socks and SPA IP's et al canvased from the MMA forums) still wanting to keep the non-notable stand alone articles. Mt  king  (edits)  21:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My fear with an RfC is that the socks and canvassing will hit another spike resulting in difficulties figuring out what the true consensus is. I definitely don't envy the job of the closing admin of Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination) to wade through that mess and determine the consensus.  I would assume Wikipedia has dealt with a similar situation at least once in the past, but I'm not sure how that is handled.


 * As for AfDs, the downside of AfDing UFC event articles is that assuming the article is deleted or made into a redirect, it'll just get recreated a few days later. We saw that with UFC 149 and UFC on FX 4.  IPs and less involved editors expect each UFC event to have its own article.  I'm not sure what the solution is except more 'friendly' eyes on the pages and/or page protection following the close of AfD.


 * Besides Udar55, I think Gamezero05 and Osubuckeyeguy are both against losing individual articles for UFC events, though Osu hasn't been involved in the most recent discussions. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the RfC is to decide which sources are clearly Routine for MMA. If you get consensus on that, then all the articles that only use those sources are a bit more cut and dry at AFD or other venues.  this is why you need someone a bit more experienced to look at the situation, so the argument and goals of any RfC are focused on what will get consensus for guidelines that will further MMA, not what you or I think is "right" per se.  Sometimes the shortest distance isn't a straight line, but I'm not sure which approach is the shortest distance.  And you can build on one successful RfC with another on another topic.  If I've learned one thing from watching politicians over the years, you get what you want only when you are willing to accept it incrementally.  Getting a determination of what sources are clearly not independent *might* be a start.  RfC would be the venue, and the sources can be reliable for some things, but not independent for MMA. This isn't going to happen overnight, and like everything else here, I'm happy to support where I agree with you (which is most things) but I'm not the one to take the lead. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in mixed martial arts events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellator (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) 10:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX 3
For those of you who are stalking my talk page, I just noticed an issue with the UFC on FX 3 articles that need to be fixed. I'm just not in the mood to figure out the best way to do it at the moment. This afternoon, UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall was created as a copy/paste of UFC on FX 3. Following that article creation, UFC on FX 3 has been turned into a redirect to the newly created page. What should have happened (notability of individual events aside), was a simple move of UFC on FX 3 to UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall. I'm thinking the resolution is to request speedy deletion of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall to clear the way for the move of UFC on FX 3 (if I'm remembering correctly there's a speedy deletion criteria for that). I'll look into it more later tonight or in the morning if no one else gets to it first. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * correct, G6. Get an admin to help to speed it up.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability
As there is no clear policy or guideline path trough this whole sorry mess, be it Merge, RfC or Mediation I have come to the conclusion that what ever route is taken, the side of the debate that feels hard done by will not accept the process and the outcome. Therefore I do not intend to actively seek to drive this forward or take part in the debate on process, I have wasted two much time as it is. Please don't let this dis-wade you from what ever you think is the right course of action be it or what ever and I will of course add my voice where it is approprate. However when I return from a business trip I will not feel any obligation to refrain from nominating at AfD any MMA article I feel fails policy. Mt king  (edits)  13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the situation has been frustrating, particularly, the latest "Give the users what they want, Wikipedia policies and guidelines be damned" attitude. I'm going to continue to move forward with attempting to write the omnibus articles as I have time.  2012 in mixed martial arts events is almost done.  I still need to write 2012 in Strikeforce events and possibly 2012 in ProElite events.  (That second one might be delayed until they have more events later this year.)  Then I'll start working backwards to 2011.  If there's no change on the status of individual event articles for UFC then I'll probably start making changes to the UFC omnibus article to include main templates and remove the tables and infoboxes and stuff.  I'll support efforts to merge or possibly even delete individual event articles, but I'm going to focus my time on writing prose for now.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the "give the fans what they want" position that codified my view that the only way to resolve the debate on each article is to just delete it, then create a redirect later if there is a feeling that it is a useful search term.  Mt  king  (edits)  07:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:38, 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)
 * My plan is to make a similar set of edits to SFL 3 when I get time. Of course, dealing with people like Bigz and others who don't want to or can't play by the rules can reduce one's limited editing time.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm trying to retain the skeptic role in terms of the MMA articles. Reviewing them on the grounds of the inclusion rules, determining if there's any cleanup that needs to be done, and finally sorting through minor issues. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough. I have no problems with your handling of the situation.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC Event Tables
I'm trying to improve the tables for the 2012 in UFC event page and I would greatly appreciate your input. I have two model tables in my sandbox and have already started a conversation in the talk page for 2012 in UFC event. -- Pat talk  17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for point it out to me. If you want my input on other topics I may have missed let me know.  I should be more active in a couple weeks when this current semester at school is over.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A little help
Please, since you don't have a job, why don't you put something in the ufc 147 article about the UN conference issue. It's not fair for just you and me to know it. I understand you are a wikipedia nazi and everything, but please put the UN conference issue back with your own words and let people across the world KNOW what is happening. Wikipedia is about knowledge or am I wrong? And just for you to know, I didn't copy anything, I wrote with my own words, and how can I quote Dana White's statement putting "my own words"? I would be quoting myself then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulflytribe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did go back behind you and add a paragraph about the conflict of the UN Conference in the days leading up to UFC 147. Best to be sure what you want to bitch about is accurate.  As for writing things in your own words, here is a comparison of the text you "wrote" and text from the cited article:


 * That text is half of what you added to the article (not counting the humongously long quote from White). At best that's a close paraphrase which is still considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia.  Looks more like a blatant copy/paste with a poor job of hiding it.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok man! You have a point then. Soulflytribe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in UFC events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Maguire (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) 10:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Rio MMA Page
Good morning - can you explain why exactly you removed several links, then tagged the page for not having enough secondary sources of information? This makes no sense, and your edit notes offered no insight either.

There was neither copyright infringing material, nor contentious/libelous material. I gather that you intended to assist with this page, but given that it followed the structure of other MMA fighters, how exactly does removing valid information/sources without any specifics help here? 99.126.28.142 (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources template is because article cites only a single source (two prior to my edits) and there is a lot of material that lacks any source to verify the statements. The subject of the article does not meet WP:MMANOT and is a borderline WP:GNG failure, thus the notability template.  Finally, as for copyrighted  material it includes the image taken from the subject's Facebook page which is not public domain and the following blocks of text:


 * Any other questions? --TreyGeek (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To the former: yes, again I'm in the dark as to why you deleted those sources. I understand the copy/paste bit (I thought citing them would allow for this?  clearly not the case), regardless taking the sources themselves leaves me wondering what others to grab from. If and when I cite those pages again, are you simply going to delete them?
 * further:
 * "The subject of the article does not meet WP:MMANOT and is a borderline WP:GNG failure, thus the notability template. "


 * As you can see from my history, I do not write many wiki pages; this is for a childhood friend who is rising in the MMA world. Could you expand on your acronyms and cite specifics that you're looking for and not finding here?  His fight record is well documented, other fighters on the same show have pages in teh same format with scarcely more info.


 * Per the image - I am unable to contact Rio during his TUF participation regarding the rights to that image at the moment, but his mother is a photographer and was present for his prior fights, so I will try to ascertain one of her shots in the meantime.


 * edit - having read your links, I have included citations for Mike's background. I do believe I have met the criteria here, so again, if this tag is to remain, please advise specifics on what more is required, as I would greatly appreciate it.  His wrestling (and coaching) as well as personal life sections will be expanded upon.
 * Nicholas Custer (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sources template since you have cited sources in the article now. The problem earlier was not the source you were using, but the fact you copy/pasted from the source.  Copyright violations such as that are deleted, you are free to re-add the source assuming you write the content in your own words.  Rio still appears to be non-notable.  WP:MMANOT says that notable MMA fighters should have three professional fights for a top-tier promotion, which Rio does not have (and TUF exhibition fights generally do not count as professional fights).  WP:GNG says the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; I personally don't think Rio has received significant coverage yet.  He may in the future, but that's looking into a WP:CRYSTALBALL.  As for other fighters on TUF: Live having articles, besides WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, many of those articles have similar templates at the top of their pages as well.  Finally, your personal association with Rio could be considered a conflict of interest so be careful editing information about him.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A conflict of interest will not be a concern here, as (thanks to your efforts, heh) I am citing everything which is being claimed - there is neither revenue nor cheerleading opportunities for me here, as I am merely stating well-documented facts. Given the recent citations, I disagree about "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and there are still more sources - however, I do see your point regarding his resume, though I do find CFA's absence from the 2nd tier list to seem a bit arbitrary. However, as I am most confident he will be winning this season and landing a UFC contract (what was that you were saying about unsigned comment added by Nicholas Custer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the article is one of the better written and better sourced MMA fighter articles. I do hope Rio gets a few fights "in the big leagues" so that the article can stay and hopefully show a good example of how to write up the background and personal life of an MMA fighter.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

BAMMA and BAMMA events
I thought I'd let you know that a user has changed ALL English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MMA fighter's nationalities into British. Now unless I forgot the conversation completely, I recall that they must remain as what they are as oppose to having the UK flag over them. I would just change it myself but knowing you or Hasteur it would just be changed back due to your belittling action on me, so I thought that one of you would like to claim fame on this one (as usual). 86.146.4.65 (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BigzMMA (whom I suspect you are judging by the meta commentary you just posted), Your privileges to edit English Wikipedia are revoked. Stop editing, stop coming to the site, stop thinking about the site. I've filed yet another SPI in regards to the new IP you've popped up at.  We have already laid out the path to getting your editing privileges back, but you refuse to follow the path. Next attempt to circumvent the block will result in a Community Ban, which is a higher level of sanction and makes it even more difficult to get your editing privileges back. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the original posting by the "IP", my preference would be to remove flags entirely. I might go back and do that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Luke
You do not understand the power of the UFC event page hits. Feel the guidelines. It is the only way. Turn to the light side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's still early for me. I have no idea what you are talking about.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not too early. You are ready. Enduring notability flows from the page hits. You know this to be true. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I believe a large number of page hits on articles about recently completed events or upcoming events a being related to WP:RECENTISM. It's important now because it has just happened.  Over time, however, it becomes less important and has fewer page views.  Let's do some comparisons:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!Article !Date of occurrance !April page views As of April 18 !Source
 * UFC on Fuel TV: Gustafsson vs. Silva
 * April 14 2012
 * 
 * UFC 142
 * January 14 2012
 * 
 * UFC 125
 * January 01 2011
 * 
 * UFC 108
 * January 2 2010
 * 
 * UFC 93
 * January 17 2009
 * 
 * Super Bowl XLVI
 * February 05 2012
 * 
 * Super Bowl XLV
 * February 06 2011
 * 
 * Super Bowl XLIV
 * February 07 2010
 * 
 * Super Bowl XLIII
 * February 01 2009
 * 
 * UEFA Euro 2012
 * June 08 2012
 * 
 * UEFA Euro 2008
 * June 07 2008
 * 
 * }
 * To me this shows that there is a huge amount of interest, in terms of page views, in the most recent UFC event. However, over the years the amount of traffic dies off.  We can see a similar trend in the drop off of page views for the Super Bowl and the European Football Championships, but years later they are still getting significantly more views than the UFC event articles.
 * Super Bowl XLIV
 * February 07 2010
 * 
 * Super Bowl XLIII
 * February 01 2009
 * 
 * UEFA Euro 2012
 * June 08 2012
 * 
 * UEFA Euro 2008
 * June 07 2008
 * 
 * }
 * To me this shows that there is a huge amount of interest, in terms of page views, in the most recent UFC event. However, over the years the amount of traffic dies off.  We can see a similar trend in the drop off of page views for the Super Bowl and the European Football Championships, but years later they are still getting significantly more views than the UFC event articles.
 * 
 * UEFA Euro 2008
 * June 07 2008
 * 
 * }
 * To me this shows that there is a huge amount of interest, in terms of page views, in the most recent UFC event. However, over the years the amount of traffic dies off.  We can see a similar trend in the drop off of page views for the Super Bowl and the European Football Championships, but years later they are still getting significantly more views than the UFC event articles.
 * }
 * To me this shows that there is a huge amount of interest, in terms of page views, in the most recent UFC event. However, over the years the amount of traffic dies off.  We can see a similar trend in the drop off of page views for the Super Bowl and the European Football Championships, but years later they are still getting significantly more views than the UFC event articles.


 * I'm sure we can come up with examples of sporting events that get less page views three or four years later (figure skating championships perhaps?). All this is telling me is that when considering enduring notability (the notability of something 5-10 years from now or longer) page views is not going to show that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, whether comparing UFC XXX to the Superbowl, or a European football article, the drop-off rate is the same. This is normal.


 * Your point, as you say is "...but years later they are still getting significantly more views than the UFC event articles...". I understand. But, thousands of monthly page views years later is still a lot, and shows enduring notability. For example:


 * German federal election, 2009 went from 100k to 6k.
 * Cyclone Aila (2009) went from 20k to 2k.


 * Should all event articles at Wikipedia be removed because there is a page view drop-off? Beauty pageants? Arab king coronations? Boxing fights? Put event articles in perspective. Even though hits diminish, their notability endures. Click random article a dozen times. You will see non-event article hits like 100 per month. Plenty, plenty of them. Meanwhile, Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo (1923) gets 800 a month, and will probably continue to do so for decades. Not bad.


 * So what do you think? The evidence is right there. Do we have your support? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked me to support a UFC event as having "enduring notability" due to the number of page views it garners. In my opinion, page views for UFC events does not correlate to establishing "enduring notability."  A few thousand page views in a month, is not significant in my opinion, especially for Wikipedia.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. Two questions:


 * Do you think that Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo, and hundreds of thousands of other event articles should also be AfD fodder?


 * Considering "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction." what criteria do you feel determines enduring notability? Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Answer to #1: At first glance the article is in danger of deletion because it is unsourced. Spending some time looking for possible sources, there is more than a passing mention of the fight in both boxer's obtiutaries 40 and 60 years later. The AP also voted it the "most dramatic sports event in the half century" (1900-1950). So there is an appearance that there is material available to properly source the article so that fight could survive AfD. I can't comment on "hundreds of thousands of other event articles" in a generic sense.

Answer to #2: That's a generic question as there isn't one set of criteria that determines the "enduring notability" of everything. Afterall, I got slapped a little bit when I put Old Main (Texas State University up at AfD. A building which, to my knowledge and research, is notable only for being the first building on a 100+ year old campus gets to keep an article simply because it is on the National Registry of Historic Buildings.  But I think you mean in terms of MMA event articles, which is difficult to answer since the sport is so new.  We don't have much of a history with the field to know what kinds of things makes an event notable for long periods of time and very few MMA event articles on Wikipedia even attempts to explain why the event is notable.  Events which have an occurrence in it that affects the rules for the sport may be a good criteria.  That happened at UFC 94 with the "greasing controversy".  And really that was a particular fight at an event that resulted in changes within the industry and not the event itself. Events of top-tier promotions that have championship bouts may be another criteria, but again, that's a particular fight and not the event itself.

So, what's next because it seems like you aren't going to give up until I completely agree with you. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it one of :
 * Accept that as they stand currently WP policies and guidelines require that independent reliable sources are need to demonstrate enduring notability; and unless these UFC articles can demonstrate that with such sources are either going to be deleted or redirected.
 * Start a wiki-wide RfC changing WP policies and guidelines to explicitly include reporting of sports events as encyclopaedic.
 * Mt king  (edits)  21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue I have with individual MMA event articles is that only a handful (two that I can name off the top of my head) meet WP:SPORTSEVENT's criteria that "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." The article should be able to explain not just what happened (stats) but why it was important (notability).  I've been warning the MMA Wikiproject for a couple years at least that the current state of MMA event articles is poor and that without including more prose the articles could risk deletion.  However, no one seems to be willing to write actual proseful (is that a word?) content.  It took me a week and a half to write real content for UFC 140 and that was when I had time on my hands.  It would take me forever to do the same quality job for every UFC event article (let alone every existing MMA event article).  Sometimes I feel that people would rather bitch and complain about articles being deleted than actually improving the article so that they stand a better chance in AfD discussions.
 * For me, the omnibus article(s) was a way of discussing the significance of MMA events (prose). However, the community has changed it to, at a glance, letting raw results (stats) be the focal point.  I'm really not sure what to do or what my next step will be in terms of the MMA WikiProject.  I've actually been thankful for this bit of busy-ness at school so that I can step away from things for a bit.  I guess I'll just wait and see ... see if I still have a place or a desirable voice in the MMA WikiProject or whether I should focus my efforts elsewhere.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to both of you from Anna

Sorry for the long post.

Hi Mt and Trey. Well, no hard feelings at all. I don't agree with the phenomenal amount of posts made by your camp, by so few. I'm not sure if it's a tactic or just passion, but I guess I must assume good faith.

As another editor has pointed out, they fail WP:PERSISTENCE. I must have missed that one, and it's pretty big. I thought enduring notability was determined by common sense, and not a guideline. But, that's what guidelines are there for.

I can't fault you two for citing guidelines. I disagree with the guidelines, but that's a different matter. You are working "within the law". You write: "...Start a wiki-wide RfC changing WP policies and guidelines...". Yep. You hit the nail on the head.

You both now know what it's like to have a persistent, omnipresent, and annoying editor pushing the other side. :) But, hey, what has the opposition put forth? "Grngh! Me no like! Noooo, Rocko no like!"

As for prose, there just isn't that much prose to write. Plus, it's sports. It's about facts and figures.

One of the reasons for my efforts is that the system stood by while these articles (the many in the UFC navbox) were created, and now the system wants to simply delete them. That's thousands of hours work. These should have been deleted right after it was shown that they were not passing WP:PERSISTENCE. You write "...been warning the MMA Wikiproject for a couple years...". Firing a few warning shots over the bow with an AfD or two would have been my plan. This is a real blow to the project with around 200 articles at risk.

The other big reason is simply that so many people use these articles, and that really should supersede what guidelines say. Mtking, you, like myself, edit everywhere, so your motivation is more understandable, but Trey, well you seem to like the sport. I don't see how such a vast number of page views doesn't sway you.

Finally, you must know who the MMA readers are. The are not prose readers. The omni, being a summary written in prose may not be what they want. They want tables, and figures. With facts, they want sentences, with consistent formatting and placement. They want to flip from one event to another comparing walk-in music and fight durations and such. They are all stats nuts. An omni full of prose is just not suited to the audience.

So, I gather that both of you philosophically agree with the guidelines, otherwise you'd be ignoring them. Your motive is not just to mindlessly uphold the law, as it seems to many. Instead, I know you both must have a great distaste for Wikipedia's inclusion of UFC articles as they now appear. I can't say I agree. But, that's life at Wikipedia.

Now, I still want to know how I stumbled into this hornet's nest? Maybe it was BigzMMA's canvassing. I may never know. Best wishes to you both. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll argue against the claim that "there just isn't that much prose to write". UFC 94 and UFC 140 shows proof that there is prose to write about any UFC event.  It simply requires time and effort to write the prose.  Just because "the system" allowed the article to be created doesn't mean the article should have been created in the first place.  UFC 145 has huge potential for being a significant event; as I am writing this response I'm watching a 30 minute promo being aired on Speed (TV channel).  Yes, Speed is owned by Fox which has a contract with UFC, but the fact that a cable channel focused on auto racing is spending a block of its time on MMA is significant IMO.  Is this controversy, significance, whatever discusses at UFC 145 at all?  No.  Is the situation mentioned at 2012 in UFC events?  Sort of yes.  If individual MMA event articles are to gain any credibility, someone other than me needs to write actual content in the articles.


 * To expound further, if I, as an MMA fan, wants to know the results of a specific MMA event or wants to know about the fights in the career of an MMA fighter, I'm going to go look at Sherdog. Afterall, the purpose of Sherdog.com is to provide bare statistics of MMA events and fighters.  Now, if I wanted to read about the significance of an MMA event and why it is important in the scheme of MMA, then I might come look at Wikipedia.


 * Encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) are to provide the background and information on the significance of things. They aren't, IMO, here to provide simple statistics on sporting events.


 * Now, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the Wikipedia community (or a subset of it) doesn't believe that prose is important. I, personally, would disagree with that (portion) of the community.  However, there will come a point in which I, personally, will quit battling against a consensus that thinks that statistics is more important than prose.  At that point (which looks like is here now), I will look for other things to do on Wikipedia as I, personally, believe there is a greater purpose to Wikipedia than a simple repository of sporting statistics.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. Well, this whole mess has brought a dozen new editors. Sure, some socks, some meats, but some honestly wanting to participate. Maybe we can marshall them to improve the articles.


 * "...I'll argue against the claim that "there just isn't that much prose to write"...." But, it is only guidelines that want prose. The readers don't want a lot of prose. Plus, there is prose, in each article. Also, lack of prose isn't grounds for deletion, is it?


 * "...To expound further, if I, as an MMA fan..." Right. But there's the word "I". Ultimately we write for "they". If we forget that, and only write for "guidelines" or "I", it defies common sense.


 * Before comparing Sherdog and it's stats, to Wikipedia, I just searched http://www.sherdog.com/search.php?SearchTxt=ufc+137 I couldn't understand what I was looking at. Maybe I don't know how to use Sherdog. Please show me where to get a page like UFC 137 so I can compare. Maybe I can learn something new.


 * "...Encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) are to provide the background and information on the significance of things..." Agreed. Let's take a look at UFC 142, currently up for deletion. What does it contain? 1,400 characters of prose, hundreds of bluelinks, and pretty comprehensive information on what went on. Common sense tells me that that is good product, and could never be crammed into an omnibus along with 20 others the same size.


 * "...the Wikipedia community (or a subset of it) doesn't believe that prose is important..." Of course prose is important. All of these event articles have a pretty fat chunk of prose. You want visitors to come and be happy with the articles, right? So, they come and see the stats. They read the prose. But, if the prose section isn't big enough, then delete the article, right? That just doesn't make sense to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm responding because I no longer have a desire to be involved in the MMA WikiProject and the hell that has become of my involvement with it in the last month and a half. But I'll answer a couple questions that you asked.  What you are looking for from Sherdog is the results page.  (Use the "Fight Finder" link in the 'menu bar' as opposed to the main search field.)


 * UFC 142 contains very little prose, in my opinion. The prose is mostly a list of sentences stating XXX was scheduled to face YYY but is now replaced with ZZZ.  There are some details involving Anthony Johnson failing to make weight.  The article fails to discuss that there was a championship bout at this event; the only mention of a world championship being decided is two lines at the end of the raw results.  UFC 94 and UFC 140 contains well sourced prose in my opinion (of course since I wrote most of 140 I'll be bias in favor of the content of that article).  As for guidelines and policies in relation to the MMA event AfDs and/or how the articles should be written, at the moment, I quite frankly don't give a damn because I've retired from the MMA WikiProject.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiHummus


Hasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

I am sad to see you withdraw from the MMA Article space. It's always easier to criticize than to build. Hopefully you can take a WikiHoliday and come back ready to do battle with the Visigoths at the gates. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about it, there are lots of other things to do on Wikipedia. WP:CCI has a never-ending backlog, maybe I can spend some effort there helping to sort through possible copyright violations.  As for the Hummus, I've just seen it on TV, never had a change to taste it.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC event desired outcomes
Sorry. One more thing:

The big thing missing, and what's really freaking everyone out, is the absence of a stated objective. If you could spell out the desired outcome you seek, it could help me better understand, and might garner the support of opponents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of my desire to retire from the MMA WikiProject I no longer have a desired outcome from the group. As for my intended objectives, I'll simply link to what I said following the initial AfD that started this hell: WT:MMA   --TreyGeek (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, did you see my suggestion?
On the 2012 in UFC events talk page? Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I no longer have much in the way of MMA articles on my watchlist, so I didn't see it. How the article is split up, I'm not sure how much I really care at this point.  The original suggestion was to divide up 2012 in UFC events based on the type of event: 2012 in UFC events for the numbered events and possibly TUF finale, 2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events for Fuel TV cards, 2012 in UFC on FX events for FX cards, and 2012 in UFC on Fox events for the Fox events.  I'm not sure how much it would shorten the overall article though, particularly with the addition of results and payouts and other statistical minutia that might be added.  --TreyGeek (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you quit? Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least I'm taking an extended vacation from the MMA article space. It appears to me that at best my presence, suggestions, and/or comments are a distraction to the new cadre of MMA editors.  At worst it adds fuel to the fire of attacks and non-constructiveness directed at me.  I can live without dealing with that crap.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
In case you don't look at the WP:MMANOT discussion page, I just want to say I'm sorry if I offended you with my comments. I didn't really proof read what I had written, and made a critical error insinuating that you don't care about improving MMA articles. You are one of the most consistent editor for MMA and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. Obviously, we may disagree over certain contentions, but I genuinely value your input on these issues. -- Pat talk  03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you can understand why I feel hesitant to continue to contribute or offer suggestions for the MMA article space. What I intended as constructive suggestions turned into knee-jerk finger pointing that there is problem only because of TreyGeek and Mtking.  The problem, in my opinion, has been around for a long time and I've mentioned it off and on over the years.  I don't have a huge desire to dive into things again, at least not in the near future, because I'm tired of attacks, complains, and finger pointing.


 * I will say one other (last?) thing. The closing comments from Articles for deletion/UFC 142 did not say that new and/or modified notability guidelines need to be created for MMA articles.  Rather, User:Scottywong suggested starting a Request for Comment to get opinions from the Wikipedia community on what makes an MMA event notable or not.  RfCs are used as part of the Dispute resolution process.  If ya'll want to continue hashing out notability guidelines I am not going to stop you.  However, I think, it will still need to get some Wikipedia community wide agreement (such as from a RfC) for it to be called a "guideline" otherwise it will be simply a WikiProject "essay".  That's basically what happened with WP:MMANOT, it was intended to be a guideline from the MMA WikiProject, but because we failed to get more universal approval/consensus, it had the "essay" template slapped on it.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it, TreyGeek. I was a little distracting last week, with my RfA and such, but MMA is now high on my list.  I think we can all work together and build a consensus with the rest of the community, or I wouldn't be here.  Trey, we need you there.  We will have to hash this out and find a compromise, but it isn't you against everyone else.  You can I have many similar ideas and a few  that differ, but we have the same goals.  I expected it would have to blow up before the ashes would settle, but now is the time to work with those that were serious enough about it to stick around, and refine the guidelines to prevent future problems.   Dennis Brown    2&cent;   &copy;  17:01, 26 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)
 * I've mentioned several times previously (though I did keep going against it an forcing my two cents into the mix), I am going to avoid the MMA article space and discussions thereof. You can refer to my comments above (the next discussion up and further up the page) as to why.  --TreyGeek (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand wanting to stay out of the discussions. I think things are going good now, and I'm hoping that once we have a consensus (looks like it might happen) that you can come back and work on the actual page designs.  I'm ok at getting people to work together, but you surely don't want me mucking about in the wikicode.  We each contribute in our own way.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you and others have been trying to do in an effort to improve the MMA event article space. Looking around at some of the conversations at WT:MMANOT, the speedily kept 2012 in UFC events AfD attempt (the first time too) and the deletion review of it there are still some very strong opinions from the newcomers to Wikipedia.  I fear that my participation will simply serve as a distraction from the current efforts.  After all, as Hauster jokingly said, I am one of the "evil 3", though I fear others would not be saying it jokingly.


 * Perhaps when things have truly settled down, perhaps after an RfC to formalize the discussion as a guideline, I will return. However, I have no desire to attempt to put effort into the article space if it is going to result in further attacks, belittlement, or deletion attempts of of the work I try to accomplish in Wikipedia without citing a single policy to support it.  (Even some of my past attempts at improving individual event articles were met with content blanking.)  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

MMA
Please don't give up. I totally understand what you and everyone are trying to accomplish. If Wikipedia doesn't get a hold of fan-created content and paid editing, it's going to be even less of a resource, less of an encyclopedia than it is now.

I started editing here, obviously almost all copyediting or maintenance/deletion, because I have been burned in work and school by even using Wikipedia for research on sources, not using it as a source. I want Wikipedia to be strong and as encyclopedic and trustworthy as a user edited encyclopedia can be.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll simply direct your attention to several of the threads above as to why I'd rather not participate in the MMA article space for the time being. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I know exactly how you feel. I've voted at a few of the recent AfDs, but pretty much I've tried to withdraw from MMA discussions.  I hope a reasonable agreement can be reached on notability (I always thought my suggestion of using championship fights for top tier organizations was a simple and straightforward criteria for events, albeit one that never got much support).  I've cut way back on my WP time and I'm trying to focus on martial arts articles, although MMA is considered part of WPMA.  Good luck! Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Atari 2600
I also have an Atari 2600 with composite video mod and a ton of games if you're interested.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BAMMA 8
I know you're wanting to distance yourself from the entire MMA article space, just needing to know if you consider the article in your userfied talk space is eligible for being moved back to the Article's talk page and then merge/redirected to a BAMMA events article. Take a look at Talk:BAMMA if you'd like to contribute. Hasteur (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The intention behind my requesting BAMMA 8 to be userfied was to use the information in an omnibus article (though at the time I was aiming for 2011 in mixed martial arts events). Seeing as how I'm unlikely to do anything with it in the near future, you are welcome to move it into article space for omnibus article purposes.  BTW, I saw your mention of "evil 3" at WT:MMANOT; it made me laugh.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the article back to it's original location. I'm not sure if you want to speedy request the redirect or if I should go through a MfD. Your choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs)
 * I've requested speedy deletion for it. Thanks.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Agent00f
I have delivered a final warning to the user for their generally disruptive editing on the MMA notability discussion with a direct warning that the next step will be a posting on AN asking for sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

MMA Collaboration
Are you going to write a draft proposal as noted and if so, can we reconcile what you have in mind with omnibus and the couple ideas I've toss out on the talk page? I'm quite serious about this as it's important for going forward. I want this to work out for everyone interested in MMA and you seem capable of standing the middle ground. Collaboration will not be with me but community at large. My "E-mail this user" link under toolbox also works. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier today, I have plans to attempt to restart the previous discussion. You will need to have patience and wait that to happen.  If your intention is to rush this through quickly and immediately, then don't look for my help.  As for me being capable of standing a middle ground, if you were not aware I am part of the "AfD clique" you keep talking about.  I am a deletionist.  I do believe that the current state of most MMA event articles do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  I do not have a lot of belief in your linear-linked notability suggestion as I know of no Wikipedia guideline or policy that supports it.  What I am about to start writing up, based upon the recent discussions at WT:MMANOT (recent being in the last couple of weeks) and Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Again, have patience with the process.  --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, it would be best to give fellow fans more credit. They were very frustrated with the previous regime more for its systemic characteristics than the individuals within. Identifying with what they saw as the problem didn't help your cause. Second, please extend me some courtesy. I reciprocated in kind to a fault so there's no reason to be difficult. I'm not asking that we uncover new ground on wiki, only that we do the extent of what's possible. I believe that's all anyone expects in negotiating a compromise (with the wiki powers that be, not bickering among ourselves). If you can help in that regard, I can guarantee everyone will support it, but it's important that we at least move fast to establish trust or you'll get left on the outside again. I know from your renewed motivation that you want to do the right thing, so try to help everyone help you. My email is always open. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just another factor to ponder over: I don't want to run any show, but I'm sticking around only so things don't revert back to what they were until trustworthy people step up. So consider the motivation as allowing me to step down as much you to step up. Please think it over carefully. Agent00f (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I am lacking courtesy towards you. The frequency of comments at WT:MMANOT combined with your initial comment in this section makes me feel rushed in what I am attempting to do.  I have a habit of taking my time in editing Wikipedia, even if it is just talk page comments.  The importance of what I am planning on adding to WT:MMANOT requires me to be even more thorough than I usually am.  I do not believe this is an issue that should be rushed for fear of making a mistake or leaving something open to interpretation that was unintended.  All I ask is a little patience with me and this process.  I am in the process of writing up the comments, proposal and initial discussion and am trying to ensure I cover the bases, as I see them, in hopes of a more productive discussion moving forward.
 * I also don't believe that any one person should be running the show. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort.  While many of us (myself included) can get a little ownership happy, if people feel that they have a voice in matters then life goes smoother.  At least I think and hope that it does.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't think this is pressure to finish the totality of the work soon. Perhaps the best way to put it is that we need to make some announcements, and it would be very unfortunate for everything (incl mma on wiki) if the community turned to trust people who didn't have their interests at heart again. As you can tell by the plural, it's not going to be a one man show, thus the section title, but things are delicate enough right now that people would be very angry if they get burned. IOW, I'm looking to trust you now (and you don't be the only one) or we look at alternatives for the moment. I appreciate the honesty, and again, email always open. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 00:37, 4 May 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 More disruption involving MMA. Thank you. Mt king  (edits)  04:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt anything will come of this ANI, just as nothing came of the half dozen or more ANIs that preceded it. Agent00f has the potential for having their editing privileges being blocked for being non-constructive.  That's not going to happen through ANI though.  In my opinion, it'll require templating them until they reach a level 4 vandalism warning, assuming people take it that far.  I don't see anything happening to Portillo from this ANI as well.  They are doing a good job of being non-civil but the edits cited are far from attackish in my opinion.  (I actually believe that Agent00f's edits are the personal attacks and Portillo is just non-constructive.)
 * The writing is on the wall though. UFC 27 was just deleted by an admin after AfD and more are likely to follow unless the battleground mentality halts and people start working on a solution.  Unfortunately, the ones accusing you and I of "preventing a real solution" don't seem to be helping matters at all.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Agent00f mentioned you, MtKing, and Me directly as the 3 editors who are actively disrupting the space. I've already asked him to strike his comments. Please feel free to express your viewpoint if appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it you yourself that dubbed us the "evil 3"? ;)  With the ANI discussions I've attempted to force myself holding off on comments when they initially start.  I attempt to have confidence that admins and established editors can look at what is going on and determine for themselves who is in the right and in the wrong.  (And I have confidence that if I am in the wrong one of them will come over and slap me down a little bit.)  If anything, the walls of text that Agent00f puts up does nothing but help "our case".  We'll see where it goes, if anywhere.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you go AfD some WWE articles?
I dont think they are notable. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are the one that should AfD them. Afterwards, if you want I'll look them over and !vote, just as I have done with the MMA event articles.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:42, 5 May 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 Call for sanctions. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New ANI discussion
Hey TreyGeek. Just letting you know I posted a proposal in ANI that maybe everyone should take a break from the AfDs and ANI discussions for a bit so we can all cool down and also think about what criteria we could base evaluation of MMA articles on (i.e. build consensus to re-write WP:MMANOT). As part of that, we could just shut down the current AfDs, and also leave already deleted articles alone until we have a new policy in place. I get the feeling I'm not really welcome in this discussion, but I thought I'd toss the idea out. If I can be of assistance, let me know. Thanks for your work on the project. (P.S. I'll be posting this to the other users mentioned in the most recent WP:ANI discussion. Feel free to let anyone else know as you see fit.  Thanks!) --Policy Reformer(c) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would *love* outside editors involvement at WT:MMANOT. I had thought about telling you that earlier today but noticed you had contacted "SSS" about it already.  Feel free to offer your suggestions, thoughts, or "smack downs" ;) at WT:MMANOT.  While I have participated in AfDs and ANIs over the last couple of months I have not started any of them.  (I know that's a weak line of reasoning, but it's all I have at the moment.)  I really do look forward to some kind of resolution over the MMA event notability issue if one can be achieved.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to participate, but I feel like doing so through a multitude of AfDs may not be the best way to reach a new policy. The current MMANOT policy is outdated.  As an MMA fan, I'd love to see all UFC events have article pages, if only for ease of reference as I find myself referring to WP multiple times per event to see a given fighter's history (and the events they participated in).  I recognize that WP can't include everything, and although I'm generally an inclusionist, I know there need to be limits.  I think there needs to be people from outside the MMA fan community involved in the discussion, even if that means they're editors that don't normally contribute in this area.


 * As I've stated a few times, I know we're all trying to do what's best. Although certain events up for AfD right now may not merit inclusion under some form of new guidelines, I'm wondering if it might be best to just centralize the discussion on MMANOT by closing the current AfDs (or really just postponing them).  Then, through the discussion at MMANOT, we can use them as examples of what we think should or should not be included under new guidelines.  Along with this, I'd suggest we leave already deleted articles alone.  We can get them restored, if needed, once new guidelines are in place.
 * Jumping ahead a bit: Once new guidelines are established, I'd suggest that we give them a couple of weeks until they go into effect. The idea is that if a given article would be subject to deletion under the new guidelines due to insufficient sourcing or lack of encyclopedic content, it would allow interested editors to bring the page within the new guidelines (if possible), rather than deleting it and forcing people to start from scratch (the starting from scratch argument is one of my inclusionist arguments, most certainly, yet I have trouble effectuating it because I don't have the time to bring each article up to snuff so I can't really request userfication).
 * Again, I think it would really help the discussion if we could agree to shut down all the AfDs (for now) until we revise MMANOT, as these AfDs are intertwined and desperately need new standards. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to working with you to fix this whole thing.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an active discussion at MMANOT on how to improve/modify it in attempts to resolve the consistent AfD issues. It seems to be at standstill and outside opinions would be welcome, IMO.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll jump in there tomorrow (10:00pm local right now). I just think it would be a great sign of good faith if we could be given a chance to get our house in order before it collapses under (potentially warranted) AfDs. Less of those we have to fight, more we can focus on policy.  (For example, I haven't even taken a look over there since I've been wrapped up in the one AfD and the ANI incidents.)  I've got all this week free, and I was going to be doing some editing on the project anyway (finally getting around to UCI Law).  Two tasks is better than one? Thank you.--Policy Reformer(c) 05:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI closed
I am not an admin. I am not neutral. I am a AndyTheGrump-fanboy. Still I've made the bold move of closing that ANI section. If you disagree with me feel free to revert me. Arcandam (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I fail to see how calling someone a "lying scumbag", "infantile", a "disgrace to the LGBT community", having "worthless" opinions, and telling them to "fuck off" can be condoned on Wikipedia. To me this is a clear situation of WP:NPA.  While Sceptre may be combative about the situation as well, I don't see where they deserved to be harassed and attacked.  And looking at Andy's block log this wouldn't have been their first block for personal attacks.  Maybe I'm being ultra sensitive to it having been driven off of a different WikiProject due to similar attacks or because this is harassment in within the LGBT community.  However, I fail to see how the behavior is in any way excusable.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear about your experience with that WikiProject. I am not sure which project you are referring to, and I do not know what happened, but I hope that problem is resolved now. If this is something that is still happening now, or if you notice something like that happening in the future, please contact me on my talkpage. I think we agree Andy was not very polite. On the other hand, Sceptre wasn't very nice to him either. So we agree this is a clear WP:NPA situation. Blocks should be used to protect the encyclopaedia, not to punish people for being rude; so in this case it may have been possible to block for editwarring but not for personal attacks. Arcandam (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I am not sure if you noticed but I closed a similar thread about Sceptre, for the same reason.

RfC/U notice
As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lost a degree of faith in the various dispute resolution processes as a result of the MMA battleground. I've "signed on" as one with cause for concern with the RfC, though I'm not sure how much good it will do.  I'm afraid that Agent00f will cite this as another example of harassment of him (though he hasn't been harassed anywhere near to the degree Mtking and I have), will pontificate over the issue and drive away anyone who would even think of discussing the issue.  (Much like that has happened with the MMANOT RfC.)  I've added this latest page to my watch-list just in case.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The flip side is that if they don't improve (or use the RfC/U as a vehicle to disrupt further, it's a gold pressed invitation to have ArbCom sort the entire project space out (and even introduce discretionary sanctions) Hasteur (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option would have been a WQA post and see where that goes. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's already gone beyond WQA level attempts Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling stupid... can ya'll explain the acronym or link to "WQA"? :D
 * Oh, and Hasteur, WP:DS doesn't go where you think it goes. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Etiquite Alerts, and thanks for the heads up Hasteur (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) WQA as in WP:WQA. Yeah, okay, nevermind.  I'm not just feeling stupid, I am being stupid.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144
Please respect other people's comments. Striking out other people's comments is a big no no. 107.16.78.114 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck out the comments of a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. This is standard practice.  If the user wants to participate in Wikipedia discussions, they need to go through the process of having their original account unblocked.  The comments should remained struck out or should at least contain a note that the comments from a sock of an indef blocked user to let the closing admin know of the situation.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. On a vast site like wikipedia, you can't be too sure who is who so please be very careful about assuming someone is another person.  107.16.78.114 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not convinced about what? That User:Carlito's Way or the Highway Star has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts?  Evidence: Look at their user page (I just linked it).  Look at the block log for the account: .  Or the comments on the talk page of the blocking admin: User_talk:MuZemike.  What more do you need? --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Contributor copyright investigations/Paknur
I have closed the investigation. One down, another 109 to go... MER-C 07:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * May I second that? It feels like Christmas. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded. :) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks all. Singingdaisies is up next.  --TreyGeek (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Max Leon
I disagreed with your decision to remove those two sentences at Max Leon. In my opinion these sentences are perfectly legit because they fall under the policy Close paraphrasing. If you disagree, could you please suggest another way to express this same essential content within the article rather than removing it all together. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded the one sentence that was a blatant copy/paste. I've also restored the refimpove template which was improperly removed as the article cites no references.  I've renamed the "sources" section to "external links" and added, the empty, references section to comply with MOS.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I'm sorry about the unintentional tag removal. I'll see what I can do to add some more sources. :-) 4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)