Talk:UFC 148

PPV buys downgraded - 800k

Meltzer downgraded these numbers to 800k if any of you are following. In fact a lot of these PPV buys need to be updated. Brock vs Reem did only 500k not the originally reported 700k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.213.205 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brock vs. Overeem did 800,000. It was the signature UFC's end-year event. Remeber that Lesnar is the biggest PPV in the sport's history.

LlamaAl (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add Category:2012 in mixed martial arts to this redirect? Trying to get the category properly populated.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is part of a compromise formed when all the articles were deleted?  Done, on those grounds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Connections between Wikipedia, politics and the treatment of this article.

This ought to be the epitome of what Wikipedia has come to. The recent WP:EW is likely due to misinterpretation of policies. Let's face it, this article has enough media coverage, primary sources and secondary sources to endure an independent article on its own. YET, because it has been deleted recently due to WP:CRYSTALBALL the article is now doomed to never exist and forever be considered a redirect even when it is clearly encyclopedic and should stand an article on its own. Wikipedia suggests WP:BOLD but, when, given the WP:5P an editor tries to improve the encyclopedia he is trapped into an edit war. And this is where wikipedia loses ground. Most of the power holders of wikipedia are so indulged in their authority that they often bulldoze the very principles that put them there. As much as it is social theory (my area of study), it doesn't require a genius to realize that this is what wikipedia has come to. It does end up following much of the pattern that happens with politicians and it is the reason why I am no longer contributing financially to wikipedia and refuse to do so until wikipedia goes back to the principles that sparked cultural change. -- Loukinho (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

When do the deletionists flip the coin to see if this stays or goes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.61.237 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whenever they run low on edit counts. It seems to be a lot more respected around here than the WP:5P. -- Loukinho (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not what a talk page is for, and the article is not "doomed to never exist". It's right there. If it's nominated, THEN argue. There are proper places to complain about policy. Also, I've fixed a Wikilink in your post. Hope you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this when the article was still "deleted" after an edit war. I wanted to discuss more about it but was referred to the talk page of the article. Usually when the discussion is closed there is the part that says: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." It just happened that is stayed after it was up and running again. I hope to have clarified the issue. Thank you for fixing the wikilink. It was a test and you passed! Wikipedia is all about collaboration. :) -- Loukinho (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. They are a tenacious bunch these last few months. It would be nice to edit together all the best arguments made by the Keep side, and preemptively attach them to each event talk page, to avoid the same damn "debate" every time. GameZero sure smoked that guy this time, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, my whole point was to say that the concept of wikipedia is fantastic. It brings the concept of an encyclopedia to the frame and accessibility of the internet which means linking between articles is possible, references can be updated, so on. It just happens that wikipedia is no longer acting as its initial idea and it is giving ground to "internet politics", which, as we know from real politics, is a weak system. The keep or delete debate shouldn't even be taking place in my humble opinion. If it has verifiable reliable sources, matches with the values of wikipedia (encyclopedia or almanac or gazetteer), meets notability and it is in good shape, I see no reason do delete. Now, due to politics, the common-sense involved in deciding "what" can be considered notable or reliable source or encyclopedia/almanac/gazetteer gives ground to "who has more moral to decide" what is considered notable/reliable/principles/etc and that culminates in weak articles, poor usability and a greedy one or two happy about their "debate skills". It is disappointing but is sums up how the world runs nowadays. (Sorry for the rant, I know I should "go ahead and make a blog" but I also understand there are many people here on wikipedia that probably have the same things to say and never bothered to, like I was about to do. And that only perpetuates the cycle). But yes, I think your approach is reasonable, it really would be nice. Perhaps creating a template with the basic discussion info and links would be appropriate? -- Loukinho (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is not a good system how it is set up now. I really started editing once a few editors started really messing with MMA on Wikipedia. I've been registered since 2006, but really got into it this year. When I first started, I was getting smoked in arguments because I didn't know how the Wikipedia "bureaucracy" worked. I didn't know all of the rules or procedure here. The users who were getting everything deleted knew all of these things, and used them to their advantage against those trying to save articles because we didn't know the proper procedure. Now, after months of learning, I can use the same arguments deletionists use to delete articles and flip them back on them in order to save articles. It really feels like Republicans and Democrats in congress... except more sneaky. For example, MTking tried to make some point that the UFC was "not a sports league". So I pull up the definition of "Sports League" on Wikipedia and show him that the UFC is listed on their article. So he then goes to the Sports League page and starts arguing to get the definition changed so that the UFC isn't considered a sports league anymore so that it fits his OWN definition and thus makes his original argument make sense. It is just very underhanded how some people edit on here. Anyway, I went off on a tangent, but what I am getting at is I, and others, have used arguments that have been working to get articles saved. And it's tiring having to go around with the same arguments over and over when these people can just put articles up for deletion so easily.  Gamezero05  talk  17:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect poster

that poster is no longer accurate, as dominick cruz and urijah faber are no longer fighting on the card. Tmt2393 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked around forever trying to find one with ortiz and griffin on it, and I couldn't. Luckily somebody else was able to find it and replaced it.  Gamezero05  talk  16:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoever gave the UFC events their own articles again

Thanks for listening to your readers and being logical. 128.189.116.115 (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Kudos to Gamezero for all the work he has put into this article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we get semi-protection on this page?

This page has only been up for a few days and it's already been vandalized quite a bit. It is only going to get worse leading up to the event.. and possibly a shot while after.  Gamezero05  talk  21:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cung Le's Nationality

This has been repeatedly changed back and forth between Vietnamese, South Vietnamese and American. I doubt many of those changing it will read the talk page first, but it can't hurt. Le's article calls him a Vietnamese American (an American of Vietnamese descent). This is attributed to his official website. Sherdog, perhaps the most commonly used reliable source for MMA Wiki articles, also says he is American in his profile. He was two when he left South Vietnam for the US. Soon after, South Vietnam ceased to exist. He is now 40. Wikipedia should use current information, not 1975 information. Fedor Emilianenko and Andrei Arlovski were born in the USSR, but their nationalities are now Russian and Belarusian, not Soviet. Same deal. If there is a reliable source saying Le is currently (South) Vietnamese, I'd like to see it. Till then, it's original research, and I will continue to revert it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I always wondered about this and I agree completely. South Vietnam is NOT an independent recognized country and even if that is the case, if he naturalized American, then he should be displayed with the American flag besides his name. Also, there seems to be some other people raising similar issues on Cung Le's Talk Page. I think it should be consensus now that the flag displayed should be the American flag. --Loukinho (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been disputed time and time again. Just because UFC chooses to use the place of birth in the tale of the tape, it doesn't mean that's his nationality. People who argue that seem to lose the concept of gaining citizenship through other means, including immigration and being a refugee. Not only has Cung Le already stated that he does not have Dual-Nationality, he has even competed for Team USA. His wife is also an American (USA). Just like many other Vietnamese-Americans who fled from Vietnam, he represents ONLY the South Vietnamese flag because that it's heritage. His UFC page even includes a quote from his labeling himself as an American. At the end of the day, I think the fighter's own description should be taken into account and the USA flag should be the right one PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you in this subject and I think you put it very clearly in a better way than I could. Had a flag be used, in his case it would be the American one. However, it seems that the manual of style from the wikiproject mma discourages the use of all flags, which seem to serve no encyclopedic purpose. I wrote more details of the rationale on Cung Le's talk page. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 07:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

I dont think just because someones wife is American, that makes them not born where they were. Cung Le was not born in America, and that's what the UFC represents in the Tale of the Tape. So I think the Vietnamese flag is the correct flag and should remain. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say just because his wife is an American, that changes the place he was originally born in? My whole point was the fact that his wife is American can also justify that he no longer is a VIETNAMESE National. Do you even know what I'm saying? He was born in Saigon, Vietnam. That city no longer exists, so it makes sense to go with the alternate and his current nationality. PinoyFilAmPride (talk 06:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First, he was born in South Vietnam. That country was conquered and assimilated in 1975, after he emigrated to the US. He NEVER lived in the Vietnam the current flag represents. No reliable sources say he is a citizen of either Vietnam, but several say he's American. This is a no-brainer, but if you honestly can't see that, I have no idea how to make it any simpler. Whether you actually understand you are wrong is irrelevant to the fact that consensus and reliable sources disagree with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen bro, I dont like you trying to call me stupid. You wanna no-brainer? Here: http://www.ufc.com/program Flip the pages on the UFC 148 book, there is a page that lists all the matches WITH FLAGS, tell me the flag you see next to Cung Le's name. Thats right, it's a Vietnam flag. Where's your facts? Thats right. Now stop changing it. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] all explicitly say he is an American. Your source requires synthesis and, as a primary source, is subject to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And I'm not calling you stupid. I'm just explaining why this particular idea of yours is incorrect. Also look at the Infobox parameters. Nationality is "this person's current nationality - holds a valid passport from this country". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ICON, Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. Also, Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Need more? In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use that of the later nationality. Pretty clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not UFC. Articles about UFC events do not need to follow UFC's conventions. They follow Wikipedia's. As you said earlier, the UFC uses flags to signify country of origin. And as I said before, Wikipedia does not. So the good news is we're both right. I hope we can leave it at that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well there should be an exception, because thats what the UFC lists him as. Wikipedia is about facts, you saying Cung Le was born in America isnt factual. And nationality isnt of concern here, it is birthplace that is of concern. So in this case, that nationality rule prevents wikipedia from being properly improved or maintained, so in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

If you have an issue with that, then this can go up for a vote somewhere. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Bleacher Report isnt a reliable source, all those RELIABLE articles say he's Vietnamese, that he is born in Vietnam, and so does the UFC event program, and the telecasts. Why this is even up for debate is baffling. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Go to his UFC profile, read the quote where he even quotes himself as being an American. What part of that don't you understand? Just because he was born in Vietnam does not mean he can't gain citizenship. Never hear of immigrating to another country? PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did, it says he's from Vietnam, it doesnt say he's born in America, did you watch his fights with Wanderlei Silva and Patrick Cote, does he have an American flag in the tale of the tape? Nope. Does he have it in the UFC event program, nope. He has a Vietnam flag. So I dont understand why there is a big debate or issue about this? Unless your eyes are lying to you. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The UFC profile also says he's from Saigon, Vietnam. Tell me where is SAIGON VIETNAM on the map? which flag currently represents Saigon Vietnam. You're asking me if my eyes are lying to me. So do you believe 100% that UFC tale of the tape can never make mistakes? Look at his shorts, which is what he has actually put on his twitter in the past...Tell me, what does his shorts actually represent more, the STAR or the Three flags? http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/4600369/20120707_mjr_su5_105_extra_large.jpg. If it's not a big DEBATE to you, then why are you debating? PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your eyes clearly deceive you because you bring up the past two fights, so I show you this picture of Cung Le and his shorts. So tell me, what's on his shorts, is it the STAR or the Three stripes? http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/2307864/11_SilvaLe_07_large.jpg. Since you believe that the UFC never makes mistakes in their broadcasts or promos PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also in this picture when he competed for TEAM USA, he's carrying two flags. Can you show me which flag REPRESENTS the current UFC flag that was used in the tale of the tape? Do you think that the UFC does not make mistakes in flag representation? http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/3a83a297fdeb7f1d02841979c9a0a4dc/l.jpg PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok ok ok, you're coming at me with alot of stuff here, one at a time please! Pinoy, buddy, you're getting delusional now, you're now trying to use someones shorts to say they were born in a certain country, shorts are irrelevant. If you wanna use that South Vietnam flag, well, I guess that could work, but I dont see an American flag anywhere, so that shouldnt be used. I'd say either Vietnam flag is correct, and this South Vietnam flag would be a good compromise. You also have no reliable source that states the UFC made a mistake, and I doubt they'd make a mistake 3 times in a row. Just saying. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny how come back with middle school rhetoric, "just sayin". What's next, cool story bro and u mad? Funny how his UFC profile also quotes him as being an AMERICAN. "I am the only American Wushu Kung Fu Athlete to have three World medals.". You clearly are the one being delusional and have no critical thinking skills. Sorry that you can't read more than one post. It must be very difficult for you in school reading 2-4 paragraphs right? Oh look straight from his website, I don't see the current flag that the UFC used anywhere there either. Please point it out to me where the current flag of Vietnam is shown ANYWHERE. http://cungle.com/photo-galleries/photo-gallery-fighting/ .... PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, calm down alright? No need for "Battle Ground Mentality" on Wikipedia, Ok? Since I'm a guy who doesnt like to edit war, and wants cooler heads to prevail, so this doesnt have to go thru a silly vote. How about we use the South Vietnam flag, then both parties are happy in this silly debate. It seems ok with you right Pinoy? Thats the flag Cung Le has on his shorts. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple question, he was born in Saigon, Vietnam, which flag represents Saigon, Vietnam? His shorts will only give you a clue. Here let me give you a hint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Vietnam, just sayin. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

All right chill out, chill out. I'm accepting this compromise. We're using the South Vietnam flag like you want. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't accept your own proposed compromise. You asked for a vote on my talk page, you asked for one here, and once you realize you'd be outvoted, you don't want to "go thru a silly vote". The rules of Wikipedia are clear, consensus is clear. But let's vote for the hell of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I accepted Pinoy's compromise to avoid the long voting process. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And I accepted your proposed voting process to avoid you weaseling out of it. Polls are currently open. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use

Sorry for the title, but I needed the font. Now what part, Bones, don't you grasp? Honest question. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) That's WP:ICON, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Relax man, we're making a compromise to use the South Vietnam flag to be accurate and not have edit wars. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that how you see it happening? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, then wikipedia is still factual and everyone is happy. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of factual, the last part of the title is "the later nationality". And I am pretty happy. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion Poll. Which flag is proper for Cung Le? One vote only. No ranting.

• USA, per everything I've said above. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• USA. However, I don't have a problem with the South Vietnamese flag since that's what Cung Le represents per his website, http://cungle.com/photo-galleries/photo-gallery-fighting/. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Vietnam, per that is his where he was born which is what the UFC goes off in the telecasts, per the UFC telecasts, and per the UFC Event Program. But South Vietnam is also acceptable! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• USA,Le is an American citizen therefore he should have an American flagcon. Flagcons are used to denote a person's nationality not where someone was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.92.147 (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment One vote only! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:UFC 148/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Review

Update - As of November 27, 2012, ΛΧΣ21™ has no internet connection and will finish the review at a later point in time. Thank you. DivaKnockouts (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: LlamaAl (talk · contribs) who requested this GA review is currently blocked for sock-puppetting. Their block is scheduled to be lifted on Dec 4, so reviewers and others should not expect a response from the requestor until after that time. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Note An image in this article (the one with Silva and Sonnen fighting in the cage) has been flagged as a copyright violation on commons.wikimedia.org. Unless I'm mistaken, the image would need to be removed from the article before it can attain GA status. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've removed the image from the article since it has already been deleted from commons. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Suggestion The article contains prose about the background leading up to the event, a paragraph about the weigh ins, and a single paragraph about the actual event (the fights). Was there nothing notable about the fights themselves and that is why there is no prose about them? (That's a rhetorical question since if the actual fights weren't notable then it is very unlikely the event is notable and thus deserving of an article.) Based upon another MMA event article that's been promoted to GA (UFC 94) there should be a separate section discussing the event and its fights, and another section discussing the subsequent events (what was the ramifications of this event?) --TreyGeek (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Working in my sandbox. Will be finished in less than a week. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent events -  Done

Preliminary card -  Done

Main card -  In progress --LlamaAl (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other suggestions

• Remove all flags per WP:INFOBOXFLAG (the one in the infobox) and per the recently closed RFC on use of flags for MMA fighters.

 Done in sandbox. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could/Should bonus awards and purses be combined? Both sections discuss payouts to the fighters. I'm not I'm happy with how it looks but one possibility could be similar to UFC 140#Payouts. I'm not sure the best way to approach this.

 Not done. It is based on UFC 94, a GA. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was something I was thinking about as I was revisiting UFC 140 to improve it some more (from my last round of prose additions during the summer). As I said I wasn't excited about how I have it presented in UFC 140, but I can't help but wonder if there is a better way to present it than in UFC 94 and here. Probably something best suited to someone's or some article's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Remove some (all?) references from the infobox. This is assuming that the same information is mentioned and cited in the prose of the article. For this article I think that this is the case for most of the four references in the infobox (and might help make it look a little cleaner).

 Done in sandbox. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's all of the suggestions I have. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

• The lead seems too short for the legth of the article. I'd recommend expanding it into two paragraphs with more relevant information. Also, if the information you have on the lead is cited on the body, there is no need for references, check WP:LEAD.

 Done. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still not convinced that the lead is long enough. I'd suggest to expand it adding more information about the background section. I guess that if you expand the first paragraph a little more, it should be good to go. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 What about the current version? --LlamaAl (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More convincing :) Although, I'd guess you should try to expand it further, but that's me being nit-picky. I will do another fast scan tomorrow before passing the article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Silva vs. Sonnen

• "Sonnen is also undefeated since UFC 117," I see that 'UFC 117 is italicized here, but not elsewhere. Which is correct?

 Done. Every UFC event should be italicized, except in navigational boxes. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Reference #37 covers all the "Entrance music" section. I guess you should write a short introductory text and put the reference there.

 Done. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay that's all by now.

— ΛΧΣ21™ 22:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Any update? I will scan the article again tomorrow. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, I'll be finishing it in my sandbox. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• This GA review has now been open for seven weeks. Perhaps, if the article's improvements are going to take much more time to complete, the review should be closed and the article renominated when the updates are done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will finish it this week. Improvements won't take more time. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It now looks like he's made the modifications planned if this can be looked at again. Wizardman 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like he's still finishing the main card part. I'll take another look tonite. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Everything done. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)