Jump to content

User talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MMA / UFC Discussion

I definitely agree that most UFC pages aren't "strong" entries in that beyond stats and a few sentences about fights being added / deleted / injuries they don't have much else (with the exception of title bouts). However if we are going to go on a path of consolidation, I ask that editors redirect the old URLs to their associated consolidated entries so that search visitors don't reach a 404 page. Hopefully the discussion regarding UFC 143 and 146 will lead to some form of improvement of individual entries or consolidation. --Boston2austin (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mtking/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

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) 11:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Offsite query

Hey! Concerning your request, was there a particular fighter your were interested in? By the way, which of your accounts do you most like to be contacted at? I see you have been posting all over the internet. Any luck so far? And yeah, that is pretty funny how you're using these different accounts to get certain articles deleted while trying to insert some, shall we say, fun information instead! :) Ha! Well, bounce me back, brometheus! --Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Call for sanctions. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New WP:ANI Discussion

Hey MtKing. 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) 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to the discussion, as for the break from MMA AfDs - I have not nominated any in few weeks in order to give MMANOT a chance, I personally would not have nominated the last batch. I would support any proposal to freeze the MMA disruption, stop new AfD's, stop new articles, stop new ANI's until the outcome on a new notability guideline, that the fans can accept if not necessary support. Mtking (edits) 04:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Mtking. I should hopefully have a bit of time during the upcoming week to contribute to these discussions. Based on your familiarity with the area as someone from outside the MMA community, I'd also welcome a framework from you on how we might evaluate MMA events/fighters for inclusion both in conformity with global policy and within that, uniquely tailored to the sport. Any ideas you have would be welcome, as we're going to have to defend any new policy to the general editor base, so having ideas from the general editor base could be helpful. Also, we're probably going to need ideas on what constitutes a stub vs. non-encyclopedic content (similar to some music albums for example).
So, to confirm on where we stand:
  1. No new AfD's.
  2. Current AfD's are temporarily closed to be re-evaluated under new MMANOT guidelines after MMANOT established.
  3. I made a proposal over on TreyGeek's talk page that we could perhaps hold off on the AfD's for a short period of time in order to clean up articles that might otherwise be subject to AfD (sourcing, encyclopedic content rather than just stats, etc.) in order to work with the existing framework for the articles rather than having to start from scratch so they warrant inclusion.
  4. No new discussions at ANI over existing issues. Handle it at the MMANOT discussion.
  5. No new articles that don't warrant inclusion under WP:GNG (discard old MMANOT entirely for now). Not sure how to police this, but I'd suggest just userfying any newly created articles until we get MMANOT up to snuff.
  6. I'd suggest targeting 1-2 weeks for new MMANOT guidelines, subject to being shortened or lengthened as needed (lenghtened only if discussion is reasonably moving forward).
If there's anything I'm leaving out, let me know. Otherwise I suggest we move this over to ANI and see if everyone will jump on board.
Thanks again for your time and your efforts, and I look forward to working with you to fix this.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Would add one thing, a post to AN asking for two or three admins to help out, otherwise we risk stalemate. As for point 5, how about "No new articles on any MMA event; any new article will be either be userfied or moved to a page under the project. Mtking (edits) 05:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding getting admins, I think we'd need to outline where we need admin help. (Policing socks, SPAs, and incivility?) I think it would help the MMA Wikipedian community if we can find some way to resolve this ourselves and just require the admin rubber stamp. I posted a proposal for how we might do this under this comment on Newmanoconnor's page.
Agreed on new point 5 (I think all upcoming events in the next couple weeks that are possibly includable under new guidelines already have pages so we'd have some breathing room). Regarding the new point 5, we could probably do the userfication/project move ourselves, as long as we post our plans in advance on ANI and maybe get it rubber-stamped there? We could link to that in the edit summary of the move. The latest proposal on MMANOT seems feasible. As long as we can ignore all the noise from those unfamiliar with the process, I think we're good. Thanks again for all your time on this.--Policy Reformer(c) 05:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving proposal above to ANI. Thank you!--Policy Reformer(c) 05:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deleting Ban. Thank you.

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. | pulmonological talk • contribs 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, don't let any of this deter you, your a a great contributor to Wikipedia. Don't let them prod you into doing anything dumb.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Continue to ruin UFC coverage on Wikipedia. You are doing a great job. Portillo (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop all of this non-sense. TheShane39569 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

As Portillo stated, he is simply trying to ruin pages that he is not a fan of. This is at the very least grounds for a topic ban WP:TBAN and at worst a total ban from editing. "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive" and it is very clear that he is simply doing this to be disruptive. Mississippistfan (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to stay out of this mess for my own sanity. However I think you would receive less flack if you stated your reasons for going after specific types of articles in what appears to be an arbitrary fashion, particularly the MMA articles. There are just too many very odd patterns here, like the fact that over 90% of your focus since March has been on MMA, or the fact that instead of going after smaller events for omnibussing you specifically targeted some of the biggest events, some of which actually had citations that proved they met WPNOT criteria even under the most stringent of interpretations (like UFC 144), or initially getting articles deleted after a mere 12 hour talk period. To say you come off as a zealot would be an understatement. Generally, stating one's motivations is hardly a compulsory action, but objectively I would think it would probably save you some grief to do so (I'm not talking about from myself, I'm just making an objective observation). Beansy (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pontificating at WT:MMANOT

Well hell. You reverted the latest pontification before I could queue up the relevant movie quote. As a result, it gets posted to your talk page. ;)

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!"

So there! --TreyGeek (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Statements like this fully support a banning WP:IBAN as stated in the guidelines. I would ask that you be more considerate to other users and please stop vandalizing pages WP:VAN per your witchhunt WP:WITCHHUNT. Wikipedia is not compulsory WP:CHOICE so I am unsure as to why you have a personal agenda against MMA and it's fans but please be respectful of others. Mississippistfan (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Go AfD some WWE articles

I dont think they are notable enough. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

They actually fail every guideline for WP:EVENT and have no enduring notability WP:NOTABLE as they are scripted events with no actual bearing on the real world. There are no reliable sources WP:RELIABLE to show that this event has any enduring notability. The WWE pages simply act as a promotional tool WP:SOAP which Wiki is not WP:NOT Mississippistfan (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wake up

Hey are you busy trying to delete UFC articles? because you got a topic about you on that ANI thing again. And you're getting notified about it, best go read it boy. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

re: afd removals

LMAO man my fault I just realize what I did. I completely forgot that BLP deletion tags expire and get removed after 7 days. I got the tags confused because they look similar. Took me a second to realize why I got warnings. My fault, simple confusion. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia: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)

A Bunny for You

A Bunny for You
I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong.
I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia.
I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction.
Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Good morning mtking, please can you go and find another subject and annoy those editors rather than MMA.

Thanks

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Talkback

Hello, Mtking. You have new messages at Talk:UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann.
Message added 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

stop being a hater

Your MMA shit is getting so tiresome. It's been fine for longer than a minute, can we not leave it fine without you fucking around? Bigdottawa (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mtking. You have new messages at Ishdarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier

This may not be entirely appropriate. The article that was created today is substantially different than the one that was deleted at AfD a few weeks ago (primarily because the event has now taken place, whereas it was still a future event during the AfD). This new article may need to go back to AfD if you believe that it doesn't meet notability standards. If anyone reverts you to restore the new article, I'd suggest leaving it alone for now and not reverting it again. They could technically be forced to take it to DRV, but I can almost guarantee that DRV would allow the article to be re-created. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to revert and nominate for AfD if you would like, it clearly still fails WP:NOT as nothing of any lasting significance occurred at the event; I would contend as has been pointed out to AfD nominators in the past that WP:BEFORE could be a reason to maintain the redirect. I would be interested on your take of that approach. Mtking (edits) 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I would also contend that the only differences are the addition of the results, attendance and one routine espn source as seen by this diff. Mtking (edits) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, no need to self-revert. Your revert may not have been problematic necessarily, but if it is challenged it'll probably need to go to AfD again. I wouldn't feel comfortable protecting the redirect at this point, given that the circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfD. -Scottywong| converse _ 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell me this is a conspiracy.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please tell me that's all baseless slander? :/ Salvidrim! 20:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

see this. Mtking (edits) 21:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hm, yea, that's where I saw it... I'm assuming the blocked sock is also behind these "fake" posts? Just to make it clear, I'm not seriously accusing you of anything, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this in case it pops up in the future. :) Salvidrim! 21:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you do that

Dude, why the hell would you delete half the UFC events from a wikipedia page? Are you drinking hatorade or something? Just no man, just no... Take them back, we need them... Especially ALL of them, because we need wikipedia for half of these EVENTS! Themachine456 (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hatorade? I like that. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
As you ask I have it delivered by the tanker load each week ! Mtking (edits) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
SO BRAVE99.246.209.145 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about UFC 148 article

I clicked on the link you provided to get an article undeleted, and came across this:

"If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted."

I created a whole new article for UFC 148. An inferior article for UFC 148 already exists as part of the omnibus 2012 in UFC Events. How do I go about replacing the omnibus article with the stand-alone article of my own and creating a redirect on the omnibus page? Gamezero05 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole basis of the AfD nomination was that the article did not demonstrate adherence to the WP:NOT policy and as the article was not a stub that option is not available, you need to go to DRV. Mtking (edits) 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have completed a whole new article that certainly is good enough to stand on it's own. I read that I should first discuss it with an admin. You are an admin, correct? Check out the new article before I do a deletion review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hasteur/UFC_148_sandbox Gamezero05 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You need to discuss it with the admin that closed the AfD. Mtking (edits) 03:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
How do I find out who that is? Gamezero05 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 (2nd nomination) closed by User:Scottywong. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Yeah, I reverted your edit

Why? Because it doesn't matter if I discuss something on the talk page. No matter what, you are going to do whatever you want to do. P.S.. you started this "edit war". The images were originally up. YOU took them down. I'm just restoring it to how it was and should be. Gamezero05 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just Stop

Can you please just stop with this omnibus thing? We all know you're one of the ones who called for the deletion of the single articles in the first place so you could use the calls for deletion as a reason to "save the content" by creating this abortion of a wiki.

Nobody wants this and if you want to keep it updated you'll have to do all the editing yourself, as we've all decided we're no longer touching it. I hope you have plenty of time and a desire to start following MMA on a consistent basis.

I know it's difficult to swallow your pride but you need to just admit that you are wrong and annoying everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdNinja9 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


I think it should be obvious at this point that MTKing and the rest aren't pushing this omnibus format because they thought it would improve the MMA content on Wikipedia. They are blatantly (and effectively) using wikibureaucracy to make the content inaccessible enough to prevent the casual users from updating and supporting these pages. Eventually the content will be in such a sorry state that no one will update it, and then they can push to have it deleted entirely, likely with little resistance as everyone who cares will have already moved elsewhere.

Basically I'm saying don't expect MT and the rest to keep the omnibus up to date and accessible, because they've already accomplished what they've set out to do. Saying "we've all decided we're no longer touching it" is basically saying alright MT, you win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

Please can you tell me, how do you make a page protected, unprotected & semi-protected ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napsync (talk • contribs)

You can lodge a request for page protection. :) Salvidrim! 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

David-Seth Kirshner

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of David-Seth Kirshner. CSD A7 requires a mere indication of importance to not be valid. An article that states a person is regularly published in two major newspapers, and which includes a citation for the person in a major newspaper, among other indications, is very far from meeting the standard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Spanish MotoGP

Hi, sorry if I removed that tag more than a time, but simply I don't understand what secondary sources are, so if they are not cited into the article the tag is right. But with that tag is the notability of the event disputed? I just think it's notable, as all Grand Prix motorcycle races from 1949 to date, as all the Formula 1 Grands Prix or World Superbike races. Maybe I misunderstood the reason for that tag? Or are you going to propose the deletion for the article? Gpmat (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

you have questions to answer

on the UFC 146 talk page. Gamezero05 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mtking. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Mtking. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the event posters?

Why are you deleting the posters on the 2012 in UFC events page? Gamezero05 3:28 am, Today (UTC−4)
Moved from user page. Salvidrim! 07:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

haha

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

ANTM Cycle 16 Post Top Model Careers

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. I apologize for my editing. Mtking, please see this link [1] and say, can I put it in Post Top Model Careers about Brittani Kline? KIRILL95 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MMA

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I have a question for you, as you see on Talk:List of professional sports leagues I support your position to an extent, but why have you made MMA your personal crusade to eliminate it off of Wikipedia? Just curious as the whole MMA debate is starting to bleed over into pages that I keep an eye on and I want to know whether it is worth my time wading into the argument on them. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept your primes that it is a crusade, the simple fact that for a long time MMA has operated in a walled garden, using WP as a database of sports results, the foray on to Talk:List of professional sports leagues was as a result of an AfD argument that as it is included in that list, every time the UFC holds an event that has a championship match as they are a sports leagues they should have an article for the event. If you want other background have a look at ANI and it's archives. Mtking (edits) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
But why have you chosen MMA as your subject? The NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, MLS etc. do much the same, I mean there are season pages for every single team who has ever competed in the major professional leagues. Quite honestly, I see no issue with Wikipedia being a database of sports results. If we get technical there are many sports encyclopedias that are exactly that. But other than my little foray into the discussion on the leagues page, I am staying out of the MMA battle. I am not a fan of MMA nor am I against them having each of their PPV events listed on there. Seems that the discussion isn't worth my time unless it bleeds into pages that I would care about their content. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, MLS don't have an article on each and every game or round, only on the games that are of enduring notability as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Mtking (edits) 02:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What I am saying is if your whole argument is against WP being a database of sports results, the majority of each team's season articles are simply stats and game results. There are little to no prose on the pages, thus it is against the idea of WP being a database of sports results right? Anyway, so long as there isn't a sudden crusade against the pages I edit, I really have no dog in this fight and I will let you and the MMA supporters fight this one out. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
For example (picking a sports team from your contributions at random) anyone could probably write a well sourced article on Los Angeles Kings vs San Jose Sharks : April 7, 2012 quoting lots of sources, but the game would have no enduring notability and nothing worthy of encyclopaedic note would have happened so they don't, however MMA fans create the article on the MMA event the moment it is announced, even before any confirmed card has been published. Mtking (edits) 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
True. But aren't the events more like the NHL Western Conference Finals and each bout like the game you suggested? The funny thing about the game you picked at random is it is more notable than a regular LA Kings game. Will be remembered down the road? Depends if the NHL makes rules changes as a result. But it is slightly more notable than any of the other regular season games the Kings played. Anyway, I was just curious since you seemed to be the only one to lead this charge. You've answered my questions and made me realize wading into this fight is a bad idea. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to weigh in for a second. Mtking, I'm not sure you understand sports. MMA is different from sports like baseball or hockey. Nobody is going to remember a regular season hockey or baseball game. They probably won't even remember individual playoff games a year from now. They will remember the overall playoff SERIES, but probably not individual games. HOWEVER, in MMA, it is quite common to remember each individual event years after an event. Considering there are only 20 or so events per year, and 10 or so PPV events per year, most fans can remember each event, the major fights, and the implications surrounding each event. I can remember most fighters past few fights right off the top of my head... and with a quick search on Wikipedia to refresh my memory, I can remember all of their other fights that I've seen. I could never do that with any of the other individual games of the other sports I watch. Gamezero05 05:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

University Faculties like this are not notable

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Probably, but we have a number of articles on them. Perhaps you'd like to nom them all in an AfD? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}


CRUSY

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I think the prod is appropriate. The version you tagged and I deleted had some very spammy stuff added in its most recent edits, and looked like a clear SD. However, a message on the talk page (ironically from the spammer) made me look at the history. I restored because it seemed to me that a multi-state organisation might be notable, although we have no idea of participant numbers, and your prod seems the best way to move things on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mtking/Archives/2012/May&oldid=1090547889"