User talk:Mtking/Archives/2013/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mtking. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2012 in UFC

Thanks for the successful DRV of this article! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

WikiProject report: New Year, New York

Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

Not a sockpuppet account

Well I know it's not absolute proof, but I would like to point out that my account name here matches that of my GameFAQs account, found here- [1]. The account there is quite established (created in 2001) and has a few posts on the Martial Arts board (board #212). I typically use the same handle wherever I go online, and have not ever owned any other account on Wikipedia. Granted, I haven't used my Wikipedia account for anything else, but I can assure that I am a single individual who is also frustrated with the repeated targetting of AfD's at upcoming, high-profile UFC event pages. Zeekfox (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

News and notes: 2012—the big year

Featured content: Featured content in review

Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

Michael Corey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts

I'm not the one that created that article. Take a look at the talk page. Somebody else created it, and it was pointed out for speedy deletion, I closed out the speedy deletion which I'm allowed to do. I also added some information to it so that it no longer qualified for speedy deletion. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Edit warring

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page within the topic of mixed martial arts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

The patience within the community for disputes over these articles is pretty much exhausted; inappropriate behaviour such as participating in edit warring will be met with heavy sanctions. I see no attempt to follow established consensus building techniques (although I appreciate you only performed a couple of reverts before stopping), which is why I am reminding you of these sanctions. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no point, look at the history of this MMA fans doing what they want and that is that. ✍ Mtking ✉ 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

List of current UFC fighters (ISO Codes edition)

I just want to make it clear before another edit war gets started. I did give Beansy permission to use ISO codes. I understand your points and your logic and why you don't like the idea, and I capitulated on the flags point because I don't want to get banned over something meaningless and this has been somewhat of a crusade of yours. However ISO codes are the logical middle point in which neither of us get exactly what we want so they are probably a reasonable compromise. There are no clear guidelines against it, they have been suggested by other admins as a reasonable solution to the flag debate, and they cover the information removed in a reasonable way. This may change over time, but I think at the moment this works well enough. I'm tired of this debate but it doesn't seem to be going away, ad as long as it's not we might as well try and lay out a small patch of middle ground that we don't have to fight over.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)