Hello, Rickyc123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Nice work on the Chase Sherman page! Gave it a look over and threw up some extra info in there to bolster it some more. Udar55 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, at the end of articles, please include a section Notes or a section References. Under that, please include a reflist, so your references display there. Example:
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
Thanks.Elliot321 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
[User talk:Sir Sputnik|talk]]) 14:49, 16 October 2017 (U[reply]
There is a long standing consensus described in WP:NMMA. Three top tier fights. Personally I don't get to bothered by close but the last one was to far and really not that notable in context.PRehse (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Sean O'Malley (fighter)) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Rickyc123: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've immediately recreated a number of the redirects that were deleted at the conclusion of the discussion. Please could you desist in doing that. HornetMike (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on UFC 229 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vanjagenije(talk)21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're not communicating at AN/I, where I tried asking nicely, now I'm warning. Your penchant for cut-and-paste moves has resulted in a drain of time and effort on the part of other editors, and continuing to do so will be considered disruptive, and will result in a block. Please thoroughly review WP:MOVE, and only move pages as instructed there. Cut-and-paste moves literally require effort to clean up after, and are only performed by incompetent users, or users who are trying to falsely take credit for creating articles. Neither will be tolerated. Thanks, Swarm♠00:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest article Kalindra Faria was clearly taken from Draft:Kalindra Faria, and while you at least made some effort to paraphrase and add some new content, things like the infobox and the mixed martial arts record table were clearly copied from the original draft. If you are going to make an article based so heavily on someone else's draft, why not just move the other editor's draft to the mainspace and make your changes/add new content after? And once more, the draft you based your article on was undergoing the AfC process and will now be rejected on the basis that the article already exists. Pinging Swarm who might want to weigh in on this behavior. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OH my god are you actually serious is this what is going to happen every time I make a new article now. I've learnt from my mistakes and I don't copy drafts. This article was done a 100% by me I included everything manually myself and I didn't use anything from the draft. I hadn't even looked at the draft. How stupid do you think I am that I would use a draft especially after already being given a warning like a week ago.Rickyc123 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
I've seen the draft now and mine and their copy is completely different. We've used different sources, put in different information and the Infoboxes and the record table are different. It annoys me because it took me like 3 hours to make that article and for you to say I haven't done anything and I've stolen it Bennv3771 really takes the biscuits.Rickyc123 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Truly an amazing coincidence that there are so many similarities, including this same sentence: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216 against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out." Even the grammatical error (should be "drug test" not "drugs test") and the missing word (it should be "make her UFC debut") are exactly the same! Bennv3771 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOH! Bennv3771 I made one spelling mistake and that makes me somebody who's copied something and every single UFC fighters article when talking about their debut uses that same format of at what year, at what event and against who it is. The bit about USADA, I copied from this article here.[1]Rickyc123 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
We are talking about the same wording and exact same sentence structure and the exact same spelling mistake and the exact same missing word. This article you linked uses a completely different sentence structure and wording: "Lee, a first-time UFC fighter, was removed when it was discovered she had a previous anti-doping violation, which required her to enter the USADA drug testing pool for six months prior to fighting in the octagon." Bennv3771 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's as though you're not listening to what i'm saying everybody when talking about drugs tests and debuts in MMA articles uses that format when describing UFC fighters debuts. And nobody calls it a drug test, everyone calls it a drugs test although it may technically be a drug test. I obviously had to reword what was in the article to make sure it sounded right on Wikipedia. And as for the rest of the article tell me where I've supposedly stolen from. That is just 10 words in about 500 words tell me if I copied everything where did i get all that research I had to do myself to find out who she fought, I had to get sources to prove they've fought that person. In fact there infobox is better than mine and has more stuff in it. So if I was such a perfectionist and liked to steal things tell me why I wouldn't just steal all the good bits if I stole it. Bennv3771Rickyc123 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
No point arguing it between us. Let's wait to see if User:Swarm wants to weigh in, otherwise I will bring this to ANI. And I most certainly do not think that you are in any way a "perfectionist". I don't know where you got that idea from. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure now when you can't find anything else that says I copied from a draft. You try and end the conversation but every time you had supposed "evidence" you'd come back and reply straight away. For once when now I actually am in the right. I am looking forward to seeing what User:Swarm has to say about this.Rickyc123 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Hi Ricky, I see you're taking yet another break during an ANI complaint, but unfortunately we cannot let this ago any more. No mitigating factors have been provided at ANI, and your defense was not believable to anyone. Given the severity and willfulness of what comes down to copyright infringement, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Swarm♠05:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
When blocking me the admin only waited for 3 people to agree with him all of which have had problems with me in the past and I have never ever vandalised at all in any of my contributions and they have all been good faith edits. When you look at the edits they had a problem with it was like 6 out 1602 edits I've ever made and if it means anything I won't copy and paste drafts because I really don't want to be blocked and it's just annoying when I see little things like an article that has links to the wrong person with the same name and I can't correct it/
Decline reason:
This wasn't just "6 edits", there was a history of multiple times where you took drafts and published them as articles you did yourself. Adding that the only reason you were blocked was people "had problems with you" leads me to believe this block is valid and needs to stand. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hey User: CASSIOPEIA, I was wondering if you could change the article Hayder Hassan as I can't. In his mixed martial arts record boxit says he last fought Felipe Portela however this is false as he fought Pavel Kusch and not Felipe Portela. Thanks--Rickyc123 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation ~~Rickyc123~~
@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 20:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for pinging all of you but not really sure who to ask regarding my situation. The AN Thread on whether or not I should remain unblocked has become archived without a decision being made therefore nobody has commented on what should happen in over 2 weeks. So I'm worried that it has been forgotten about and that my unblock request may never be addressed.
Thanks you in advance for any of you who can help me in finding out what will happen.Rickyc123 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration with Wikipedia's bureaucracy, but I don't really know anything about what's going on here. Do you want the unresolved section restored to WP:AN from the archives? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate and Dlohcierekim: I can let honest mistakes slide, but it was after this user asked for and received clarification on their TBAN that they engaged in article creation: 13:55 20 Feb, 18:07 20 Feb (the latter was created in the mainspace and subsequently draftified). I'm not sure what the excuse here could possibly be, either it was a willful violation or this user is a CIR case. ~Swarm~{talk}04:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Look above at NRP's comment, "and there doesn't seem to be anything specific about MMA topics." So, well, maybe some wiggle room. Awaiting user's reply, but this is the last straw, really. Dlohcierekim(talk) 04:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Dlohcierekim(talk)04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: To be clear, even if this user thought, for some reason, the TBAN was restricted to MMA articles, both creations would still would have been straightforward violations. They're literally both articles about MMA fighters! Facepalm~Swarm~{talk}04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and this is a real stretch, thought MMA was exempt from article creation TBAN. I know. But sometimes we hear waht we need to. Not saying it's a valid excuse, just a thought. Dlohcierekim(talk)04:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's bureaucracy, I guess all this could be pretty confusing. Rickyc123, you have to be more careful – you just got unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These look to me to be straight-forward violations of the unblock condition. I suggest we reblock immediately, particularly as the recreated articles were inappropriate. Barring that, I suggest stricter conditions. Perhaps, an indefinite topic ban (on all edits, not just article creation) on MMA and wrestling generally, appealable after no fewer than 500 article edits and 6 months, whichever comes first, with no warnings. In general, though, I think this is a pretty clear-cut case. They were unblocked with a ban on article creation and a warning about WP:ROPE. They broke this. We should reblock and be done with them. --Yamla (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake guys, I thought it would've been alright because I didn't technically create these articles right now but I changed them from redirects into normal articles. So I suppose I thought that I wasn't creating it, I was improving them as both fighters are scheduled to have their third bout so I thought that they no longer need to be redirects.Rickyc123 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can't apologise enough, I didn't realise I was violating my conditions and I changed redirects into normal articles as I thought I wasn't creating them but just changing redirects into normal articles and I thought it would be OK because the edits are constructive and not in bad faith. My mistake it won't happen again.
One question though, would I be allowed to create articles as drafts and then post them when I have permission from someone who knows something about MMA like User: CASSIOPEIA.Rickyc123 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can grant a mulligan. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and misinterpret restrictions. I should have been clearer. No article creation, even as drafts. Please confine your editing to editing existing articles and no redirect conversions into articles. No drafts. What was it? 6 months. Just straight editing on existing articles. When in doubt, please ask clearly and specifically. Dlohcierekim(talk)12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly with Yamla, this is a ridiculous and blatant violation with a poor excuse. A reasonable person couldn't possibly consider writing a whole brand new article to not be "article creation" simply because it was created from a redirect, and if he had read WP:TBAN, he would understand that the scope of these bans is as broad as possible and encompasses any grey areas. Also, users are expected to have the competence to understand and comply with bans, and to ask for clarification if there's anything they don't understand. If the admins responsible for imposing the TBAN want to take the blame for not being clear enough, that's fine, but this still needs to go on record as a violation. A second violation will be intolerable and Ricky should understand that the next one will likely be met with another indefinite block. ~Swarm~{talk}14:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A way in which I can prove that fighters reach notability is by using sites such as Sherdog or relevant media articles which prove these fights have occurred or that they will achieve notability. Before I got banned, I often used fighters profile on the UFC website which I also believe to be a suitable source to use. Before creating any MMA article I need to ensure that the subjects have had at least 3 top tier fights or are scheduled for a 3rd fight in a top tier promotion. I can use articles of fight announcements or results to prove they are notable.
I now know that the reason I shouldn't copy within Wikipedia is that everybody should gain attribution for what they create themselves (for copyright reasons and it easier to see who did what when looking at edit history). I now know what I should've done in these cases is that instead of copying and pasting the drafts and then improving it. I should have move the drafts first and then improved it. And rather than trying to copy and pasting it to a name I thought was better. I should have tried to merge the two articles or requested a name change. Can't apologise enough, I didn't really see the severity or issue at the time. Rickyc123 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand what you want me to do however from what I gather or think you want me to do. I believe that although Wikipedia doesn't need to include information such as how many takedowns or significant strikes are included in each fight or the betting odds as such sites such as tapology include. The only information which is required is the date, information, location, round, round time and method of victory an example I can show you I have produced below of Shane Burgos.
In terms of when fights of should be updated. Usually with high profile fights such as UFC fights. The result is on Wikipedia within minutes and usually reliable websites such as MMA mania and mmajunkie also have articles on the results within minutes. So it is very easy to find reliable news resources of fight results.
You say I don't understand it, but the usual convention on all UFC fighter pages is that the result is on within minutes and if you are saying don't put it on because potential disqualifications then fair enough but when you look at UFC fighter pages during events they're already on. So if we're following convention they're already on within at least 10 minutes. So you can't say it's wrong when everybody does it and it's the followed convention. For example Jon Jones following his no contest again Daniel Cornier had his record on his page as a win as there is no way to know if their is a USADA Violation until maybe 2 weeks after the fight and every single fighter I checked on the last ESPN card who had a Wikipedia, had their record updated by the end of the event.
And I'm not talking about updating fights while they happen I was talking about updating records later if they've not been put in yet or incorrect. Like up until about 2 weeks ago Hayder Hassan Wikipedia page had incorrect information and said he'd though Felipe Portela in April when he actually thought Pavel Kusch and his fight result against Hemant Wadekar which happened in September wasn't put up until 2 weeks ago either. And that was just because no other editor had seen or checked his page.
I don't know who to ask about this, but I was wondering if I could have an update on what's happening with my unblock request because it doesn't seem to be on ANI anymore or it's not on the unblock requests page. So I'm worried it may be forgotten about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyc123 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's visible at this location. The consensus was that you did indeed copy/paste content without attribution, that there were no mitigating factors, and implicitly, that your unblock request has failed and your block is endorsed by the community. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but doesn't the fact that the conversation has been archived mean that no one can now see it and as a result come up with an end judgement or decision on what is going to happen.Rickyc123 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating Danny Henry (fighter)! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please look at WP:CIT and WP:CITE on how to properly format citations and footnotes.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Brad Katona, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You were unblocked on 2019-02-19 under a topic ban on article creation for six months. When you immediately violated that topic ban, we gave you the benefit of the doubt. Rather than blocking you, Dlohcierekim very kindly clarified: "No article creation, even as drafts. Please confine your editing to editing existing articles and no redirect conversions into articles. No drafts. What was it? 6 months. Just straight editing on existing articles." You were warned at that point that your violation was "ridiculous and blatant". Well, you've once again blatantly violated your ban with this submission and this submission. You knew or should have known you couldn't work on Draft:Brad Katona at all during your topic ban. You continued to do so, in blatant violation and you then attempted to have the draft converted into an article. That's it, you are now done. You had six months to prove yourself but instead, repeatedly violated the terms. I have blocked you indefinitely. This block is placed after consultation with Swarm, NinjaRobotPirate, CASSIOPEIA, and Dlohcierekim but does not necessarily reflect their views. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't have a topic ban, I had an article creation ban. All I did was update the Brad Katona page so that when other people saw it was OK they could publish it. I don't see why I have been banned again for just editing a page when my ban was on article creation. It wasn't even a major edit, it was just updating a new fight. I have been very careful recently and made sure that I don't create any new articles and all my edits have been in good faith. I never had a topic ban on MMA articles. Just a ban creating any articles. I don't see why you are banning me for violating conditions which were never set out. I understand I made a mistake 2 or 3 days after I was unblocked but I don't see why it would even seem logical for me to deliberately break rules which expire in a few months anyway. Rickyc123 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you are essentially arguing you lack sufficient competence to edit here. What on earth did you expect you were doing by editing a draft page? Did you truly believe by editing draft articles, you were adhering to "No drafts"?!? By submitting the draft to become an article, did you truly believe you were adhering to "No article creation, even as drafts"?!? --Yamla (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you submit drafts for review, you are told whether or not they are competent. They aren't directly submitted. I already created that article in the past when I violated my conditions but all I did was update it and then check if it was alright by sending it to be submitted. I wasn't allowed to publish articles from drafts but nowhere did it say I couldn't edit on them.Rickyc123 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Please confine your editing to editing existing articles" (articles, not drafts), "No drafts", "Just straight editing on existing articles", "Rickyc123 unblocked with a topic ban on article creation for six months." I'm done here. If you disagree with your block, you are welcome to request an unblock review. WP:GAB shows you how. I'll warn you, your reading of the terms is not consistent with what you were told, and not consistent with how the other administrators have understood what you were told. --Yamla (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was literally worded "Unblocked with a topic ban on article creation". In any case, claiming you had an "article creation ban" instead of a "topic ban" is meaningless. We don't nitpick wording here. A ban is a ban, borderline violations are violations, and competence to understand and abide by editing restrictions without violating them intentionally or unintentionally, is required. Your unblock was a second chance. Your subsequent free pass for "mistaken" violations that would supposedly "not happen again" was a third. You're out of rope. ~Swarm~{sting}00:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Brad Katona doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Needs 3 top tier fights
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Katona and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brad Katona, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Rickyc123!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over 4 years since I was last banned and although i cant remember why exactly i was banned, I do realise I was incredibly petty just by reading the replies ive sent people during my discussions. In truth I was incredibly immature, I was only 16 when I initially got banned and then 17 when I successfully appealled but still disregarded what the admjns said. I'm now 22 and understand that my banning was completely justifiable. I now believe i can become a valued and helpful editor in this community. And will fully adhere to any rules which have been set. Thanks, RickyRickyc123 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
I have lifted the block. The topic ban from Special:Diff/884078746) is still in effect, modified from "six months" to "indefinitely, appealable after no less than six months of constructive edits". You can appeal to me, directly, on my talk page. Be warned; this means no draft articles. No sandbox edits. Nothing that looks like you are working on a new article. To be crystal clear, "Rickyc123 unblocked with a topic ban on article creation for six months." becomes "Rickyc123 unblocked with a topic ban on article creation, broadly construed, indefinitely. This topic ban includes (but is not limited to) working on draft articles or any other form of potential article creation. It is appealable after no less than six months of constructive edits." Yamla (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No checkuser indication of block evasion. However, Rickyc123's unblock request does not clearly indicate they will adhere to their topic ban. I'd be unwilling to unblock without that topic ban being in effect indefinitely, appealable no sooner than after six months of constructive editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I'd be happy to adhere to any bans or restrictions you place on my account until such time that I can prove myself.
HiRickyc123, Good day. It has been a long time since you have edited after the ban. Welcome back and hope you edits from now onwards are constructive and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Pls note the following
1. Sherdog is the source for mma fights' record as per Wikipedia MMA guidelines.
2. We dont use Tapology or Sherdog as source for the body texts as they are the fight record. Source for the bout announcements and the results need to be supported by independent, reliable source such as from the newspapers or the mma sites such as MMA junkie, Cagesides Press, MMA fighting, Sherdog (article section), and etc.
3. All info added or changed needs to be supported by independent, source for verification - see WP:PROVEIT by the editor who adds/changes the info. For such the fight orgranisation LFA/UFC/KSW and etc. site can NOT be used as the source since it is not independent. Pls also note that since ESPN has extremely close business relationship/business contracts with UFC, thus ESPN site can not be used for UFC fighters pages and UFC article in Wikipedia.
Let me know if you have any questions or need assistance for I am here to help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeiatalk01:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Yeah I'm a little rusty on what's allowed and what isn't. It makes sense I can't use non independent sources. As I'm sure in lower promotions they have incentives to lie and build up there fighters records. Moving forward, I will try and make sure that all information I include is using an acceptable and reliable source. Thanks Rickyc123 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. Not only the lower promotions but even the top tier promotion such as UFC or in the matter of fact any companies or organizations sites are considered nor reliable as it is considered not reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (who is there to fact-checking if the info is published by the primary source?). Btw, understand you are in college now. Enjoy the collage life and study hard. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeiatalk10:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks. Yh I plan on making the most of Uni this year and next with obviously Covid ruining the first couple of years. And yeah I understand which sources are OK now. Just needed clarity as to what I could use as a source. Thanks Rickyc123 (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Just needed clarity as to what I could use as a source" not sure that was a question. Anyway, even if the source is independent and reliable, we dont use the source info for not significant info. If the source info is relevant and significant to the subject then we can paraphrase the info from the source and added/updated/changed the content of the article. Btw, since you said "Uni" instead of college, I guess you are from AUS. Cassiopeiatalk11:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yamla, last year I was unbanned from Wikipedia after 4 years away and I was given the condition of an indefinite ban on article creation that was appealable after no less than six months of constructive edits. I believe that since I have returned I have made constructive edits throughout the MMA community and was hoping I could lift my ban on article creation as I believe I would be a valued asset to Wikipedia. I promise to ensure that the Fighters articles that I make meet the required notability for MMA here at Wikipedia. When you unbanned me, I was told to come appeal to you directly on your talk page if I wanted to lift my topic ban on article creation. And I believe I'm ready now. Many thanks, Ricky.
Rickyc123 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied. You have avoided anything that looked like article creation, and have generally edited constructively. The following is a suggestion but absolutely not a requirement. Please go cautiously with article creation. I suggest (suggest, not require) you work on no more than two or three articles at the same time, and strongly suggest (suggest, not require) you work through the WP:AFC process to get independent review on your drafts before they are moved to full article status. To be clear, you are no longer under the topic ban, I just hope this advice provides you the best chance of further success. Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic ANI noticeboard.
Facepalm ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
