User talk:Willdawg111

TAKING A BREAK!!
I have some big stuff about to happen at my gym that I need to focus my time on.
I have worked hard to keep the cyber bullies in the MMA project in check, although many times it seems like a losing battle. Sorry to leave you guys hanging, but I'm about to start working on a big project that I need to spend time on. Hopefully it's still in 1 piece when I get back.

Willdawg111, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Willdawg111! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Welcome to WP:MMA

Wow! 15 new members in October! Welcome CarlosB2709, ComputerJA, De132Wiki, Dolson94, I remember halloween, Miufus, MMAcleanup, Onebadtown, Poison Whiskey, Rissx, RonSigPi, Stewwie, TheAmazingChandler, Willdawg111, and WilsonFiskUFC. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Help Links and personal reference list

This is just links and information put on my talk page that I want to save while keeping my talk page clean

• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page
• Wikipedia:Article wizard
• sandbox
• WP:DRV Black Kite (talk)
• use {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} to close non-controversial AfD's
• Twinkle makes the AfD proccess very easy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
• WP:NMMA
• WP:GNG
• policies and guidelines
• WP:REFUND)
• Wikipedia:Too soon
• Wikipedia:Recentism
• WP:TUF PortlandOregon97217 (talk)
• WP:REALITYSTAR
• WP:Indentation
• User:Willdawg111/Archive1
• WP:ARCHIVE

MMA notability proposal Work in Progress

I'm working on laying out details for a proposal to put before the MMA project to create a point system of notability. Please DO NOT change anything in this section. If you wish to contribute ideas, please do so, I want to hear what people think, however, please create another section below for that. Thanks.

To obtain Notability as a MMA fighter, the person must accumulate 1,000 points. To get the points, the person doesn't have to win the fight, just participate. For whatever reason, sometime fights do not get recorded into the record books, in which case, all the fighter would need is a reliable source to prove the fight took place. Not having the required points would not negate possible notability for other sports or entertainment.

1,000 points

• UFC Championship fights

750 Points

• UFC main card fight (Zuffa era only)

500 points

• UFC undercard fights (Zuffa era)
• UFC (pre-Zuffa era)
• Pride FC

250 points

• Ultimate Fighter contests (does not include finale)
• Bellator
• Shooto
• Strikeforce
• Affliction
• Dream
• WEC
• Invicta FC
• Elite XC

150 Points (ammatuer fights for these organizations do not count)

• Fighting Rings
• World Victory Road
• M-1 Global
• King of the Cage
• One FC
• Pancrase

100 points (amatuer fights for these organizations do not count)

• BAMMA
• Cage Warriors
• Deep
• Jungle Fight
• Bad Breed
• Konfrontacja Satuk Walki
• Maximum Fighting Championship
• Shark Fights
• Ultimate Challenge MMA
• Universal Reality Compbat Championship
• NAAFS
• Cage Rage Championships
• Palace Fighting Championship
• Tachi Palace Fights
• WSOF

50 Points (ammatuer fights do not count)

• All organizations not listed above

Willdawg111 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

comments

So amateur fights don't count in general?

I was thinking this looks nice. If a particular UFC fight was replayed on the main broadcast (and sources can be found to confirm) I think it should count as a main card fight for points purposes.

You are breaking my heart not putting Pride on equal footing with the UFC. I also think TPF/PFC should be worth more. I went on a rant about it on the mma project talk page a little while ago. I also think Sengoku/WVR and EliteXC should be bumped up to the strikeforce catagory. THey put on some big fights. While might be a little outdated, it shows that EliteXC was getting half decent ratings on primetime. Although I do think that no amount of fights with deep, jungle fight, or naafs is enough to make someone notable without the third party sources to support them. Once you hit eliteXC's current level (still think it should be higher). I'm not familiar with Invicta to comment on them. nice start, its good to see people shaking things up. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that ammy fights are just for learning and experience. It's something that can be discussed, but I'm pretty sure people aren't going to want to include them. I put Pride and pre-zuffa UFC at the same level which isn't quite as notable as Zuffa UFC. Those guys were doing MMA before MMA was even a sport. They would do multiple fights in one night, they didn't have the rules that made it a cedible sport. Not to mention, the fan base back then was small compared to what it is now. I'm a huge supporter of fighters like Coleman and Randleman, but they just don't carry the same notability as current champions do. I just did it as a starting place, it's going to be open to the consensus, so wherever everybody wants to go with it is what we can do. To me, Elite XC lacked credibility. Gary Shaw was being investigated criminially for paying somebody to not take the fight to the ground against Kimbo. They did get some good ratings, so if most people agree they should get more notability, lets move them up. Invicta FC was started about a year ago by a former UFC/KOTC executive. Bellator, Srikeforce, and now the UFC were putting on a select few female fights, but they have emerged as the go to place for female MMA. There event on Jan. 5th is going to be a PPV event. They are quickly on their way to being a top tier promotion for women's MMA. I think some of there fights are available free on youtube, if anybody is unfamiliar with them, I encourage you to check them out. They have yet to put on anything less than an exciting and well done show.Willdawg111 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the coverage elitexc had for it's being crooked(It got off the hook) would enhance notability/infamy. EliteXC was real while it was happening and there is also alot of mentioning in this Huffington post srticle PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On the otherside of the coin they were a pioneer for women's mms showing the first televised womens mma event on showtime. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a really good point about the coverage they were recieving, I moved them up. I need to figure out how to present this in a way that we can take a vote and actually make the changes if it gets approval. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i was also wondering about K-1 heros/ If by chance no consensus is reached on this I feel like it would be a win if people could be convinced to add WFA and Hero's to top tier. I mean, Shooto is on there. I noticed that paralimpiakos(sic) seems to be the only other person concerned with the current tier system. He makes a good point about there being no point of having tier one/two if tier two counts for nothing. His complaint seems to be answered in part by your proposal.

edt:don't forget about BodogfightsPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just curious if you were going to vote yay or nay over at yagers afd. I added some WP:SOURCES as well. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for the SPI on JonnyBonesJones! LlamaAl (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

TUF fight notability

First of all, thank you for building a table for fighters that do not have a wiki page. I'm sure it will be very useful both now and down the road.

With that being said, I wanted to talk about the TUF fights and their stance on wikipedia. I went back and read the discussion on MMA notability from last month and do understand your point. However, wikipedia consensus from Day One is that the fights do not count toward the three top tier fights necessary for WP:NMMA. The details about the NSAC and the time limits are accurate and would be a valid reason in most cases. But there's one big difference. The UFC recognized fights on TUF as exhibition bouts, not as professional ones. In my opinion, they are an important part of an article on, say, Amir Sadollah of Rashad Evans. But consensus has always been that such bouts are on the same level as if the UFC were to hold amatuer bouts, which WP:NMMA says do not count toward notability.

I appeciate your passion in defending MMA articles, but the policy and consensus as they stand aren't on your side. However, if you could prove a TUF fighter meets WP:GNG, they should be exempt from deletion. Key word, of course, is "should." That's what saved Mike Ricci and Neil Magny from deletion, but it's not easy to prove to some editors whose names we all know and don't need to name.

I hope you understand and continue to help out on the fighters list. Thank you again for trying to keep MMA on Wikipedia. Luchuslu (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That arguement is solid if one were to apply it to getting rid of the 3 fight requirement and making NMMA only be about having a belt in the top tier, or having multiple significant fights that can be verified with non-trivial/result type announcements. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus not to count TUF fights. There are people who claim that but if you look at the afd discussions, the group is clearly split on this subject. We don't have anywhere near a consensus for or against counting them, so by default we need to follow the guidelines as they are written, and there is no way that you can consider them ammy bouts. It is illegal for somebody to take part in an ammy fights once they turn pro, not to mention, ammy fights are 2-3 minute rounds, they use way more rules, and they use bigger gloves. TUF doesn't even come close to being an ammy fight. Willdawg111 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously TUF fights aren't actual amateur bouts. But they certainly aren't on par with regular UFC bouts. As I'm sure you know, TUF fights are two rounds with a third in case of a draw, and some on TUF Live were just one five-minute round. They are considered exhibitions, which you correctly point out are sanctioned by the NSAC. I reviewed all the active AfDs on WP:MMA and the page on WT:MMA and only Paralympiakos, Sepulwiki, PortlandOregon97217 support your interpretation of WP:NMMA. Also, most of the opposition to your interpretation is not "a BS smoke screen by people who don't want to count them to try to avoid the facts" like you asserted earlier. Yes, some editors will be against anything to expand WP:NMMA, but the majority are not. I understand where you are coming from, but it's just not the way a vast majority of editors interpret the policy. Luchuslu (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== mma talk ==/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Organization_notability_for_Shooto

I haven't seen your input on this page. Not at the Shooto article directly, although I think you will be amused at how Poison Whiskey can't hold a candle to my ability to use a search engine, or my general mma knowledge. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically you can look at this thread. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Question from the ANI discussion

Willdawg111, I originally posted as a response to your recent comment on ANI but decided it would be better/easier just to ask here away from as much of the drama. (Talk page watcher, please, if you don't mind, don't jump in on this one except for clarification. Humor me, if you would.) I'd like to focus on one of the edits in question -[one]. It's an edit to the results table made on January 12th, well after the result format discussion on WT:MMA was closed. In that edit, you moved the judges votes from the method to the decision column to the notes column. Do you think that matches the format deemed the consensus preferred format in the WT:MMA discussion? If it doesn't, why didn't you follow that format? Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (EDIT - I realized after posting this that it sounds a bit like a "gotcha". I apologize for that, I'm not trying to do something like that and won't carry anything from this to anywhere else, nor encourage anyone else to do so. I'm trying to understand a few things and see if maybe there's something that can be done to reduce the drama level.) Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at it, it appeared the voting was for the new table, and when you look at the admin closing it out, he specificially left it open for minor changes. That's all I did. If you read consensus, consensus specifically says that one way of reaching consesnus is by the way you edit. I was using my editing to express my view on what conensus on the details should be. Everything by the book. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call moving information from one column to another a "minor tweak", especially given that the format matches you proposal that didn't garner significant support in the MT:MMA discussion. I agree with you that consensus can change, but disagree with how and when. Here, there was a project-wide discussion about how the tables should look. I understand that you don't like the results of that discussion but you should respect how it turned out if you want others to respect the results of other discussions. I don't see a problem with opening a discussion about moving the judges votes from the method column to notes. Given that others have reverted the changes, I think you should consider following the results format as close as possible until there's a larger discussion on changing it. I appreciate you giving your thoughts here, by the way. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you have any thoughts on the templates to support the format, I'd appreciate any comments on the WT discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How to archive

If you're curious, there are some instructions on archiving at WP:ARCHIVE. Basically, you create a separate userpage, like User:Willdawg111/Archive1, and then move things there when you're finished with them on your talk page. I've often found it useful and/or entertaining to be able to go back to older conversations; feel free to look at mine to see one way they can work. There's also a program that will automatically archive; I don't use it, but lots of people do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Apologies for interjecting again, but I saw your edit comment about not know what archiving is. It's something that's used on Wikipedia to keep discussion pages, including user talk pages, to a manageable length. It's purely optional and can be done automatically or manually. If you look at my talk page, for example, you'd see a box in the top right corner called archives. I'm just not that active so I don't get a lot of talkpage posts. For me, I just manually archive (basically move posts from my talk page to a sub-page of my user talk) posts periodically. I used to delete annoying posts but I rarely do anymore - I just ignore stuff I don't care about. There's also automatic archiving which is common for users that do have a lot of posts on their talk page or on many article/project talk pages. The WT:MMA page has the archive box at the top. If you click on the Edit this page link on the MMA talk page you'd see some template code at the top about MiszaBot. That's the bot that automatically archives the page according to the settings in that template code. The page WP:ARCHIVE has some more information on archiving.

Archiving or not archiving is entirely up to you. Mainly, it's done to help keep the talk page to a manageable length - lots of talk topics can be hard to navigate and slow to load! Some editors just delete periodically and rely on folks to use the page history. I like have the archive around for searching in case a comment I made in the past is relevant. Setting up automatic archiving is pretty easy to do if that's what you'd prefer. Then again, so is periodic deleting. It's up to you. Let me know if you'd like any help setting up an archive.

Thanks. I just set one up and started moving some conversations that I didn't want to completely delete but weren't really needed right now. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I would suggest an archive box on your talk page to make it easy for you to get to your archive when needed. If you edit my talk page you'll see the archive box template that I used to create the box on my page. Easy enough to use and gives me an easy link to find them. Ravensfire (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the discussion at WP:ANI, and according to the rules of WP:General sanctions/Mixed Martial Arts, I am topic-banning you from the area for a period of three months. You are not allowed to make any edits to any articles or discussions concerning MMA-related topics during this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Discussion_(Support_or_Oppose) Can you take a look at this suggestion if is good? Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)