User talk:Udar55
Ray Mercer
I'm not gonna bother anymore.Not the worth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outerdrake (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Just like the kimbo dispute below, you keep making up this fake pro exhibition records that don't
exist! Its an oxymoron to create a record for an exhibition match for the very purpose of a exhibition is to not be included in any record.These tallies should only categorize for anything pro combat sports.That's why they are no amateur tally records.The exhibition match is already mentioned under "mixed Martial arts career".It is NOT a pro mma record.PERIOD
notice here their is no mention of the exhibition bout.http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Ray-Mercer-22389
UpDATE: That's because you put that in kimbo's page,that doesn't mean wikipedia thought you were right.Kimbo's page is now locked.
The person below stated such.You thought the mercer fight should have been in kimbo's pro record and then you decided to make that phony record.
Even in mercer's discussion page, someone else complain about that phony exhibition record.So i'm not alone in this.If you want to put mercer's k1 record that's fine.but don't put something that's not sanction under professional combat sport record.
ps:you coded the last edit wrong, your vandalizing his page to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outerdrake (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Kimbo Slice
Hey, I removed the win you added to his pro MMA record because the fight was an exhibition. If you visit his talk page you will see links provided stating such. Thesaddestday 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like I was a little quick on the draw there. I hadn't seen the new reports actually confirming matches for the event and confirming that those matches were for "UFC Fight Night 13". We've been having problems lately with UFC 83 & 84 (where everyone keeps fighting about where the event is and which set of fights might actually be the right ones for which event), so I've been keeping a close eye out for this article. Looks like there might actually be enough information to keep it by now. Gromlakh (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article EliteXC: Street Certified, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:EliteXC: Street Certified. From a quick skim of articles relating to EliteXC, few of them cite any reliable sources which demonstrate the sport's notability in the context of including it in an encyclopedia. The sport as a whole appears to be notable, but I don't see why the individual matches are. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably be better to place those references in the article rather than on my talk page. I still don't see how this event is notable when most individual sporting matches aren't notable (for instance, individual matches in major football leagues which are also generally very high rating TV shows). --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that you review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I don't think that Wikipedia is or should be an unofficial results database for this or any other sport. If you're not happy with the offical websites, then start a Geocities page or something. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably be better to place those references in the article rather than on my talk page. I still don't see how this event is notable when most individual sporting matches aren't notable (for instance, individual matches in major football leagues which are also generally very high rating TV shows). --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
EliteXC
On it! Gromlakh (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Beefed up the article, added several references, etc. It's on my watchlist now, so I'll help keep an eye on it. Hope that helps! Gromlakh (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Affliction: Banned, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Affliction: Banned and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gangsters
I haven't actually seen the film in question, but the article was unclear about its factuality. The editor that added that to the article originally was on an agenda-driven crusade so I wasn't prepared to accept his word for anything, but if you're sure the film is a reliable source then I'm entirely happy to accept it. Orpheus (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- An extra source - brilliant! (edit: and bloody interesting, incidentally.) Not necessary from my point of view, but let's face it - more sources are never a bad thing. If you wouldn't mind adding it to the article (if you haven't already), that would be extra spiffy. Thanks for correcting the article. Orpheus (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you add the professional MMA organization template to Affliction: Banned? It seems that none of the other events have this template at the bottom and it should probably be sufficient that it is on the Affliction Entertainment article. Is there any reason I shouldn't remove it from Affliction: Banned? --jhanCRUSH 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
An editor that expressed concerns before now completely ignores the sources and wants to say which sources are valid and which isn't. This in no way helps with the wiki article. Please have a say here:Talk:Strikeforce Sea888 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)