User talk:Willdawg111

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willdawg111 (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 16 January 2013 (→‎How to archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Willdawg111, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Julian 'Nitrane' Lane

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Julian 'Nitrane' Lane, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. LlamaAl (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should explain everything succinctly and eloquently to the blackkite admin fella who deleted it. Then if that doesn't work use the appeal process. i dropped you a note on my talk page. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs)

Hi there. I don't believe we met. Let me just apologize in advance for the somewhat brusque message I've just left at User talk:PortlandOregon97217#Removal of comments and Afd from a banned user. I assure you that I have nothing against you personally, but I'm worried that if PO heeds your advice, he'll get himself blocked. So please forgive me if I've offended you in any way, but I really felt I needed to make it clear that your comment did not negate Bwilkins' warning. Discrediting your remarks seemed like the least of all possible evils. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you interpreted what I was saying wrong. I was actually trying to do the opposite. Just in case he took it the same way that you did, I went back and clarified it.Willdawg111 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. There's a fine line between a "there, there" to an editor on thin ice, and an endorsement of their actions; I'm glad to see you're on the right side of that line. Incidentally, you might want to check out WP:AN#personal attack, as it's about a response to the barnstar you left Portland. Even more incidentally, it's always nice to meet another editor in good standing who's been blocked - this userbox might amuse you. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out what that was. People are giving out barnstars to editors that are having to be permantly banned, so I really don't understand why there is an issue with me wanting to recognize somebody who I believe is working for the best interest of the project. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he's doing a good job with WP:TUF, but it was too early to give out a barnstar IMO. Regards. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is working hard to help move the project in a positive direction. There are a couple barnstars I've noticed given to people who I think in no way shape or form deserves it also, but I was respectful and stayed out of it. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are talking about JonnyBonesJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was fair and helpful before November. I will remove that barnstar. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than one that I had in mind, but really I don't care about that. It's somebodies personal opinion how good of job somebody else is doing, and it's none of my business. I'm really at the point, that I just want all the BS to stop, and want to try to build a good reference for people to rely on for MMA information. If I wanted to argue MMA I would go hang out on the forums. Can we just find a happy medium on issues, something that everybody can live with and will make everybody satisfied?Willdawg111 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Format changes

Hey, I understand where you're coming from on this but take a sec to read over the post I just made. I'm worried that you'll both probably end up blocked for warring over this which is pretty silly. I'm working on a post to the WP:ANRFC board to ask someone to review things, offer an opinion and suggest next steps. Would you agree to holding off anymore changes until that happens? Stuff like this sucks especially if articles are the WP:WRONGVERSION but no need for more drama around here if it can be avoid. Sound okay? Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at ANRFC is here. No idea how long it will take but hopefully not too long. Ravensfire (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to it, but he is still making changes and trying to dictate his agenda. Diplomacy is a 2 way street. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strikeout

I think the strikeout is a good idea. A conservative move at that PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a great idea if JadeSnake is a sock puppet or mirror user. Willdawg keep doing it.

So I'm signing off from the wiki mma project and will just lurk from now on until some outside force acts to move on the project and create a rational guideline for notability, that doesn't revolve around inheriting notability from an event. But, do drop me a line or point out any of the far flung wiki pages that I might have input on. I think I might go look around over at the martial arts project or the kickboxing taskforce. I'm a big k-1 fan too. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. See if I can maybe get pushing on the K-1 side I can get an overlap into k-1 heros maybe. But yeah, I'll keeo an eye out for julian lane refs. That was bogus what happened to that article. But, I'm thinking he really needs just one or two new refs to take it back for some kind of a re-creation appeal. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

== 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

According to the talk pages guidelines, it is better to archive. If you don't know how, a bot can do it for you. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willdawg111&oldid=533432107"