User talk:Paralympiakos/Archive 1

This is my first archive of talk page discussions. This period runs from early August to later September 2010

Bristol City season page

Hey. Regarding your comment about the match updates. No i wont be doing a review on every match. Just the vital matches during the season that really stand out. So if City go from 15th to 5th in one game and then back down then a brief explanation will be given. But no, not every match will be reported on. Ok. I really enjoy updating the page as Bristol City is my love, life and passion. Tomparfitt17 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's great. It's just that I see a lot of people kicking up a fuss when the small details are added and I just wanted to avoid that hassle with other people. Good to see that Bristol City is being represented anyway. They're not my first supported club, but they are a team I keep an eye on, on wiki. (Bristol-born, but moved away at the age of 2). Paralympiakos (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough buddy. No problem. Yeah the page will be updated by myself throughout the season. Im a season ticket holder so I get all the gossip. Mostly from the players. I get on well with them all. Me and Joe Edwards talk most of the time. Haha. Tomparfitt17 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Can I ask a quick question?? On my Bristol City season page. On the Season Stats (6 SEASON STATS) where its says total attendence, is that Home + Away Attendence or just home + home + home etc. Or home + home fans away from home attendence? Thanks tom

Tomparfitt17 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I actually don't know. I've never truly paid attention to season pages. I'd ask at WikiProject Football Paralympiakos (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Morecraft and Todd Brown

Our we not making articles for these two fighters? I had the Morecraft one and it was a fair article but you reverted it back to a redirect..I don't know why? but anyway, I'd like to know if we are making these articles or not? RapidSpin33 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. They fail WP:MMANOT. I'm not going to dispute pages already made, e.g. Spencer Paige etc, but the ones being created recently, I'm just stopping them for now because it might as well have a redirect and they can be fully created when they pass MMANOT. Morecraft has one top flight appearance (tonight's loss), not 3 as needed for notability. Paralympiakos (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see..well, Morecraft will be back so eventually he will have one but I'm not arguing it. RapidSpin33 (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I reckon you're right and that he'll have two more UFC appearances, but we can't crystal ball it. Hoping you're starting to get the hang of the MMANOT policy though. Keep me up to date with the TUF 12 stuff btw. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English/British fighters

Why are all English/British fighters accompanied by the cross of St George rather than the Union Flag? It seems to me that this displays an English nationalist agenda. The Union Flag is instantly recognisable to people of all nationalities whereas many people would fail to identify the George Cross. We don't have the flag of Hawaii representing BJ Penn or that of Quebec for GSP even though they have made clear that it is fundamental to their respective identities. Sonicology (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England: country. Hawaii/Quebec: state. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll just say that if people fail to recognise the English flag, they've got problems. The U.K. flag is a massive generalisation too. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an emotional investment in it either way, I would just like to keep Wikipedia consistent: Jenson Button for example is represented by the Union Flag on Wikipedia, as is Andy Murray however Joe Calzaghe is represented by the Welsh flag. Where is the consistency? Sonicology (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, ok, replace "argument" with "discussion" then.....usually this discussion turns into an argument though. I agree with you on the inconsistency. To my mind, the only time (I can think of) for when the Jack should be used, is when flags are used for a TV show, therefore "Doctor Who's place of origin is the UK" (considering it airs in all British countries and writing England, Scotland, Wales etc would be a pain in the arse, as well as unneeded). The argument on here seems to be that flags are based on whether the person represents their country in competition. Technically, MMA fighters don't, but at the same time, it boils down to ignorance for each countries' individuality and that a lot of American editors just slap the UK flag down. Another way I like to see it is if we think about competition, if you're English, do you feel that you represent Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron? My own answer is no. I don't have any problems with those countries, but I wouldn't choose to "represent" them....I'd have no links to them other than a very tenuous link in being "British". Paralympiakos (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The politics of nationality in the United Kingdom sure are confusing, if Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline on how to handle this sort of thing then they really should and preferably before the London Olympics. Sonicology (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I hate being from England simply because of the discussion about true nationality (Brit or Eng). My own preference (separate from what I think is right regardless) is that I have dual nationality - English and Scottish. Sadly, some people would see two of the UK nations and just say "yeah....you're British". I have no feelings either way for Wales or N.Ire, nor would I class myself as representing them, having ties to them or anything. The Olympics....in terms of athletes, e.g. sprinters, really we have to put British, since they're representing the British team, though MMA is a completely different ballgame. Officially, U.K. residents are "British", but then we also have the separate nationality within that.

As for wiki having a policy on the U.K., there is this. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but when that same sprinter is competing in the Commonwealth Games do we have to change their nationality again? And to further complicate things there are residents in the United Kingdom who don't associate themselves with any of the "home nations"; for example the island group I am from is currently nominally part of Scotland (was previously part of Norway) and I don't consider myself Scottish (neither do scientists, who acknowledge us as being a different genetic group than Scots) however since we don't have a separate parliament/law system like the Isle of Man (although confusingly uniquely for the UK some parts of Norse Udal law do still apply) then I could not compete under my islands flag and would probably be considered Scottish against my will. So yeah, nationality in the United Kingdom is confusing! Anyway thanks for your time, you have convinced me that the current nationality system for MMA fighters is fine and I am done here. Sonicology (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people's nationalities different in the Commonwealth Games? I always presumed they kept themselves as "Team GB" rather than Eng, Scot etc. Last time I saw the Commonwealth games was in 2002 when I was there live. Can't for the life of me remember how it was done. Out of interest, where exactly is this Scottish/non-Scottish place? Paralympiakos (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lolohea Mahe

How is his nationality American Samoan if he is born and raised in Hawaii —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's sourced....do not revert this again. You are basing your presumptions on zero sources, whereas the current version has A SOURCE explicitly stating he's American Samoan. It is perfectly viable that a foreign person might live in Hawaii. If you should add a source, please find one that states his NATIONALITY, not merely "the Hawaiian" as that will only tell us his home state (i.e. where he resides). Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say he is from American Samoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2492004 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....and I quote: "An American Samoan who resides and fights out of Kahului Maui, Hawaii, the heavy-handed 6-foot-4, 28-year-old had his fair share of pavement punchouts before turning to MAA in November 2007"

Secondly, can you please sign your posts with four tildes, by typing ~~~~ Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's of American Samoan decent it doesn't say he is from American Samoa.

Secondly please stop threatening people just because you don't agree with them--N2492004 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa! How have I threatened you? I've been perfectly reasonable and talked to you quite calmly and nicely. I gave you the customary warning for 3RR, but that's in no way to be judged as me "threatening" you. The sentence "an American Samoan" .....I really don't know how much clearer that could be. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider African American a nationality?--N2492004 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be an ethnicity, but you do realise that American Samoa is still a country, right? Sure, it's technically a territory of the U.S., but a country regardless, just like the Cook Islands or Tonga. All of those islands are nations and they all represent themselves separately in sporting competitions. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you don't seem to understand I have yet to see a source that says he is from American Samoa he is from Hawaii which is a part of the United States--N2492004 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please move up the page about two inches. I've quoted the proof from the source on Mahe's page. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says he's of American Samoan decent--N2492004 (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll quote it once again: "An American Samoan". It doesn't say "A man of American Samoan descent" It's the same as if the quote said "An American". Paralympiakos (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Manuwa

Not sure why you nominated him for deletion. He is a top ten in the UK and a current champ. Much more prominent than Abdul Mohamed or Eduardo Dantas, who you have added. Udar55 (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mohamed, an English veteran, who has faced pretty much everyone in the UK and Eduardo Dantas, a much hyped Shooto legend. Doesn't really compare. Paralympiakos (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Per your deletion notice on the Manuwa page, "No fights for a top MMA organiation. Fails WP:MMANOT." Mohamed clearly fails that standard. I assume you'll nominate him for deletion, right? Unless you consider Cage Rage and Ultimate Challenge (which Manuwa fights for) top MMA organizations. Quit being so draconian. Udar55 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMANOT - read that. You say quit being draconian....quit being bitter and looking for revenge! Have a read of the link I quoted and you'll be fine. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I looking for revenge? After all, I haven't nominated anything for deletion. I've read that plenty of times. If you consider Cage Rage top tier, which I assume you do, it brings us to a conundrum. If the defunct Cage Rage was top tier, why would you not consider the same promoter's new promotion, Ultimate Challenge, non-top tier? Ultimate Challenge is easily the top MMA org in the UK and Manuwa is the champ there. Can you name one higher? If you can, I will cease the argument. Udar55 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume you'll nominate him for deletion" - that's a vague threat, which is interpreted as "you do it, or I will"

Cage Rage was top tier and was the biggest promotion in England there ever was and likely ever will be. Just below that was Cage Warriors, which is just reformed now. On a par with UC at the moment would be (just) the reformed Cage Warriors and DEFINITELY above them would be BAMMA. Just because a promoter starts a new promotion, doesn't give it the same reputation. For example, DREAM, while now a top organisation, is nowhere near as big as PRIDE. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop seeing threats when there are none. That was sarcasm to prove a point about your bias. But I've found an even better example from your history though. Please explain to me how in the world one Mark Adams is notable in any way, shape or form to warrant a page on Wikipedia. He has even less credibility as Manuwa and - gasp - fought for Ultimate Challenge! I'm sure it has nothing to do with your love of Wolflair fighters. Udar55 (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love of Wolfslair fighters? I don't even like Wolfslair. I will point out that Adams isn't a Wolfslair fighter however. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to tell me how he is notable to have a page. The hilarity of you getting all worked up over Manuwa's notability after YOU created a page for the even less notable Mark Adams is, well, hilarious. Please don't avoid the question this time and tell me how in the freakin' world you can justify that page? Udar55 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worked up about Manuwa's notability? You're the one sending messages to me! Mark Adams, appeared in a few promotions as notable at UC and has appeared for BAMMA, permitted on MMANOT and is their current champion, due to defend it. Therefore passes MMANOT. Stop clutching at straws, looking for revenge. Good day. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten that you started this by nominating Manuwa for deletion because he wasn't "notable." Your defense that Adams is the champ in BAMMA is laughable. You saying he has appeared in notable orgs like UC is even better. Good day to you as well. Thanks for the laughs and peek inside your "do as I say, not as I do" world. Udar55 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument about Adams was in response to you calling him far less notable than Manuwa. I'm saying that he's appeared in organisations as notable as the ones Manuwa has been in, but then has also appeared in much larger ones, for which he is the reigning champion. Ergo, Adams is way more notable. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thank you for your report on 173.186.25.118 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. you say "For the last six months, this individual has, across multiple IPs, attacked multipled MMA pages, adding false results in an attempt to confuse less knowledgeable readers." Unfortunately, just looking at this IP's edits, and without specialist knowledge of the subject, it is not obvious that this is vandalism. Perhaps you could give a little more information, such as perhaps diffs of edits by other IPs that you think are used the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. On UFC 109 alone, here is the page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_109&action=history

Note the edits by the reported IP (173.186.25.118). Also check the edits by 75.91.61.183 and 98.19.189.133. These are just a few of the IPs used by this/these individual(s). All of them introduce deliberate errors. However, admins refuse to protect the page, as despite the fact there will NEVER be new information for these past events, one admin argued against that. Sadly, this just opens up the possibility for these attacks, when no positive IP contributions have taken place. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the edits of those IPs. I am much inclined to believe you are right, but unfortunately without a knowledge of the subject I can't tell for certain exactly what the situation is. I see that the article you mention has been protected several times for short periods. For the moment I have semi-protected it for three months. From what you say, however, there are other articles involved. You could try taking this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: it is possible you may get help there. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well the most hit articles are the one you've just protected (thank you btw), UFC 108 (not hit for a while now though, admittedly) and the much-hit The Ultimate Fighter: Team Liddell vs. Team Ortiz Finale. Others hit occasionally are Matt Hughes (fighter) and Mark Coleman. I'm not sure what you mean by "without a knowledge of the subject"....do you mean of the topic of the page, or about protection policy in general? If the former, then I can assure you that the IP is just adding fake fights - uw-error, if you will.

The problem with ANI is that the IPs are varied. A rangeblock wouldn't be possible, as the only constant is that the IPs reside in Georgia. The city within, however, is different every time. Seemingly the only options are a) to permanently protect past event pages, but admins would never go for this, or b) perma-ban the violating IPs, again, a violation of the blocking policy despite the frustration faced in reverting this person's actions.

Honestly, I'm just at a loss. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand your frustration. By "without a knowledge of the subject" I meant of the topic of the page. Even if permanent blocks and protections are not possible, fairly long-term ones might be possible. I have to go off line now, but if you want to contact me again on my talk page feel free to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should rephrase. I know indefinite IP blocks aren't allowed. I meant long-term, but we'll attribute that to a brainfart. The only problem I foresee with that is that the IPs that haven't committed in several months.....if they're long-term blocked due to the fact we know they're connected, would create all kinds of tension with other sysops presumably, as blocks are a preventative measure. Therefore the lack of activity (despite what we know about the IP hopping) would be enough to argue AGAINST a block, for some people.

Did that make sense? Hope you can understand what I mean through all that rambling. Cheers for continuing with this matter anyway! Paralympiakos (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what you mean. The trouble with blocking the IPs is that on the one hand it might risk collateral damage to other users, while on the other hand it would probably be ineffective, as the user would just spring up on more IPs. This combination of not doing much good with a risk of doing harm makes it an unattractive option. Semi-protecting the relevant articles would probably be more effective at stopping the damage, but would pretty well certainly inconvenience innocent users, rather than just possibly. Personally I often look at the edit history of IPs that have been the source of trouble, and if it seems clear that all the edits over a long period have been from the same editor then I am perhaps a little more willing than some admins to block for an extended period. However, even then I tend to hold back and usually not make blocks very long, because I think that an admin should try to act according to the accepted consensus view, not use his or her powers to carry out his or her own agenda. Unfortunately there really does not seem to be any really effective way of dealing with long-term IP-hopping vandalism, and it largely comes down to reverting and continually imposing short term blocks to limit the damage.Nevertheless, if you would like to give me a list of as many as you can of the IPs involved, and a list of the articles involved I will look at them and see what I think. It would probably be easier for you to make such a list than me, as you are more aware of the situation. However, I am not likely to have time to do anything at all about it within the next couple of days. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report

This is the report for all edits I could find from the Georgia vandal. They are in reverse chronological order. Some troublemaking edits may be missing due to skim reading.

Edits to Mark Coleman

173.186.31.129 - here, adding a dozen fake fights
75.91.61.64 - this, about a month or so earlier
98.19.216.7 - a gap of two months (March 18)
75.91.54.101 - this and this (both in late February, within a few days of each other.) - were also about 7 similar edits on the 17th February that I won't quote for time and space.

Edits to UFC 109

173.186.25.118 - two days ago - August 11
75.91.61.183 - a month earlier - July 9. Also 4 identical edits just minutes before that were reverted.
98.19.189.133 - a day earlier on the 8th. The quoted link was a restored version after I'd already removed the same vandalism hours earlier.
173.186.23.90 - massive amounts of vandalism to about a dozen articles here.
174.131.181.235 - this is half the changes. Trying to quote all the changes into one link as I've done so far couldn't happen as it split onto two pages of history.

Vandalism to multiple pages takes place on some accounts. In short, the most affected articles are:

Lesser hit ones are:

All IPs are from the state of Georgia. Most have had page protection as a result of this individual's actions.

The latest one that I forgot was Special:Contributions/173.186.25.118. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time with the report and let me know what action (if any) is going to be taken. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Paralympiakos (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Georgia vandalism last night to Mark Coleman. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry for not getting on to this earlier. It got lost among the various tasks waiting for attention, and forgotten. I have semi-protected most of the articles you mentioned. The ones about historical events I have indefinitely semi-protected. As you have rightly said, there will never be never be new information about them, and any corrections etc can be dealt with via edit-protected requests. I have not protected Alistair Overeem or Randy Couture, as neither of these seems to have been hit recently, but please feel welcome to contact me if they are hit again. Of course there is no guarantee that the vandal won't get round these measures, but it should stand a reasonable chance of helping. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. I've seen the traffic on your talk page, so I know you're a busy guy. Thanks very much for the help. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight Classes & MMA Infobox discussion at MMA WikiProject

Hey Paralympiakos. There is a discussion going on at the MMA WikiProject in regards to stating a fighter's weight class in the infobox. Would be good to get your input as well if you are interested in providing it there. Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paralympiakos. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia vandal

I have read your note on my talk page. I'm afraid I had forgotten about it. Thanks for reminding me. Unfortunately right now I have to go off line, but I will try to look at it as soon as I can. If you don't hear from me again within 24 hours please remind me again. Things I don't deal with immediately sometimes get lost in a backlog of talk page messages and forgotten, so reminding me is theh right thing to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I've seen a few of the problems you've had on your talk page this week, so I don't blame you. As before, no rush, as the problems don't seem to be present right now. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nick Pace

On 21 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nick Pace, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Griggs

I have been looking at the Chad Griggs article for the past week and it's been driving me absolutely crazy, that article could look amazing. There is so much on this guy, articles, interviews, etc..I was wondering if you would take it under your wing and revamp it? RapidSpin33 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bud. Yeah. I'll take a look at it in the next 24 hours. A little busy during the days at the moment, but I'll probably make a few tidying edits later tonight. You read my TUF 12 updates? Paralympiakos (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read them but I didn't watch to many videos, my laptop was being lame. Anyway, Mike Pierce would be another one that really needs updating and editing. RapidSpin33 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably does need doing. I'll get down to them at some point. I'm currently dealing with someone dealing any mention of Mexican heritage for various fighters. Suddenly Diego Sanchez and Cain Velasquez don't have Mexican nationality. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cain has a tattoo that says, "Brown Pride"...If that's not Mexican nationality, I don't know what is! RapidSpin33 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tbf, I'd prefer Cain to have the Mexican flag on event pages, as he's primarily Mexican, with U.S. citizenship. His parents are Mexican immigrants and Cain has that tattoo. However, pick your fights really. I've had a hard enough time arguing this at Ulysses Gomez. Not a chance I'd be able to permanently change Cain's flag. Too many IPs would revert it. One thing I don't like about the States is the public's propensity for "claiming" sportspeople based on them being born there (which only gives citizenship). Paralympiakos (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuwa

Your arguments for not including Jimi Manuwa in the Wiki database are more personal and subjective than anything else. You are going against the majority in this, as several users have indicated they want manuwa to have his own page^{[citation needed]}. Several mma fighters of less popularity and of less note have their own pages. The fact that he does not fight for one of the major organizations does not weigh more than the fact that his name is one people often search for, and wish to find info about. If you look at the number of google hits under his name you will see why. Please undo the deletion of Manuwa's fighter page, thank you.

See the tag I've added above. Also, when you're writing messages, put it at the bottom please.

Additionally, why is it personal? I don't know the guy. I've never heard of him. WP:OTHERSTUFF with regards less notable fighters. If there are less notable fighters, point them out. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. by personal I mean personal preference, seeing how the only valid reason you could give for not including him would be that he fights for a small organization. 'I've never heard of him' should also not be an indication whether or not he should be listed.

as for my argument regarding popularity, compare his hits on google with for instance these fighters, listed on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamil_Abdurahimov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Travers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Rosa

Manuwa fights in a small org but is the champion of that org, having had offers from the UFC but unable to obtain a visa as indicated in many of his interviews.

The sole fact that he fights in an org of less not should not be reason for not listing him, imo. I consider his popularity and perfect record / championship more important. However I'll leave it to your judgement. regards, iconian —Preceding unsigned comment added by IconianZ (talk • contribs)

Read WP:MMANOT. To suggest Rosa is less notable is hilarious. Manuwa fails it. Simple as. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I changed my answer to question 1, please reconsider your vote.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GAN for Jim Wallhead

I can take a look at the article and leave some comments, though my policy is not to GA review articles I've given one to before, which I abide by to make sure an article gets an extra set of eyes, which is better for all involved. On a surface read, it looks far better than what I failed, so I don't see a quick-fail happening. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Paralympiakos (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:TUF 11 Poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TUF 11 Poster.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accident on user talk page

Heya, looks like you accidentally deleted my comment here with an edit conflict or similar. Would you be able to fix it please? Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was looking at an edit difference and you will have posted a message whilst I read it. As such, I edited an old version without realising it. Sorry for the mix up. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Fighting Championship

I have removed your nomination of Ultimate Fighting Championship from WP:GAN. The article contains two cleanup tags (under evolution of rules) and thus qualifies for a quickfail. Instead of failing the article outright, I've just removed the nomination. Please fix the issues before renomination. I also suggest fixing the citation needed tag that appears earlier in the article and formatting the unformatted references with Template:cite web. In the future, make sure you tag the article's talk page with {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} to complete the nomination. Thanks. Nikki♥311 03:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I'll get on it soon. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massaranduba

Hi, now that Massaranduba is a disambiguation page, could you help fix these links that need to be pointed to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were these all linked to the tree? Massaranduba previously linked to the tree, not either of the towns. Why does the "what links here" page suddenly a show a whole host of towns? Paralympiakos (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the links were via the {{Santa Catarina Municipalities}} template, which has been fixed. It'll take a few days for the pages that transclude the template to become "aware" of the change and drop out of the what links here list. I'd say, give it a couple of days, and see what it looks like then. --JaGa^talk 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Jewtuszko

First you remove my article - I know it wasn't perfect, but decent for a start, and that is surely better than revert it back to a stupid redirection. You say it fails WP:MMANOT, but interestingly when you 'create' the page yourself a month later, failing WP:MMANOT is suddenly not a problem anymore. The only difference between my page and yours is that yours needs a good clean up, because it looks messy and contains ERRORS. That is exactly what I tried to do, but I see that you prefer amount over quality in your list of created articles, and don't care about sloppy work. Jewtuszko was a heavy underdog, just read some WEC 50 fight predictions (ANY), nearly nobody outside of Poland believed in him. Or just look at the betting favorite (Anthony Njokuani (12-3) -600 vs. Maciej Jewtuszko (7-0) +400). If he wasn't a heavy underdog, then I don't really know who is. And yes - my english isn't perfect as it is not my native or even second language, but wikipedia is not a dictionary - it's an encyclopedia and simple errors can be fixed by anyone later. Nilgsson (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this marked improvement. The individual didn't meet the criteria then. You may notice that since then, he's defeated a competitor in a large organisation and claimed the Knockout of the Night bonus. Far more notable now, than he was a couple of months ago.

Your effort also had no sources, half the record missing and errors. My version has resolved all of that. So what is wrong with my articles? Why are they "messy" (they're not) and why are they not high quality? Paralympiakos (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it was just a starter and created in a hurry - so there are huge gaps (like the record) - but it was sourced, no errors in the substance, and that is surely better than nothing. I wanted to add the rest a few days later when I find time, but there was no opportunity as you reverted it.

Ok maybe messy is the wrong word but the Jewtuszko article could use some changes. Why write about defeated opponents (btw. 'some of which in BOTE'? Both mentioned were in that promotion), if you can check them out in the record box below (like you said with the WEC debut adnotation)?

The most important thing - BOTE is not a promotion from Poland, it's Dutch. And furthermore, even if it was Polish, KSW is the premiere MMA organisation in Poland. You could look that up before writing about it, that is sloppy :/ they had like 14 events and are about 10 years in the business.

Also the weight of Maciej was no error, that is confirmed in recent interviews - and I dont't see a reason to replace it with the 155lb, because it is simply not his weight, and there is a seperate 'weightclass' section - so it's obvious that he has to drop to the 155 limit to fight in that division. As for the parts about being a heavy underdog and professional Muay Thai - I think it is valuable information.Nilgsson (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just noticed, that you created a page for Marcin Held. It's a good article about one of our greatest prospects, I appreciate it Nilgsson (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd advise against creating articles in a hurry then. Regardless, it failed the policy at the time, but I think you'll agree that he's far more notable now that he's picked up a win in the WEC against a decent opponent. There's no excuse for missing out a chunk of the record. If the Jewtuszko article needs changes, then go ahead, but stuff like the underdog thing needs sourcing. If you can find an article saying he was a considerable underdog, then use it. Your articles need a serious dose of sourcing.

The Held comment is appreciated, but I have to ask again, what is wrong with my other articles? Why do you say quantity over quality? I have both. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, there are some serious difficulties with sourcing information about fighters from Poland, as there usually is hardly any material on them in english. Even after an athlete makes his successful debut in one of the major promotions, things about that change slowly, as there is a lack of interest about an undercard fighter from somewhere in middle Europe.

Fortunately, Jewtuszko has made quite an impact with his KO of the night, and there is some material about him avialable - I have expanded the article using the sources in english I could find, please check it out.

Of course he is much more notable now after that performance in one of the worlds biggest promotions, but he also was before. He faced top European competition and fought at some of the biggest shows in Europe. BOTE often has live tv transmissions and gathers the best MMA fighters in Europe and kickboxers of the world. It saddens me to see, that MMA outside of the US and Japan is ignored or treated with contempt, whereas the sport evolves, there are fighters and shows worth mentioning, and wikipedia often fails to be a source of knowledge about them.

Also - I used the quantity over quality comment in connection with the Jewtuszko article, and I see that you do care about quality in other articles, so don't bother about that words anymore.Nilgsson (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well fair enough then. To be honest, I have no contempt for European promotions. Frankly, I wish I knew more about them. You may notice my newly-found preference for creating articles about Eastern-European fighters (e.g. Polish, Russian). I got tired of constantly seeing U.S. flags on my article table.

The fact of the matter is though, anything east of England (I'm English) is a relative unknown to me, hence the BOTE error. Simply put, they don't have the same exposure; perhaps rightly so, since they all end up in Japan or America anyway. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Nilsson, a little heads up. Check this edit difference after my cleanup. What I've noticed you do are the following:

You add ref names to every reference. A little advice, this is only needed for when we use the same source more than once. Instead of typing out the entire source, we just add "<ref name="source name here" />
The way you do your references....try to use the template you can see in that edit difference.
Try not to capitalise source names like you did for the mmaweekly source.

If you've any questions, feel free to ask. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your new preference for European MMA outside of England is a good thing ;) keep it up, my goal has always been better coverage of the fighters and events in Europe - if more people focus on that, the efect can only get better. Thanks a lot for the tips.Nilgsson (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I got the KSW XIV finalists done last night as well as Dawid Baziak who I've been intending to create an article about for nearly 3 months. I absolutely support the creation of MMA fighters outside of N.America, but if you're going to create some in future, just make sure they comply with WP:MMANOT, e.g. have three or more appearances for those organisations, or are very notable worldwide. Tabera, Baziak and Jan all met that criteria. Best of luck with the future. Any questions, just ask. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Błachowicz is an article I wanted to create the most for quite a long time now, but due to a lack of sources the only thing I did so far is make sure that all other pages link him. Finally, as I decided to create the article (starting with a redirection, like you did with Jewtuszko) it turns out, that you already did that :)

Still, most of the article is taken from and sourced only by the Leidecker top10 september fights, where Tim only gives very general information about fighters, and also included some errors. For example, Tim must have confused sth in the turning down offers due to KSW commitments part. Fact is, that KSW contracts are only exclusive in Poland, and allow fighters to participate in shows abroad (see Khalidov). The sole reason for turning down a few offers by Błachowicz was the knee injury he suffered. I hope, that after his KSW XIV fight in 2 weeks new articles about him will apear, making an upgrade of the wiki article possible.

Of course I also noticed your articles about Baziak and Tabera - you are doing a good job, thumbs up. Nilgsson (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he's right about the contract business. A lot of the major orgs want exclusive contracts and he's currently tied in to the KSW contract. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'd take down Jan and Maciej from your user space. You've had no part to play in their creation. You've only updated them. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, from the major orgs only the Zuffa-hold have exclusive contracts. Strikeforce, Dream, Bellator, Sengoku...and the smaller ones don't. Janek is obviously too big for the WEC, and the UFC is his dream - he has told that many times, so he would not hesitate to go there. So it does not make any sense, what Tim wrote. From what he said before, he was negotiating with Bellator about the participation in their HW tournament, and also had a booked fight on some small show in the US (can't remember the promotion now) - but due to the knee he had to drop out of both, as well as of a booked fight with Alexander Gustafsson in Europe, who then signed with the UFC a few weeks later.

In fact, I am just listening to an interview he has given yesterday, after a special KSW training for the media, and he is directly asked about the turning down many offers part. He said: not that I know of. Unfortunately, the interview and others he has recently given are in Polish Nilgsson (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Just thought I'd let you know that tagging for speedy deletion is all you have to do on non-controversial obstructed moves (where a move can't be completed due to something else on the title). That puts it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which administrators regularly patrol.

I would always recommend trying the move first before seeking assistance (I don't know if you did this or not, nor did I look at the redirect - I'm just saying). Sometimes it will go through, even when something already exists on the title, depending on the history of the target title.

So all in all, you handled it correctly, and put it through the correct process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a quick look around for how to list it, but couldn't find anything. I then asked you, but remembered to go to the history of redirects for deletion, where I'd mistakenly listed something prior. Going there gave me the link that someone quoted me and I tagged for G6. Sorry I took up your time :S Paralympiakos (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Diaz Revert

I noticed that you reverted a change I made to Nate Diaz’s page, where I fixed a broken reference by replacing it with one that worked. Why did you revert the working reference back to a broken one? Spartan Sharpie (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't realise the previous edit was broken. Seeing a fully filled out reference replaced with a dirty one didn't make much sense, so I reverted. Now noticing the error, I've fixed the previous version, so we now have a fully completed and relevant source. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEC 48 revert

I noticed you reverted the image to the old event poster. So I was wondering why you did that? and you usually change back almost all of my changes, Why is that? I'm kind of new to Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumardey (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've continually uploaded duplicate or disallowed files since you joined. First, you uploaded an exact duplicate of the UFC 114 poster and claimed you made it, which you didn't. Then you uploaded two different broken files for UFN 22 which had no licensing info on them.

The reason for my revert is that the WEC 48 poster is also up for deletion and it makes no sense to have it up. Might as well have the file that is allowed and is BARELY different to the one you uploaded.

Now, as you're a newcomer, I might understand why you've not added licensing tags, but simply put, it's not as though you've not seen the drop-down menu for it, considering you claimed something was your own work. I mean, why do you think you've got about a dozen file warnings in the last few days? The biggest question I have is why do you feel you need to upload exact duplicates of posters we already have on wikipedia? Paralympiakos (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the REAL WEC 49 poster that I got from UFCStore.com that owns WEC, is that ok or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumardey (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're virtually the same and you still need to add {{Non-free poster}} to it. If you'd stop uploading near duplicates though, you'd get further. Simply put, the 114 thing was ridiculous. Fair enough on the WEC 30 etc, but it still needs the above tag. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the UFC 114 poster, it still says Griffin vs. Lil Nog, that fight got canceled, so i just wanted to put up the correct poster

Articles for deletion nomination of UFC 123

I have nominated UFC 123, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 123. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 07:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst nomination ever. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew it. I see there is a whole load of WP:FUTURE articles on the same veign and I just can't face raising it as a wider issue. Why are they needed? see WP:NOTNEWS etc. I'd encourage you to wait for official confirmation before creating these articles - much better --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's officially confirmed news, e.g. the organisation have officially confirmed fights to media sources, just not officially announced the event, which never happens until a couple of months in advance. It's merely a formality though. The fact is, something with so many sources should have never been listed for deletion. In addition, event pages for all sports are up well in advance, so this sport is no different. One bit of confirmation is all we need. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased

..you like the hook. You are free to review it for DYK ... or copyedit it. I usually make silly typo/grammer errors. If you can add any sourced material then please do. I expanded this article as a contribution to Project Derbyshire?? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the first clue on how to review these things. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and actually posed a question at the hook suggestion area. I'm a little confused about the source. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lets see. The first ref says "Francis James Sumner, born 22nd December, 1807, was the youngest child of Robert and Ann Sumner. His mother died young, and his father married Barbara, a daughter of Mr. Matthew Ellison, estate agent to the Duke of Norfolk. His father died in 1817, and Mrs. Sumner came to reside with her father at Glossop Hall. She afterwards married John Hardman, of Handsworth"

So surely my original hook that he went to live at the Hall after his mum and dad died is correct. And yes he did get a new Mum and Dad but it is unclear as to when his new dad arrived. I suggest we return to the 1st hook? Do you agree? Victuallers (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The info about Hardman is irrelevant to your hook, so that clears up the matter. I say either your original hook, or mention that he moved in with his stepmother. Finalise one of these two and I'll give it the thumbs up! Good work! Paralympiakos (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I went back to the original. wrt the wresting stub .... I found it after going tangentially off your activity. I was curious about whether you created Glossop related pages Victuallers (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Just an fyi, it's not wrestling, it's mixed martial arts. Think boxing, but jiu-jitsu and judo etc. And no, I've never created anything other than martial arts pages. I wouldn't have the first clue on what to write about with regards Glossop. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Alex Caceres

Hello! Your submission of Alex Caceres at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ℳono 02:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Viktor Nemkov

Hello! Your submission of Viktor Nemkov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dan Hardy UFC 105.jpg and File:Denis Kang UFC 105.jpg

Files that you uploaded or altered, File:Dan Hardy UFC 105.jpg and File:Denis Kang UFC 105.jpg, have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on file description pages, here and here. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this at the discussion page and have removed the tags. These are images I personally took at the UFC 105 weigh-ins, not UFC 105 itself. Paralympiakos (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McDonald (fighter)

What is your opinion of the Michael McDonald page/article that was nominated for speedy deletion? The newer version had three independently sourced articles and highlighted the fact that he had defeated two notable opponents and had earned a title in a respected regional promotion before being signed by the world's largest promotion for his weight class.(Ppt1973 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Ppt. Ok, here's how I see it. A while back, I added "TPF" to the secondary tier of WP:MMANOT, as I believe it's one of the top (secondary tier) promotions in the world. I've heard of a lot of good fighters coming from there, much like Ring of Combat. I have no idea when the previous article was deleted, so I don't know how many appearances he'd had for TPF. The WEC signing is a good helper, but only when he's appeared for the promotion. It's not impossible that he could be signed, but get injured and never appear for them.

I'm not big on deleting borderline WP:MMANOT cases, as I'm perfectly willing to let the close ones, such as TUF competitors go. For that reason, I wouldn't have deleted. However, as unfortunate as it is, it was. For now, I'd say it's not worth causing a long conflict over it, so what I'd say is just wait until he fights in the WEC, then create it regardless of win/loss. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Francisco Drinaldo

On 11 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francisco Drinaldo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Dawid Baziak

Hello! Your submission of Dawid Baziak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK stuff

Look, first of all we are great sports' fans so between us we know exactly what sources are to be used, but for the newbies it would be helpful to have that sentence. It may look a little dull, but feel free to make it better. As a rule of thumb, in order to have C status every paragraph should have at least a reference in Wikipedia. To achieve higher statuses I try a reference per sentence. Your contributions will be long standing if you have references. I see a lot of vandalism in sports pages because it's not picked up by bots and it's not picked up because no references are removed, whereas bots spot it when it happens. Furthermore, in DYK, things are a little different, and referencing is key. Editors who work there are usually not very fond of having too many sports articles because they try to mix some interesting things, plus the hook should be easily found in a reference. Another thing: We have articles in wikipedia, so wording is key. If you have a list, it would be a different thing. Wikipedia has articles and lists, and yours is an article. If a section has a table, that table should have an introductory paragraph, and the paragraph should be referenced. In fundis, please try not to have the last word in DYK, it's really a very small community of people that contribute there: you risk to be perceived as arrogant and it won't do any good to your DYKs, which I believe will be forthcoming. Hope this helps and thanks for the good articles on the MMA! It's a new and a very attractive sport with a great present and even greater future! --Sulmues ^(talk) 01:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, granted. Not sure what you mean by "please try not to have the last word in DYK". I'm not trying to be arrogant as you've put it, I'm merely expressing my view on the matter, because I do think that I have a point with regards the record box. I can see the need for referencing each statement, but for the record box, it's just a matter of using the sherdog template that is placed there for that reason. We'd use regular sourcing if it weren't for the sherdog template in the "external links" section of MMA pages. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your comment in the nomination for Daniel Tabera. You currently have a lot of nominations and it's in your best interest that all of them go to DYK. However people can be sensitive to such comments and I invite you to remove it. It just does damage to your impressive work. Play by the rules and MMA will just get more exposure. The external links tool usually is not seen by anybody. It's the references that count. Everything that is referenced has more credibility. When people read, they won't go to the external links: they're just too lazy to do that. We, as wikipedians educators of the world have the noble duty to take their hands and bring them step by step to knowing the beautiful things of the world such as MMA, :-). --Sulmues ^(talk) 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well fair enough then, so I've removed those comments, but I don't think that it would come across as arrogant in the slightest. Really, if DYKs were refused on the basis of perceived arrogance, then that really comes down to vendettas and disrupting the project to make a point {WP:POINT from vague memory). For what it's worth, I am playing by the rules. I'm not intentionally ignoring any of them. As far as DYKs go, I've met length rules despite incorrect suggestions today, I've had the majority sourced and this is reflected in the current queue, with three rule-abiding hooks waiting to go. I think that laziness is fine for the average reader, but for those looking to verify it, I'm sure they'd go down the page an extra inch in search of sources and then be met by the external link, which is the source. Fact is, I'm only going by the standard that the other 2-3,000 MMA pages have. A revolution would take far too long. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All DYK hooks require refs and external links are not refs. See Wikipedia:DYK#Selection_criteria number 3. The ref needs to appear right after the hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Viktor Nemkov

On 12 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Viktor Nemkov, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jan Błachowicz

On 12 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Błachowicz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

TheDYKUpdateBot 12:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Tabera

On 13 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Tabera, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShoMMA

What do you think about making individual ShoMMA cards? They are quality events and I believe they need separated. Your thoughts? RapidSpin33 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one really. We do have a single page on the matter at the moment. The question is, when did ShoMMA become notable on its own? The first event, in my mind is touch and go. The second one is rather good looking though. The question is, are you going to be met with criticism for separating them? I think it's a possibility. Might be worth taking to WT:MMA for consensus. I personally wouldn't do it myself, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to splitting. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dawid Baziak

On 14 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dawid Baziak, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Phillips DYK

Hi... Just thought you might like to know (in case you hadn't noticed) that Rlevse has moved this MMA fighter's DYK into the queue, using one of the compromise hooks that I suggested. I'm glad he decided to use the more interesting option. :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed a few minutes ago. Thanks for the heads up and especially for the suggestion. That was a long and frustrating ordeal! Paralympiakos (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I hope it makes it beyond the queue stage this time... EdChem (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I see the point in being precautious about negative stuff, but at the end of the day, it wasn't something used as an attack. It's a relevant part of his life. My opinion is that wikipedia shouldn't sterilised. Bad things happen. Should we not have a page on 9/11 just because bad things happened? Anyway, as for this hook, I've noticed that you have a couple of DYK stamps at the top of your user page. Feel free to add this too since you've helped it get to the queue again. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that we don't want to sanitise away all negative information, no matter what. As for the DYK credit, thanks for the offer, but I don't feel that claiming to share your credit would be appropriate on my part. After all, you did all the work in expanding the article. It is nice that you wanted to acknowledge my contribution, however. :) EdChem (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, fair enough then. I wouldn't have minded. As I say, I'm just relieved that the matter is over and it's back in the queue and the help was....well....just that....a big help. All the best bud, see you around hopefully. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cody McKenzie

Hello! Your submission of Cody McKenzie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' comments

Please do not edit or remove other user's comments on talk pages, as you did here. This is in violation of the talk page policy. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm completely justified. The comments don't add anything to the hook suggestion. Don't hand out false warnings. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you don't think they contribute anything; they're another user's comments on a talk page, and you can't edit or remove another user's comments without their permission (did you look at the link I gave you?). I know you don't like his behavior there, and I agree that it's not great, but neither is yours. I don't care about what happens regarding the article content, just don't violate talk page policies again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite whatever rules are flashed in my face, they're not always met by people. I used my best judgement and I was justified in doing what I did. You might also note that the link you gave me applies to talk pages, this isn't. It's the DYK area. I'll say it again, I did the right thing. If he/she doesn't want to approve it, remove and start again. Vendettas are best removed for the sake of the 'pedia. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, T:TDYK is a talk page. You shouldn't modify other users' comments in any page outside of article space where people use signatures.

Secondly, no, when someone raises complaints about your nomination you don't just "remove them and start again"; that's called brushing things under the rug. You think you can just keep removing other people's comments until you find someone who will approve your nomination?

If you want to keep arguing this because you are too proud to admit that you did something wrong and you don't want your talk page blemished with a warning, then be my guest and go ask the DYK reviewers to save you from the mean old admin and revoke this "false warning". But they will tell you the same thing I did. Instead of making a big deal out of this, just agree not to mess with other users' comments anymore; or, at the very least, just drop this silly argument. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oh, so one person violating the rules means you can too? The "rules" are in place for a reason: they foster discussions and the overall community. You might also note that the link Rjanag gave you applies to "pages in other namespaces [that] are used for discussion and communication between users". Also, it's Template talk: Did you know. If you're going to remove any comments critical of the articles you work on, be prepared for a chilly reception at DYK. The most you can do as an involved editor is collapse the discussion. Shubinator (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it's this attitude that isn't helpful. Why come out with comments like "the mean old admin". Hardly professional is it. Whilst under T:TDYK, it's hardly a conventional talk page now is it? I'm not in the business of sweeping stuff so that someone else is found to approve it, but frankly, the user was well out of line and it was better to just remove it. Now quit the attitude. You're an admin, you should know better. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P-See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Unbelievable. You've been duly warned. See MS's page too. Don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quickly doing yourself no favors here at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, wasn't intentional. Rlevse, why? I'm trying to defend myself here from unprofessional behaviour and poor judgement. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the lousy judgment and bad behavior and if you can't see that I can't do much for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) You've been here for almost a year. You should know by now that you can't remove comments directed at you or your work, no matter how odious. Maybe on your own talk page you can, but even that's dicey, especially for a prospective admin. Always ask an uninvolved editor to step in. Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here for almost a year, correct. That's why I've learned that vendettas are best removed. Believe it or not, I only have the best interests in mind here, not troublemaking. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I do believe you. However, you cannot remove vendettas that are directed at you. Someone else will step in if it's really that bad. Shubinator (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure they will. Let's let Rjanag step in with his/her unhelpful sarcasm, or let's let Rlevse step in with his/her unhelpful nature. You see, the problem with this place is that people become so robotic-like with the "rules", that they fail to see what is actually the best thing to do and just hand out heavy-handed warnings to the regulars instead. In this case, removing the comments by Yoninah was the right thing to do in my opinion. I give up on this place at times. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're all rules lawyers. Because saying "T:TDYK isn't a talk page so the rule doesn't apply" certainly isn't rules lawyering.

For your information, "don't mess with other editors' comments" isn't just a "rule", it's one of the most widely accepted behavioral standards on this project. Almost every foundational rule/guideline you find on this wiki (WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, the list goes on) has people who think it needs to be gotten rid of, but you would be very hard-pressed to find an experienced editor who disagrees with "don't mess with other peoples' comments". You seem to be the first one I have ever come across. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but given the nature of what I removed, that's why I did it. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)On Wikipedia you will (and probably already have) interact with many people with varying personalities. And you have to look past the jibes and focus on what they're trying to say. Rjanag's first edit here wasn't that heavy-handed; it simply pointed out where he thought you'd gone wrong. Since you differ on "the right thing to do", you discuss. Unfortunately the conversation became heated and got nowhere. Remember it takes two to heat up a conversation; do what you can to cool it down again. Shubinator (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't heavy handed, but subsequent conduct from everyone has been. I've had all sorts of accusations and sarcasm thrown at me. For all that I've done "wrong", even in the best of intentions, the matter certainly hasn't been helped by unprofessionalism from the other side. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Keeping a cool head in these situations is essential. It's so important that it's required question #3 at RfA. Shubinator (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What goes around comes around, Paralypiakos. If you don't want to start a confrontation, you might consider not using language like "don't hand out false warnings"—being bossy and defensive is a good way to get on peoples' bad side. That's the kind of language that IP vandals and sockpuppets use right before they get blocked, that's not a crowd you want people to associate you with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm under no illusions, I know I'm not ready for RFA. However, I think it's disgusting that I've encountered admins tonight with such poor communication/attitude. I'm not perfect, I realise that, but at least I've not been sarcastic. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'pedia isn't perfect either. Admins (just like normal editors) have all sorts of personalities. (Rather like the workplace environment too...) Shubinator (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone commenting to Paralympiakos: Please slow down and consider the broader circumstances that prevail here... Paralympiakos has had a recent DYK nomination moved out of the queue and back to T:TDYK, and then a long and somewhat unproductive debate over that nomination. He has also had a back-and-forth with Rlevse, which could have been better had both of them done more talking with each other, and less talking at each other. It is great that that nom has now made it back to the queue (thanks Rlevse for that decision), but it should also be recognised that Paralympiakos was probably feeling quite sensitive and bruised. Good admin-ing might have done a better job of recognising all of this background, and taking it into account.
@Paralympiakos: I understand why you responded as you did, but I suggest you need to try to grow a thicker shell for better coping with editors / admins who are overly blunt and don't take account of broader circumstances. Removing talk page comments, especially those about one of your nominations, is always going to be seen as provocative. Irrespective of the legitimacy of your issues with those comments, it is unwise strategy to remove them as it distracts from the issue of the comments made and draws criticism of your own actions. Hopefully we can smooth all of this over and move forward with your nominations. EdChem (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Phillips (fighter)

On 16 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Phillips (fighter), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michael Johnson (fighter)

On 17 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Johnson (fighter), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice, if I may...

Hi Paralympiakos, thanks for your message on my talk. I'll respond there shortly. Meantime, I saw this comment on Rlevse's page, and I thought I'd mention that this sort of request is really more suited to WT:DYK. Any admin could consider or act on that request, and Rlevse has a lot of other responsibilities on wikipedia. I'm not saying your request was inappropriate (it wasn't) but asking at WT:DYK will generally get a faster response. EdChem (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. It's just I saw Rlevse appear on my watchlist just a minute prior to me sending that message. I thought since it was likely they were online, it could be a quick request, without having to get the rest of the DYK alumni involved. Btw, I don't know if you've read that entire section, but I had a small discussion with Rlevse about the issue the other night. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, yes - clearing the air is a good thing. :) By the way, do you know who Rlevse is? EdChem (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse? Erm.....an admin who is frequently seen around DYK. Is there something else I'm supposed to know? Paralympiakos (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is (or at least was) an arbitrator. Not that it matters; in theory an editor is an editor is an editor, regardless of their tenure or what buttons they have or what committees they belong to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. Like you say though, an editor is....etc. With the arbitrator status, I doubt I did anything that warranted arbitrator action that other night. Was a simple slap on the wrist job. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c. x 2) Rlevse is an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter, and an elected member of the Arbitration Committee. ArbCom, in case you haven't encountered it, is the last step in Dispute Resolution, it is the body that issues long-term bans and desysops administrators. In his capacity as a DYK administrator he is still acting as a regular admin, but he has a lot of other stuff going on, including a present dispute about all the articles relating to climate change. One consequence is that he deals a lot with people arguing about rules and can be fairly brusque at times. I think you clearing the air with him is good (clearing the air with anyone is good) but I would avoid adding to his load if I could. If there was a hierarchy of editors, he'd be right at the top of it. I think it's helpful to get to know which admins are particularly influential, because their words are worth giving extra consideration and attention. :) EdChem (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well in general, I tend to avoid going too much in-depth into editor's backgrounds (i.e. their extra button status). From my limited experience, if people get to know that someone is an admin/bureaucrat/arb etc, then they tend to suck up slightly. I'm not accusing anyone reading of this, but wiki is a highly clique(y) place and I prefer to avoid that where possible. Having said that, your last sentence, EdChem, is particularly thought-provoking considering my views. As for adding to the load, I guess that came from not realising what role Rlevse played. Hopefully that doesn't aggravate him/her too much ;) Paralympiakos (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little time at the moment, would you like me to have a look at any of your present outstanding DYK noms? EdChem (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I have now responded at my talk[reply]

Sorry I've not got back to you sooner, I've beeen away from my computer. I'm guessing that window has now passed...(?) If not, I'd be delighted. Any pointers (aside from the obvious Sherdog fight record box bit) would be appreciated. I'll respond to your talk page when I've got 5 mins spare. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audinwood

As you've noticed, I'm making some edits... I think the idea of Sept 25 DYK is a good one, but I would prefer the article were ready before commenting at DYK. As for the heading issue on Mixed martial arts v. Mixed Martial Arts, the controlling policy is WP:MOSHEAD. It says only to capitalise proper nouns, and the equivalent comment one section earlier says to only capitalise if you would in a regular sentence. Based on this, I think Mixed martial arts is the policy compliant answer. I accept that UFC is the name of a company and thus arguably should be kept capitalised. I know these policy rules are a pain, but getting things like this 'right' can smooth processes like DYK noms. :) EdChem (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that "Mixed Martial Arts" is a proper noun though as it is the name of the sport, so from own opinion, I've always considered each word that names the sport to be capitalised. Other than that, I know that caps aren't permitted usually, hence "record" is small in one of the headings, rather than "Record" Paralympiakos (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I made a small change of my own. I did this as the previous version just seemed slightly cringeworthy for an encyclopedia. I think the new version is less so and still fits in with the source. What do you reckon? Paralympiakos (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, yes. I am not precious about my writing, so if you don't like / don't agree with something, change it - we can always talk if there's a disagreement. If you thought it cringeworthy then some change is justified. I am not that comfortable with your using a word like "arguably", because it can be challenged as a "weasel word" (ie. who argues it, etc), but the source does support the sentiment. As an alternative, what do you think of:

Audinwood described the upcoming fight as a "real test". Tavares has previously defeated world-ranked fighters Manny Gamburyan and Michihiro Omigawa, and also holds black belts in jiu-jitsu and judo.

Quick question: In the Early career section, you mention "the promotion" and the "same promotion". What does this mean? I don't understand, so I'm not sure what can be improved in copy editing. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to our ALT sentence for the future fight. The original promotion....ok, the organisation (I use promotion as a valid alt, because organisation has a "Z" in American English, which I dislike, so I use a neutral alternative word...) he debuted in, he later returned to, to make his 2nd pro appearance.

The second example, I've added "BCX" because he fought again for that organisation, to defend his newly won title. You get what I've waffled on about? :S Paralympiakos (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made some reference changes which you should note for the future. A couple of other things... (1) everything in the lead is supposed to appear in the text, but the lead seems to be the only place that "lightweight" and "mostly in NE of USA" show up. Where in the article should they be added? (2) He won a title fight, then drew in a match for that title - so did he still retain it? What happened to it? If someone else now holds it we should say so, and how they got it, IMO - thoughts? EdChem (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NE U.S. bit can come from the record box, which is sourced. No? As for lightweight, it's in the info box and he's generally competed at lightweight, as opposed to other weights.

The title fight, I haven't the foggiest. We get a lot of these though. With smaller promotions, it's generally accepted within the MMA community that when fighters go to the giants of the industry, they just relinquish the belts, due to contract exclusivity. He certainly never lost it the usual way (considering he's unbeaten). I think that one might be best left alone personally. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - as I said earlier, my knowledge of MMA is thin, so I hope you'll forgive my asking the odd dumb question. :)

I think the article is now in good shape, but my head is now really hurting so I'm going to head off and look tomoroow, hopefully with clearer eyes. Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs doing; otherwise I'll post about it at T:TDYK tomorrow. EdChem (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't believe you've sat through this for ages when you're not even a fan! Thanks very much. Take some rest and I'll speak to you soon. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Aaron Wilkinson

On 18 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aaron Wilkinson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alex Caceres

On 18 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alex Caceres, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson

Hi... I noticed this edit in which you removed a malformed link. FYI, per WP:EL it is acceptable (and even encouraged) to provide an external link to a BLP's official website. I have no idea if that ref was Johnson's official website, but if so it should be included in a separate "External Links" section. Also, if the site is official, it can be used to contact Johnson. If so, had you considered contacting fighters to try and obtain a photograph under a suitable licence? I can help with that, if you would like - having photos in the biographies would be good. :) EdChem (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was just a fansite, but I may have been too hasty. As for the photos, I gave up on them a long time ago. I have a few that I took personally and some that I went through a lot of effort to get permission for (see Jim Wallhead). Paralympiakos (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought if the sites were official providing a photo would be in the fighter's interests. On another topic, I've been through Sako Chivitchian, you should look and see if I've stuffed things up. Also commented on it at T:TDYK. EdChem (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but then a lot of these sites are set up, maintained for a couple of months, then borderline abandoned. I can't remember what was on Johnson's official site, but unless it's been created in the last couple of months, I'm willing to bet that there is nothing but a fleeting mention of the biggest part of his life (his participation in the TUF 12 TV show).

As for Chivitchian, yes I've seen. Quite a radical overhaul :| - whatever improves it though.... Paralympiakos (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you don't like what I've done with Chivitchian, please feel free to make changes if you think I've made things worse. I was also wondering with it why the UFC fight isn't in the MMA results table? Also, I commented on the Audinwood nomination. EdChem (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, sorry, misunderstanding here. I don't not like it (bad English for you there), it's just that I went on the page and it's like "WHOA, big changes!" It's a lot to analyse. I'm totally fine with it.

As for the Sako fight and the table, here's where it gets confusing, so apologies if you get lost here. The Ultimate Fighter TV show IS professional level in the sport, HOWEVER, the show is taped three months in advance to give the finalists time to rest/train before their LIVE finale to decide who is "the Ultimate Fighter". Now, all professional results have to be declared to the sports commissions, who release the results on pdfs for every official event in the sport, as a measure of making it official.

To avoid leaking the results months in advance, the fights are considered "professional exhibitions" and only last two rounds, with a possibility of a sudden death third round. Usually, fights go for three, with title fights going five, but The Ultimate Fighter only goes for two occasionally. The only way a third is done is if the fight hasn't been stopped due to KO/Submission and the scores are even. When the semi-finals are reached, THEN the fights become three rounds, but even so, these aren't counted by the likes of Sherdog either. It's confusing at first, but it makes sense, because if people knew the results (like I sadly do for this season thanks to someone spoiling it) then they'd likely not watch. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you'll have just noticed I reverted those nationality changes. The reasoning behind this is that "Armenian American" gives off the vibe of him being American, but with Armenian descent. That's not strictly true. He was born in Armenia, to parents of that descent and moved to America later. He only has citizenship. The one thing I want to avoid is us getting event pages, like UFC 119, with Chivitchian having an American flag, but that's just wrong. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't respond on that page with a pointless space edit. Arguably, that's made it worse. It still says he's American. His primary nationality is Armenian, not American. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could go with Armenian who also holds American citizenship, but for that we'd need a reference. The reference I just added says "Armenian American". I do recognise your point, but that new reference is only days old and should be in the article. It supports a link to his Uncle and to his other nickname, just for a start. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, granted. I screwed up with that edit. Didn't mean to take out the uncle stuff. I'm not sure how to approach this one really. You'll get a lot of sources, such as the Sherdog one, that say "United States" because that's where he trains, but legally, he is Armenian with American citizenship. It's a touchy one really and one that I'm not sure how to word. All I'd say is that Armenian-American or "Armenian born American" give a false representation, imo. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good of you to say - screw ups happen, don't sweat it. As for what to say, how about the new version now?

Yeah, I get myself into trouble sometimes. Little clumsy at times. Anyway, did someone just log out by accident? ;) - That version is far preferable. Ta. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've beefed up the referencing at Sako Chivitchian and suggested the hook be changed in a discussion at WT:DYK. Your thoughts / suggestions on both are invited. :) EdChem (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shigeki Osawa

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shigeki Osawa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

Don't ruin the fresh start. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're talking about. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paralympiakos, Rlevse is referring to the fact that you are disputing the DYK standards on referencing and other issues that aren't directly relevant to the hook again. He may also be alluding to your nomination having reached last in the queue again before all the highlighted issues were addressed. Pleae try to remember that DYK is not just about having a factually accurate and referenced hook on the main page; it is also about readers going to the articles themselves and reading them. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate for quallity standards to be applied to the entire article. An article needs to be 'worthy' of being highlighted on the main page to be included in DYK. In short, satisfying the rules on length, etc, are necessary for being approved at T:TDYK, but they are not all that is needed... there is judgment involved in whether an article is deserving of being held up as an example by highlighting it on the main page. Does this all make sense? This is why all the changes I made to articles like Audinwood or Chivitchian were aimed at overall quality and not just at rule compliance. Hope this helps you to understand why you are having a rough time at DYK. Please don't take any of it personally, the editors and admins there are just trying to act in the best interests of the project. Regards, EdChem (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to his articles reaching the bottom of the suggestions page, it's not Paralympia's fault that reviewers may have taken a long time to get to his nom. I only reviewed the nom currently at the bottom a day or two ago, and Paralympia was quick to respond. Everybody gets a reasonable time to respond to concerns, which is usually at least five days from the date of the response. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to EdChem, I get it, but when there are threats of the nom being deleted, I'd prefer if minor changes that don't affect the hook statement were put aside, at least just for a few minutes, to ensure that the hook isn't deleted.

Gato, I'm sorry this has taken several hours to get it. As an FYI for the future, I'm based in England and my hours are a little erratic. Also, the original response came way after by me, but that was because I hadn't had one of those notifications about there being a problem with it. I am trying, people. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Just respond to my latest comment at T:TDYK, so we can get the nom out of the way. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Volkov

Problem with this article at DYK. Please respond. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mairbek Taisumov

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mairbek Taisumov, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting at GAN

Paralympiakos, edit warring with a bot is a bad idea - all that it can achieve is your getting a warning or a block. Raise the issue at WT:GAN, wait for help. Just my $0.02. EdChem (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue with the bot operator, but the bot is clearly malfunctioning. It needs reverting. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, Ultimate Fighting Championship is not a GAN right now. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow. It's up there right now as a nomination. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is not listed as a GAN on the talk page. That could be why the bot removing it. Not sure about the other article thouguh. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T'is done now. I honestly can't see what the problem is with the nominations though. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter was listed twice, so the bot removed one. And Ultimate Fighting Championship wasn't indicated as a GAN with the talk page template, so the bot removed that too. Shubinator (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of that now. It moved the nom to the bottom of the pile, as if I was just nominating it now, not weeks ago. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; the bot uses the talk page template time to figure out when you nominated the article. Notice the bot said it was nominated at 14:10 today, which is the exact timestamp of your edit to Talk:Ultimate Fighting Championship. (The bot's edit was at 14:18, so it can't be that.) Shubinator (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I do here? I'm getting a bit of misfortune here. I've been pushed way down the queue for Ultimate Fighting Championship and The Ultimate Fighter is in the wrong section entirely. It isn't a drama, it's a TV show based on sport. Can I move the latter via the talk page without resetting the time the "nomination was entered" ? Paralympiakos (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to, but that depends on the bot code. Better now than later though. Also, I just looked at the templates, and it looks like the bot is scraping the timestamp from one of the parameters in the template. So as long as you don't touch the timestamp you should be good. Shubinator (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For The Ultimate Fighter, I just changed the GAN area. For Ultimate Fighting Championship, I changed the date to August 30, which was when I nommed it. Now we play the waiting game. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

123

your something else para. you think your the wiki boss or something changing shit whenever you want making new stupid pointless sections about fight order and prelims and main card trying to be the cool guy with something new. it sucks. let it be how its been before you come along and started fucking everything up. from almeidas flag to the wec match order (which was meant to be different) to your gay little self. your not the boss. you should stop before your account gets deleted for being such a fag. yes it can. all your edits will eventually be corrected. you will just have to keep checking till it happens. you have alot to check on to. have fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.253.122 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Paralympiakos works for me. I pay him in Raisenets if he does well. HalfShadow 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrggh, new people. :Scared: Paralympiakos (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this post to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_Attack_by_user:72.183.253.122. EdChem (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you might need to restore that. It appears to have been wiped in an edit difference edit. I've no idea who this person is, nor what I've done to inspire that message. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looking at the IP's contributions, you've reverted each other recently, I think. Not that that justifies the above post... EdChem (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what this is about now. Have a look at ANI as I've explained it all. It boils down to WP:CRYSTAL mainly. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all are nuts but you can have it your way, I guess, just because i dont have a cool guy screen name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

DYK for Sako Chivitchian

On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sako Chivitchian, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cody McKenzie

On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cody McKenzie, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit...

Re "shameless stealing" no problem :) I think I found inspiration for mine at user talk:Risker. I was wondering if you were peeved at me for making changes to Volkov's article to get its DYK through. Incidentally, on barnstars and what-not, congratulations on passing the half-way point to the 25 DYK medal - see here, which will qualify you for this list. EdChem (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, originally I was going to ask, but I figured there was no problem, so I just gave minor credit knowing that you'd see the edit summary on your watchlist. Peeved? Haha, no, don't be soft ;) - If this is about the lack of communication in the last couple of days, then it's because my final DYKs seem to be in order and the whole ordeal has waned my enthusiasm for article writing. As for the 25 DYK thing, by Saturday, I'll be on 17, but it'll be a while before I hit that target, considering my lack of desire at this present time. Paralympiakos (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there certainly was no need to ask - everything is CC-BY-SA 3.0 anyway. As for frustration / lack of enthusiasm, I can certainly relate. WP can be a decidedly unfriendly place at times. I try to be helpful and often feel somewhere between unappreciated and unnoticed. :( I did appreciate you offering to share DYK credits, though I didn't feel deserving when you had done all the expansion and I was just polishing; however, I had wondered if you might have considered my contribution DYK barnstar-worthy... to be clear, I am not asking, it was just something I'd wondered about. Anyway, if you do want to collaborate on a 5 fighter nomination we could both be in the DYK Hall of Fame. :) EdChem (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be unhelpful and I get the underappreciated feeling, but at the end of the day, I've got about a hundred articles contributed to the sport. I feel validated when I've created a page for an up-and-comer and they end being signed by the world's biggest organisation a few months later (see Nick Pace, Edson Barboza and the much-raved-about Charles Oliveira). I suppose that I do this for the "geeking out" factor of seeing the person you've created a page about suddenly getting hundreds/thousands of views and media attention because the fighter is suddenly well-known.

As for DYK credits, I don't mind if people take partial credit. What is it going to do? Kill me? ;) - I also love the subtle, yet not-so-subtle barnstar poking then! In short, yeah, I figured it was worthy, but here's how I see it. You've been a big help with sourcing, polishing etc, which certainly helped smooth things over during that troublesome day or two. However, as long as your contribution to wikipedia stays constant, I foresee a decent amount of future collaboration, as long as your enthusiasm doesn't disappear (which would be understandable since you're a fan of the sport). As such, it'd be a little odd to give out a barnstar now, so early, and then work together on article creation, to never give another out. I figured I'd wait a little first before doing that.

Another thing to take into consideration is that barnstars are again something I'm not hugely fussed about. Sure, they're nice, as it shows some recognition of work, but the above qualities are what please me most. The only one I've ever given was to someone for utterly destroying an IPs argument with a simple picture. This IP had been clearly incorrect about an issue, yet kept pushing it and pushing it despite our sources. The user in question though posted pictorial proof from a website which me laugh so much. In short, I tend to just say thanks, rather than barnstars etc. If they're justified, after a long period of collaboration or achievements, fine, but otherwise, they just look like a love-in, which doesn't aid the perceived clique(y) side of wikipedia. Phew, ramble over. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. only just read the end bit of your message, but a five-fighter nomination would really only count as one, but with five different hooks within it. I don't think that would count properly and to my mind, it would only be my eighteenth, not 18-23. No idea how I'd do a five fighter hook though. To get five that all link together would be nigh on impossible. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We each edit for our own reasons, and take what we can from the experience; I just think it is disappointing that wikipedia can be needlessly unfriendly. As for Barnstars, what you do is up to you.

On a five-fighter nomination, you are incorrect... credits are given per article, not per hook, so five articles in one hook counts as five DYKs, but you can combine the views for the purposes of the Hall of Fame and DYK stats. And, the draft of the hook I had in mind I mentioned to you at the DYK page, albeit obliquely, for an October 28:

... that M-1 Global's Eastern European Champions Artiom Damkovsky, Magomed Sultanakhmedov, and Maxim Grishin will face their Western European Champion counterparts Mairbek Taisumov, Rafał Moks, and Guram Gugenishvili for the lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight division championships (respectively) in mixed martial arts today in Saint Petersberg?

I think it would be accepted as a hook, and I presume if these guys are all fighting in title bouts, they must have records to make them notable. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this idea? You can tell me to get lost if you like, but I am curious about your thoughts. EdChem (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce event

It looks like we created a page for this event at the exact same time. I don't know if want to delete a page or create a redirect. I'll let you decide.(Ppt1973 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Great minds huh. For now (and I don't want there to be conflict over this...I know we've had history), I've redirected your version to mine, considering there is no official name due to the event not being officially announced. I also think we'll get a "Strikeforce: St. Louis" or something like that considering the usual naming methods of Strikeforce, e.g. Miami, Houston, San Jose. You cool with that? Paralympiakos (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works.(Ppt1973 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good man. If it is officially announced as Hendo vs. Babalu, it's a simple redirect or delete/page move. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alexander Volkov (fighter)

On 22 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Volkov (fighter), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kyle Watson

On 23 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kyle Watson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UFC 122 Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UFC 122 Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy WikiBirthday, Grognard Extraordinaire Paralympiakos

This editor is a **Grognard Extraordinaire** and is entitled to display this **Wikipedia Vest Pocket Edition**.

I don't know if you pay attention to service awards, but in case you do, today you get a promotion to the exalted rank of Grognard Extraordinaire. Enjoy! EdChem (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.......erm........WOO! Paralympiakos (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that heading is a hell of a mouthful! Did you get chance to see my reply from yesterday btw?

I didn't invent the name, and I think it sounds suitably impressive to be worthy of noting on this, the anniversary of your wiki-birth. As to your question, yes, I saw - will get back to it shortly. EdChem (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, did you notice my achievement today? First GA article - WooHoo! EdChem (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't, as I don't pay attention to GAN outside of listing my noms (added another last night in Court McGee which I'm pretty proud of. His story is really touching too). My goodness though. I've read your GA and that's immense! I feel very stupid looking at that. Did you study chemistry or some sort of science at a university? Paralympiakos (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for not reading your userboxes....you've got a phD. Sweet! What uni was that at? (Feel free not to answer btw). Paralympiakos (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to feel stupid, we all have our areas of expertise. I happen to be a chemist, so knowledge of chemistry comes with the territory. Please don't be offended, but I'd prefer not to share too many potentially-identifying details on wiki; if we were chatting privately I'd probably answer but there are good reasons to remain pseudononymous at times. I did see you have another article up for GA, which is good, well done. :) Always good to be generating quality content for the wiki, and it will be useful for you if / when you ultimately go for RfA. Writing at GA-standard can be quite difficult at times, it's one reason that I've found the polishing work I've been doing with you to be a nice change. By the way, did you see my answer to your comments in an earlier section of this page? EdChem (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just amusing that my area of expertise is fighting and yours is something really intellectual. As for the uni thing, fair enough. Just to explain, I only asked as I'm looking at foreign uni's at the moment for a masters degree, so was wondering where/if it was any good, because I haven't a clue where to pinpoint. My research has been into England, U.S.A, Australia, Holland, France etc, so it's been fun/difficult to narrow the list down, especially when I've little idea bout the rep of some of them. GA is just painful for sports though. I've got one that is sixth in the sports and rec queue. Been AGES since I put it there, but that one took months to get totally ready.

As for your reply to another topic, no, I've only just read that after your hint. I wasn't aware that was how it works. The 6 fighter hook won't be possible now though, since Taisumov had a hook and 5x expansion will be impossible. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 fighters, not 6 - Taisumov has been to DYK... all 5 are presently red, as far as I can telll. Taisumov wasn't bolded, was just a regular wikilink. On uni's, I'm familiar with several (and in different countries) - we could talk about that off-wiki if you like... I can be emailed from my user page. Up to you entirely. EdChem (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see a link for that. How does it work anyway? Is it accessed via my own personal email? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link for emailing me is Special:EmailUser/EdChem, but you may need to have an email address enabled in your preferences to be able to use it. Usually, there is an "Email this user" link in the menu on the left hand side of each user page, if the user has an email address enabled. Editors can send an email via wikipedia, and the email address of the receiving editor is not revealed to the sender unless s/he chooses to respond. EdChem (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair nuff then. I really can't be bothered putting an email address up. Last thing I need is vandals emailing me. Anyway.....tonight is the Audinwood hook! Paralympiakos (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pat Audinwood

On 26 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pat Audinwood, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)