Locustification (talk | contribs) |
added comment with regard to Mtking's inappropriately strong stance on a matter rather given his/her ignorance of the subject at hand |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
Why are you going on this slash and burn tirade against the UFC pages? No one besides you and TreyGeek want it and I realize that you guys want to rule the little kingdom you've built here in Wikipedia, but why don't you do something useful with your time that actually adds value to something? The vast majority of UFC articles meet notability critera and will stand. If anything, you and TreyGeek are simply creating what will amount to a few gaps in single event articles and duplicate data living on these stupid omnibusses. That makes no sense if your interest is honestly for the better of the Encyclopedia which you claim it is. Get a better argument or move along. You have way too much free time on your hands. [[User:Pull lead|Pull lead]] ([[User talk:Pull lead|talk]]) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
Why are you going on this slash and burn tirade against the UFC pages? No one besides you and TreyGeek want it and I realize that you guys want to rule the little kingdom you've built here in Wikipedia, but why don't you do something useful with your time that actually adds value to something? The vast majority of UFC articles meet notability critera and will stand. If anything, you and TreyGeek are simply creating what will amount to a few gaps in single event articles and duplicate data living on these stupid omnibusses. That makes no sense if your interest is honestly for the better of the Encyclopedia which you claim it is. Get a better argument or move along. You have way too much free time on your hands. [[User:Pull lead|Pull lead]] ([[User talk:Pull lead|talk]]) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:WP is [[WP:NOT|not]] a news reporting service the MMA fanboys have been using it as such, take a good hard look at the articles, on the actual event all there is is a table of results no prose, no discussion on what occurred, zip, and if you also look at the discussions there are numinous others who also feel the same way. If thoes advocating keeping, rather than keep questioning motives, actually got down and improved the articles, cited sources that demonstrate that there is genuine lasting notability, then there would be no need for this. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
:WP is [[WP:NOT|not]] a news reporting service the MMA fanboys have been using it as such, take a good hard look at the articles, on the actual event all there is is a table of results no prose, no discussion on what occurred, zip, and if you also look at the discussions there are numinous others who also feel the same way. If thoes advocating keeping, rather than keep questioning motives, actually got down and improved the articles, cited sources that demonstrate that there is genuine lasting notability, then there would be no need for this. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
::AFAICT, the argument fundamentally comes down to this: "this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite" |
|||
These two purposes are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for a page to be useful to fans and be of notable historical value. For example, prior MMA events have bearing on current and future ones, and therefore are quite frequently references by those interested in the background tree leading up to any subsequent upcoming event. The hits for each event page tell the tale of this inherent usefulness. I can only assume that Mtking's argument is being perpetuated by someone who knows practically nothing about the specifics of the subject/sport at hand therefore cannot contribute a meaningful opinion. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 13:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DBF [[User:Locustification|Locustification]] ([[User talk:Locustification|talk]]) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DBF [[User:Locustification|Locustification]] ([[User talk:Locustification|talk]]) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:[[Pot calling the kettle black|Hello Pot, I see you have met the Kettle already]]. --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
:[[Pot calling the kettle black|Hello Pot, I see you have met the Kettle already]]. --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:05, 23 April 2012
Clarification
Hello my friend. Please don't take anything personally. I callz em as I seez em. :)
It looks very much like the vast majority of UFC events will stand. An effort to AfD many will result in a huge drain of energy, only to have many remain. If this is the case, are you really happy with gaping holes in the navbox/series -- some going to the omnibus, while others being articles? That seems messy to me. In fact, that seems like a worse outcome than letting them remain.
There is a growing list of practical reasons why all these articles should remain. There is a diminishing list of rather weak arguments for deletion based on vague guidelines that are really not well-related to this particular issue. Maybe it's time to abandon this effort. Honestly, seeing an (randomly picked) article like UFC Fight Night: Thomas vs Florian, and thinking it and dozens like it will be deleted, is not realistic. I can't see it happening, and I can't see it being a good thing just because a guideline says vaguely that maybe, it might not comply. Remember, 1.5 k visitors a day to each of these. They are being used. Wanting to delete them sounds like bureaucracy out of touch with reality.
The best that can be hoped for is a few UFC articles deleted with gaping holes everywhere. I just don't see how that's a good thing. What kind of outcome would be satisfactory to you in order for you to give this one up? Please tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your premise, what MMA fans want is not at issue, this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite, the community long ago decided that it will only cover events which are of enduring significance, I fail to see any enduring significance claimed or demonstrated in these, they are no different to the countless other sporting events that occur every day all over the globe. Mtking (edits) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Enduring significance does not require enduring media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, but events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. So they do require a minimum of some sources written after the initial news cycle. Mtking (edits) 09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Enduring significance does not require enduring media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. And you are AfDing a January 14, 2012 event which, 3 months later, is still getting some media coverage. Plus, the guideline says the word "likely". That doesn't mean always. What sayeth thee? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawal from the UFC matter
I've decided to walk away from this. My involvement probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. I don't like the backpages of Wikipedia. I really don't understand or care about such sports. This is Wikienergy that I can spend elsewhere. Good luck with the whole thing. I am curious how it will all look in a year. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Work on UFC pages.. Our discussions have led nowhere. However, as a last ditch effort, I am considering another inherent notability thread, and accompanying RfC. Perhaps we could initiate it together, with each side preparing a position summary, with a finite size, and agreed-upon format (maybe bullet or numbered form for easy reading, and to facilitate responses to specific points.) This may be in the best interest of the project, considering the likely gaping hole outcome that may emerge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
What is your point?
Why are you going on this slash and burn tirade against the UFC pages? No one besides you and TreyGeek want it and I realize that you guys want to rule the little kingdom you've built here in Wikipedia, but why don't you do something useful with your time that actually adds value to something? The vast majority of UFC articles meet notability critera and will stand. If anything, you and TreyGeek are simply creating what will amount to a few gaps in single event articles and duplicate data living on these stupid omnibusses. That makes no sense if your interest is honestly for the better of the Encyclopedia which you claim it is. Get a better argument or move along. You have way too much free time on your hands. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP is not a news reporting service the MMA fanboys have been using it as such, take a good hard look at the articles, on the actual event all there is is a table of results no prose, no discussion on what occurred, zip, and if you also look at the discussions there are numinous others who also feel the same way. If thoes advocating keeping, rather than keep questioning motives, actually got down and improved the articles, cited sources that demonstrate that there is genuine lasting notability, then there would be no need for this. Mtking (edits) 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the argument fundamentally comes down to this: "this is an Encyclopaedia and not a fansite"
These two purposes are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible for a page to be useful to fans and be of notable historical value. For example, prior MMA events have bearing on current and future ones, and therefore are quite frequently references by those interested in the background tree leading up to any subsequent upcoming event. The hits for each event page tell the tale of this inherent usefulness. I can only assume that Mtking's argument is being perpetuated by someone who knows practically nothing about the specifics of the subject/sport at hand therefore cannot contribute a meaningful opinion. Agent00f (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DBF Locustification (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Pot, I see you have met the Kettle already. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just an average user who finds the individual event pages to be a useful resource, and was particularly surprised by the single-mindedness of this crusade. Sure, I recognize that my link doesn't exactly contribute to the dialogue in a particularly constructive way; I'm not changing anyone's mind with it, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. This appears to be a case of an individual who is now so invested in being right, that basic common sense is being lost in the shuffle. You can try and lump me in with some of the crazier element if you like - I don't have the patience to hang out here to defend myself - but I'm practically an impartial observer here. If you guys choose to turn some moderately useful articles into some less useful articles and delete a few of them as well, it's not going to ruin my day. Still, I'm willing to take a moment out of my life to point out what appears to be bad behavior - especially when it has no benefit to anyone. Locustification (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The quality of articles at the encyclopedia
I know you care about the project. Why not put your energy where it's needed most. This project is filled with hundreds of thousands of corporation articles.
- Monthly page hits in ten years after they merge or go out of business: 7
- Enduring notability (0-10): 0
In fact, apply to these organizations all of these guidelines you cite. Hundreds of thousands of them fail. Yet you fight so hard to remove 21 UFC event articles.
I don't get it. Why does UFC draw your attention and not those? 40 million page visits a year to these UFC articles, and you think they are not fit for the project. It's sort of like designing the perfect VIP club, but with no members allowed. Who are you here to serve, the project or the visitors? If you pick the project, then it begs the question "Who is the project here to serve?" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that this is a sock of an indef banned user. Now, whether it is User:BigzMMA or User:Temporary for Bonaparte or another blocked editor, I'm not entirely sure (though I will lean towards Bigz). While I've been around a few years now, I'm not entirely sure of how to handle this situation. It's a possible WP:SPI situation, but I don't know exactly where to point the finger to. What do you suggest? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- AIV is likely the way to go, I have a report prepared, but since he just got his Level 4 warning...--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The user shows advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices. The user essentially closed AfDs that it disagreed with and then blamed User:Mtking of vandalism. In my experience, a level 4 warning to AIV earns a one week block. This situation seems to be an experienced editor, using a duplicate/additional account to avoid a block and/or doesn't want their primary account blocked. That should result in an indef block of the account in question (User:ScottMMA). That's why I'm unsure of the correct path as stated above. WP:AIV is a temporary block for a situation that appears to deserve an indef block, except I can't point specifically to the indef blocked user. (and I'm rambling because I really don't know where this should go.) --TreyGeek (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- You could try SPI, but edit summarywise, neither of them have similar patters, and Scott hasn't contributed to any articles While he closed the discussion, he put the warnings at the tops of the pages (BigZMMA puts notifications at the bottom), and hasn't signed any posts, which suggests that he isn't that familiar with Wikipedia, unless he is acting the newbie, I don't think that SPI would accept it, but maybe they would based on the similar username and the disruption. Although given where his interests lie, the MMA isn't all that surprising. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with TreyGeek likely to be someone we all know, edit time wise not so sure that it is BigzMMA unless BigzMMA was up at 2 am; User:A Pocket Full of Sunshine (the sockmaster of ToB) is more likely also given his location. Might have to give him/her more room to spot a better patten then go to SPI as a checkuser won't go fishing without at least a likely connection to another named editor. Mtking (edits) 07:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- You could try SPI, but edit summarywise, neither of them have similar patters, and Scott hasn't contributed to any articles While he closed the discussion, he put the warnings at the tops of the pages (BigZMMA puts notifications at the bottom), and hasn't signed any posts, which suggests that he isn't that familiar with Wikipedia, unless he is acting the newbie, I don't think that SPI would accept it, but maybe they would based on the similar username and the disruption. Although given where his interests lie, the MMA isn't all that surprising. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The user shows advanced knowledge of Wikipedia practices. The user essentially closed AfDs that it disagreed with and then blamed User:Mtking of vandalism. In my experience, a level 4 warning to AIV earns a one week block. This situation seems to be an experienced editor, using a duplicate/additional account to avoid a block and/or doesn't want their primary account blocked. That should result in an indef block of the account in question (User:ScottMMA). That's why I'm unsure of the correct path as stated above. WP:AIV is a temporary block for a situation that appears to deserve an indef block, except I can't point specifically to the indef blocked user. (and I'm rambling because I really don't know where this should go.) --TreyGeek (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Your listed reason for nomination, WP:BLP1E does not apply to deceased persons. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BIO1E does. Mtking (edits) 07:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I always thought there should be a WP:BDP1E, for people that are notable for being dead...--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
63.3.19.129
I told you you are everywhere! Ya beat me to it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
UFC 145
Yes, you're right; thanks for the notice. I simply reverted back several edits and manually added all the productive changes that I noticed, and apparently this template avoided my gaze. Please watch for the edits of Cabj1905, who is repeatedly violating WP:BLP. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)