User talk:Beansy

Welcome!

Hello, Beansy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Crucifixion. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Crucifixion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I got called out for removing anime references in the Crucifixion article that were straight up embarrassing to Wikipedia (not to mention embarrassing to both the article and anime fans). This is hilarious. I believe I did give an explanation when prompted after the auto-revert, and whoever was trying to keep that crap in there evidently lost that fight. Beansy (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Attention on MMA. Thank you. Mtking ^(edits) 11:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to WP name space

You asked about a more appropriate way to link to the internal WP page about notability, it would be better if you put them on the Talk page of each article, the See also sections normally only contain links to other articles. Mtking ^(edits) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm guessing now that adding the links there was not correct form per wikipedia standards, I'll stop adding them. However I seriously doubt nearly as many people will see them on the talk pages though, particularly if they are unaware of the situation, and the whole idea was to get people who actually use the articles involved in the discussion. I suppose it would be nice if there was a better way to do that (without violating wiki standards, or hitting message boards and stirring up a hornets nest). Beansy (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

MMA collaboration going forward

Would you be willing to take a more active role in the ongoing mma collaboration moving forward? I think we're closer than most might expect. I'm trying to minimize my footprint for my own sanity if not everyone's interests. My "E-mail this user" link under toolbox also works. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually typing a post in the big discussion right now, but a more active role is going to be difficult before May 15th when I am done with my grad school work for the semester. Beansy (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to gauge interest more so than immediate resources. It's very important going forward to have eloquent and reasoned voices. If you have the desire, this will make for at least a very interesting story to tell. No pressure though. Again, my email is always open. Agent00f (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD's on Future UFC events

I Meant what I said on the WP:MMANOT talk page, if we can start making progress, I will certainly withdraw the AfD noms you mentioned. However, making eloquent and reasoned arguments that still amount to "All UFC EVENTS ARE INHERENTLY NOTABLE" is not progress. I know you have not stated anything contrary to that since we are trying to start anew, I was just conflicted when I arrived here to find Agent00f's message, I'd rather let you know my thoughts and express that, than say nothing though. After your last comments I believe you want to work out a consensus, I promise to before patient and wait for you to have time to comment. Also, I doubt the admins are going to close the AfDs while we are trying to hash this out. Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That is fair but I still think that specifically targeting some of the largest events for AfD isn't doing any good. If posted a rebuttal of the AfD for UFC 144 since there was a non-routine mainstream source explaining the event's actual notability. I would feel better if you could withdraw that one in a sign of good faith. Beansy (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I see you already withdrew the AfD for that one and several others, thanks. I would like to move forward but this whole process is incredibly draining. Beansy (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of current UFC fighters

The wording of these two sections has been re-written to include retirement as a reason for inclusion on either lists. The point, of this article is to accurately reflect who is in the UFC at any given time. Retired fighters are almost never removed from the UFC's active rosters, because they are still technically under contract with the UFC. If Mirko Cro Cop wanted to come back to MMA he would have to fight in the UFC because he is still under contract with them. As this is the case, when a fighter retires they must be taken at their word, even if their retirement seems like a short lived publicity stunt. As they need to be taken at their word the best way to mark their retirement is to add them to the list of recent fighters cut with a little demarcation that says "retired". Once they return from retirement it then seems logical to add them to the recent signings, perhaps a new demarcation should be added that says "un-retired". For now I have merely modified both the descriptions of these lists to include fighters entering or returning from retirement. The whole point, for me, of constructing these lists was merely to make it easier for visitors to the article to immediately see who had been removed or recently made active to the UFC's rosters, this is especially helpful if some information is contestable, as it allows people to say things like, "Hey Spencer Fisher didn't actually retire he said he might, and then decided to leave it up to the UFC." And thus corrections can be made. I hope this makes more sense as to why BJ Penn would be included in "Recent Signings," while he may not have actually been signed, he has come back from being entirely out of MMA and the UFC to start competing for them again.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You can respond here, I will check your talk page. I had not seen any news on Nick Diaz that said he was definitely coming back, if you want to post a source to that I'd love to check it out. I tend to see it as a fighter who says he is retired stays retired until he actually is scheduled for another fight. I realize that there may be some hypocrisy in this idea as I am taking them at their word when they say they are retired, but requiring a fight announcement to add them back on. I can't think of a better way to do this as retirement is an announced state, where as returning from one is an official state (i.e. a signed bout agreement), I'd like to have it be official both ways. All things said and done, I have tried to be incredibly consistent with this system however. I did not add BJ Penn when rumors surfaced that he might consider another UFC fight, or when Josh Koscheck tried to pick a fight (at the UFC's behest). I only added him when it was reported that he had a bout agreement with Rory McDonald. I think that makes sense. But I would love to hear other ideas about this because I understand that there is always room for improvement. Thanks for helping round out under-developed areas of this article, I hope you continue to help improve it.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was mid-way through a multi-part edit when I saw you changed the section description and figured that was probably sufficient, so I put BJ Penn back in after deleting him again, and merely clarified the section criteria a bit. I was involved in that titanic battle with people trying to get all UFC event pages deleted, so I'm not really up for any more edit-fights right now anyway. I appreciate you coming here and responding here maturely. As for Diaz, it was reported all over the place about 2 months ago that Diaz intended to come back as it was stated very clearly in his lawsuit against the NSAC, but since his lawsuit was thrown out, and considering Nick Diaz's personality, and the fact that he hasn't made any media statements even through a manager, I think I'll wait until something more concrete happens with him after all. Beansy (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Re the Ulysses Gomez story, check the link I provided and Gomez's twitter, since the retraction he has signed to fight, and the new report is correct. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I literally just read that and saw that I had new messages when I was headed to change it back. Not the best timing on my part. Beansy (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

's alright, I totally get it.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I consider Cung Le to be a borderline case in the guidelines of this article. Can you point to/make specific reference to Cung Le's desire for the UFC to list him as American rather than Vietnamese. I understand his general preferences/national allegiances, etc., and would not argue against having him listed as an American of South Vietnamese descent, on his personal wikipedia page. But for this article, the only way to easily source fighters in terms of nationalities is the flags that the UFC shows them with when they enter the ring. There are a large number of fighters who no longer live in the nations they were born in, and figuring out the status of their citizenship/nationality is incredibly difficult. If you can help accurately source Cung Le's desire, I have no problem changing it, but others might, and it seems like a very minor thing to start a major editing war over. If, on the other hand, you can think of another accurate way to source fighter nationality that would account for someone like Cung Le, I'd love to hear about it and see if it's viable. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This then sounds like an argument to take to the UFC. This page is supposed to be a representation of fighters competing in the UFC, including the names they fight under, the flags they're represented with, the nicknames they use, and the records they hold. All are meant to be representational of their UFC careers. Your saying that he's shown preference for other nationalities and competed under different nationalities in different places still doesn't get to the root of this point. This is how the UFC has chosen to represent him. That may be a mistake, but it is their mistake not this articles mistake. For this article the UFC is a verifiable source even when its methods are questionable. There is a note at the start of every table in this page explaining exactly how and why the flags in that table are used. There are a large number of fighters in the UFC with somewhat similar circumstances (although not exactly the same) and creating an exception for Le, opens the door to creating exceptions for all of them,or having to argue through each case and why it is or isn't valid. Trust me, I don't like the way the UFC does this, but I can think of no better way to handle this information on such a large scale.

The next best other example I can think of is Hector Lombard. Everyone thinks of him as Cuban, he was born in Cuba, he grew up in Cuba, he competed in Judo for Cuba at the international level. Lombard then defected from Cuba during the Sydney Olympics and sought asylum in Australia. At that point he probably has no claim to Cuban citizenship whatsoever. He lived in Australia for years, and competed there, I have no idea if he is an Australian citizen. After years of living in Australia he moved to Florida, where he now lives and trains, I have no idea if he is an American citizen. At this point, the only real way to reference him is to say the UFC displays him as Cuban, so we do as well. That may be a mistake on the UFC's part, but that's their mistake, it is not incorrect for this article to then show that the UFC displays him as Cuban, nor is it incorrect for this article to show that the UFC displays Cung Le as Vietnamese. If Le really went out on the war path and said, I am incredibly angry with how the UFC is promoting me, and I am making it a point to never be associated with this symbol ever, then there would be a real discussion. From everything I've seen it sounds like he's said, "Look I talked to them about it, they said it is what it is." Does this make the UFC correct in it's actions? No probably not. But it does make this article correct in saying this is how the UFC has chosen to display Cung Le.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your politeness in discussing this with me. This article has become very much a labor of love. I am glad to have it at a place in which most of it's conventions are stable. In the end I know that wikipedia is not the most "proper" place for it, but it is the best and most accessible place for information people generally want to know. Because of this there are still several issues that come up over and over that have to be discussed and explained. I'm glad that you have taken an interest in the maintenance of this page and I am always looking for ways to improve it, especially if they can eliminate conflicts. Thanks again for the consideration. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events

The deletion notice was on the 2012 in UFC events page for a week. By the time of the deletion discussion, the page has degenerated into a heap of links without any in-depth content. The general consensus was, that the content was not worth keeping anymore. Deryck C. 08:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't realize the individual pages for future announced UFC events had been returned. The deletion of the omnibus makes a lot more sense now, so my bad (hopefully the event pages that were deleted can get restored now...). Beansy (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UFC 155 Dos Santos vs Velasquez II.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UFC 155 Dos Santos vs Velasquez II.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs-Velasquez-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs-Velasquez-2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs-Velasquez-2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs-Velasquez-2.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs.-Velasquez-II.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UFC-155-dos-Santos-vs.-Velasquez-II.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration Committee Election Vote

H Beansy, You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you only have 135 such edits.

If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that prerequisite. My bad then. I don't have another account but I've probably made more than 15 article-space edits without being logged in. Not really worth my time trying to track those down though. No biggie. Beansy (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries, the eligibility requirements weren't prominently posted and the software doesn't actually check so you're not the only one who didn't know. You should be able to vote next year though, and I encourage you to do so. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RfCs and policy

Ignoring RfCs is a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Specifically, "A disruptive editor is an editor who: Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." If you disagree with the outcome of the RfC, you are encouraged to start a new one if you believe that new policy arguments may shed a different light on the subject. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Was this referring to flag use in MMA? This is a serious question: that was legit binding? Also, was a consensus legit reached? I didn't get the impression that either was the case, but if so then I apologize. I'll refrain from flag edits until this is clarified (since that's what I'm assuming this is about due to the timing and the fact that your sig indicates you are part of the vexillology project), but if you could clarify the situation I'd appreciate it. Beansy (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but now you know. RfCs are community consensus and flagrantly violating them is a form of disruptive editing. Just wanted to make sure you saw that I think that MOS:FLAGS is probably a good place to take this if you really believe that MMA presents a special exception to the MOS guidelines for flags in sporting competitions. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags are allowed to be in results tables because the UFC has always been a competition between countries, and that is why they have always shown flags in the tale of the tape, or country name in the very early UFC days. Beansy has done nothing wrong... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Flag use

Beansy, Concerning the use of Flags, isn't the reason they have been placed there originally because of the UFC and other promotions using the nationality of a fighter's birth place, the country where a fighter is currently training, or where a fighter has been predominately living? (During announcements introducing fighters in the ring and outside of it.) Wouldn't this make the use of flags simply a part of the subject that is being documented and characterized as closely to reality as is possible? I am not a user or editor, but would like to help clarify some of these weird discussions justifying mass deletions and edits. All the best 173.168.140.188 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Um, just sayin', but it would be nice to know whom I'm speaking to beyond an IP address. Beyond that, I do not know the exact criteria that the UFC uses but in the vast majority of cases it appears to be the nation of primary citizenship, and when that is not clear, then the nation of self-identity (Cung Le, who has been bandied about, is an absolute outlier in this regard). It is not generally where they have moved to train, unless they moved somewhere to train as a minor and never left (Gegard Mousasi might possibly fall into this sub-category but I don't know, and he is still with Strikeforce through his next fight in January). Also, if a fighter has reached notoriety in another organization before signing with the UFC they usually will not change whatever flag he has used (I say "he" because even including Strikeforce their women's division does not have any confusing cases yet). Example: Hector Lombard moved to Australia under asylum after the 2000 Olympics where he represented Cuba in judo, and had lived their ever since and I believe is an Australian citizen, but has always been promoted under the Cuban flag and was a one of the last Top 10 Middleweight not already with Zuffa when he was signed earlier this year and the biggest new signing since they bought Strikeforce, and to the best of my knowledge he had previously been promoted with the Cuban flag, so I believe chose to be consistent with that in his UFC debut fight (I know he had a fight in Australia a couple days ago, but I had to miss it due to work ;_; so I don't know if his representative flag was changed; usually they are consistent even when it works against whatever locale the UFC is running a show in).

Anyway, in the sporting tables utilized by MMA for UFC events, the flag used is usually is the flag promoted by the UFC, and for other promotions usually the flag used is from the Sherdog database, which I'm pretty sure is something the fighters themselves have always been allowed to give input to whenever there is ambiguity. Both the use of flags and especially their inherent symbolism and representation is certainly a part of the subject documented, and has been used to demonstrate the internationalization of the sport as much as to show national representation (maybe this is a bit of a tangent, but as far as how flags both represent diversity and fighting in a way that transcends national borders, I believe Genki Sudo has amply demonstrated that a picture says a thousand words).

As it were, I would maintain that the targeting of MMA in this regard is arbitrary and capricious at best, as articles in Wikipedia that document major sporting events in everything from golf and tennis to sled dog racing and yacht racing and a million things in between use flag tables even when they are not explicitly for direct national competition, but rather mere national representation in a manner that in no way can be characterized as dissimilar to MMA. An RfC with a 6-to-4 vote or whatever is a silly thing on which to base action potentially taken against hundreds of articles in MMA alone. A Request-for-Closure in the Manual Of Style project with the included involvement of representatives from across WP:SPORTS on this manner for all non-team sports should be included. I believe it to be entirely consistent within WP's Manual of Style and both the MOS And WP ethos that usage of flag icon is an optional matter within a subset of articles as long as it is consistent and not disrespectful or disruptive (there is no good evidence that it is disrespectful or disruptive either in MMA event articles or any other sport where it is used that I can think of). Furthermore, where edit-warring occurs, there are already clear guidelines within the manual of style to give precedence to the first major contributor which should be obvious given the usage of flags for years prior to now. Nevertheless I would have to say that the best way to address this is probably a new Request-for-Closure motion, something I would want to participate in but really do not have time to initiate right now (it might plausibly be something I have time for in 2 weeks or so). Wikipedia Admin Vanisaac who specializes in the usage of flags and heraldry has recommended that such an RfC be held at WP:MOSFLAGS, although he has made it clear he has no dog in this fight and does not wish to be sucked into it himself, which is more than understandable. I would recommend that active editors from WP:SPORTS and related projects including those that work on potentially affected sports such as golf, tennis, amateur wrestling, and Formula One auto racing, also be invited to such a discussion. I do not know if it's the only way to address all this but it appears to be the most concrete. Beansy (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You should definitely start that RfC. Evenfiel (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, my life is already full of drama. If things somehow settle down, then maybe just maybe I could do that later, in a few weeks or something (maybe), but right now someone else should do it (I'd still be happy to comment). I've never done one before and I'm already much more involved in this mess than I want to be. Beansy (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll sign up (for a fake name??) when I find something I can contribute and know that it won't get flat out deleted because of someone's interpretation of a Wiki Policy, or if I decide to become a lawyer I can use a Wiki account to sharpen my skills. Thanks for the response (and interesting facts) by the way and I'm sure MMA fans, including yourself (fan or not), will find a way to adhere to all the rules and keep the content there.173.168.140.188 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, I'm more than a little disconcerted about the way you've worded your comment. What do you mean by "fake name"? If you have an existing Wikipedia account that hasn't been inactive for a long period of time, then creating another account is sockpuppetry and bannable. Please don't do that. If you do not have a Wikipedia account and mean a "fake name" as opposed to your real-life name, then yes, I would not recommend using your real name on Wikipedia, or really any internet site that isn't directed connected to a job you have, but I really shouldn't have to tell anyone over the age of 12 that. And yes, Wikipedia wars have been known to sharpen one's lawyering skills, but that doesn't mean either activity is necessarily ethical. Keep things ethical please. I actually kind of feel like I'm being trolled here. If you want to contribute to the MMA debate in a positive way, regardless of your position on it, that is always welcome, and I'm not going to tell you what position to take, but please act ethically. I would not be fighting for the preservation of MMA articles if I didn't personally feel it was the ethical and righteous thing to do in addition to holding the firm belief that the MMA content I am fighting to keep is adherent to broader WP guidelines. That is all I ask of anyone: 1) be ethical, 2) adhere to WP guidelines, and 3) don't be a zealot unless you have a good reason that you're willing to explain when asked. Beansy (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UFC 155.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 23:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet questions

Rather than clutter up the WT MMA talk page with sockpuppet stuff, I thought I'd try to answer some of your questions here. You can look at the SPI page here for some of the answers. Basically, a checkuser has said that Pound4Pound was a sockpuppet of BigzMMA. It's rarely an IP match as that usually gets caught by the autoblock, not to mention many people have dynamic IP addresses (or can easily find a new IP by using coffee houses, restaurants, etc). CU's have various tools that give them access to much of the meta information sent with any HTTP request - see the HTTP header article for some examples of what they might have available. From a pure behavior perspective I don't think anyone would 100% link the two accounts but I also didn't think BigzMMA would totally disappear after being blocked and that it was just a matter of time before a sock appeared. Same with JonnyBoyJones (who may be Glock17gen4, interestingly enough). CU's can't/won't divulge too many details about exactly how they confirm socks to avoid giving people too many clues on how to avoid detection. Generally though, they are very conservative about making definitive statements so DeltaQuad's language is pretty telling. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I seriously did not know how that sort of thing worked. Looking through the investigation file BigzMMA, I did kind of feel the need to point out that Sherdog is actually not a "marginal" site by any means, but I suppose that's a drop in the bucket. Also, "JonnyBonesJones" (Bones, not Boy, like the fighter of the same name) did strike me as an awfully uncreative name (it'd be like a boxer naming themselves "MikeTyson" or something) and he did seem to be causing some trouble with the non-stop MMA biography AfDs, so him being a sock would explain his behavior. Anyway, thank you for educating me on that. Beansy (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Another area that I watch had an extremely persistent master that usually didn't care if he got caught or not but a couple of times would work to sneak a sock past folks. After reading enough SPI reports and digging a bit, you start to recognize what the CU's can check for and when they're limited to purely behavior. Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MMA country of birth this time ISO codes. Thank you. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes pending the outcome of the discussion at WP:ANI please respect WP:BRD and the processes. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

List of UFC fighters

Hi, I have no opinion on flags or anything else but happened to glance at the article following the ANI discussion. If the ISO codes are going to be added wouldn't the column be better headed Nationality rather than ISO? NtheP (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm certainly open to suggestions and if someone changed it to "nationality" and formatted it so it didn't look awkward I don't think I'd change it back. The reason I used "ISO" (w/ link to article) is because it takes up very little room, and at first I wasn't even going to put anything at all in the field header. I am not the primary caretaker of the page though and this would be better addressed either on Thaddeus Venture's talk page or the article's talk page. Beansy (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA ISO Codes

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page within the topic of mixed martial arts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

The patience within the community for disputes over these articles is pretty much exhausted; so inappropriate behaviour such as edit warring is going to be met with heavy sanctions. Substituting ISO codes, and then claiming admin support (which I can't find on that page.. you've drawn a very dubious conclusion from kww's comments), before any consensus emerges is only extending the dispute.

Per discretionary sanctions, I am giving you the above warning notice as a final warning. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For beating mtking at his own game Mmajim (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question which you need give no opinion on

As you put them in originally, I was wondering if you had a preference on the ISO column. I've mad the text in the first two tables small, because it looks less awkward. This may however hinder readability. I want to get a second perspective on this, but if you feel like you're better of staying well away from it at this point I understand. Thanks for your help. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not looking to get involved much in MMA editing at the moment. I wasn't looking for a barrel of drama in the first place, but clearly that's difficult to avoid in this subject. As for a purely aesthetic opinion, I like the smaller font you did as it makes the column less distracting and makes the neighboring column more distinct, at least in my opinion, and theoretically makes both columns more quickly accessible to the cerebral cortex. Since most browsers can easily enlarge text and the font-size is only marginally smaller anyway, I don't personally think readability is an issue and would be splitting hairs. Of course, obviously whatever ruling the powers-that-be end up making ought to be respected, including the deletion of the field. Beansy (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and support. I'm glad you found the article without a lot of trouble. Right now it's pretty much at the unpaid internship level, but I'm also sort of staff, so we'll see how that goes (I expect it will go well). I will still poke around wiki a bit, I've got my list of mma champions to monitor, so we are sure to cross paths. And of course you're always free to find me on BE and/or email me through my profile there.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Invicta FC events‎

"Considering they are debuting with the promotion I have to believe that's their intended division for the fight" You're absolutely right. My Thai28 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beansy. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 11:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  11:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Beansy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beansy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Beansy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)