User talk:Gsfelipe94/Archive 2

France v Germany

I don't think per http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/39/89/51/eng_58_0704_fra-ger_tacticalstartlist.pdf one can say Matuidi and Pogba are wide midfielders while Griezmann, Valbuena, Muller and Ozil are wingers. Just wanted to see your reasoning behind your edit before I (maybe) revert it. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You can write Özil and Müller as LM and RM instead of just AM or if you don't want to write them as wingers... On the other hand, it's pretty clear from the other matches that they played and how France plays that Griezmann and Valbuena are wingers. Pogba and Matuidi I didn't change, probably was changed as I clicked to edit. But I agree with the way they are. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to James Rodríguez, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Editor

Yes, I have definitely dealt with 24.102.148.42 before. This user used to tell me that we shouldn't never follow Sherdog for MMA records and fighter stats and that we should follow any other source, reliable or not. This user is an anti-Sherdog ass, and has definitely done things that would get other people banned in the past, such as his attitude.

He/she acts likes your the criminal when you try and do the right thing, such as at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt, I agree that the result should be "Modified anaconda choke" if it's a different variation of an anaconda choke, it should be listed as modified.

He/she is like Lukejordan02, tries to do the right thing but has an attitude when somebody doesn't agree with his edit. Other than that, I just hope this editor quits picking on other users and gets a life! TheGoldenSamurai (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I do think 24.102.148.42 should be blocked. At least the block would teach he/she a lesson on why you shouldn't have an attitude. TheGoldenSamurai (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Sherdog is the main source, but obviously a lot of times they don't have it right. Other than that, it should be a consensus. Any idea how we could get him to be blocked? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

See, it's funny because we share the same point of view on this. I believe Sherdog should be the main source unless you can prove otherwise with another legit source and I hate when others ignore fact with Sherdog's constant errors. They have, however, listed some submission to strikes as TKOs which I completely agree with & I think should be common practice. A submission should require a submission and when a guy has multiple submission victories on his record, but all coming by strikes, it's misleading.

Another example, the choke Oliveira used against Hioki is the exact same choke he used against Brookins. Sherdog, and now you for some reason, are trying to list them differently. Brookins as a guillotine and Hioki as an anaconda... actually, you're listing Brookins' loss as a guillotine on one page and a D'arce on another. Choke 1 vs Choke 2. Only difference is the leg over his arm, which isn't really that significant & may have even happened on accident but does add some pressure. I understand why you thought it was a Peruvian, others did as well, but it's not. I'm willing to concede it as a modified anaconda choke, it really is simply another method of achieving the choke so modified is unnecessary but, if that's really what you want, change Brookins to the same.

The wheel kick issue is another error by sherdog. A wheel kick requires a spin in nature, by adding "spinning" it's redundant. Not too big of an issue but I thought I'd correct it, didn't expect to get flack for that. I suppose just "wheel kick" would be more fitting than "spinning heel kick" though.

Reverse calf slicer is like inverted heel hook but 10x more rare in competition. Not sure why you have a problem with this one. Gracie Breakdown.

Oleksiy Oliynyk's submission I believe was a cobra choke but I think I may be wrong on that and I'm unable to find that information. Sherdog has a consistency with not using neck crank names like Can Opener, 100%, wicked triangle, ect... which is frustrating. Even more frustrating is this particular submission is not even a neck crank. He has used this choke on multiple others opponents & I'd like to list them all as the same but I know that will get undone as well...

I'm willing to call truce but only if you research the edits I make before you revert them. We seem to share the same stance on this but differ on 1 or 2 edits and have somehow gone on to undo completely irrelevant edits for no reason. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it's funny how you mention that you will "concede" us to update it in a way that you weren't going to. It's bizarre. About Oliynyk's submission, it's been already solved as he mentioned on an interview what he did and his opponent confirmed why he tapped. And while you may not agree with submission via strikes, it is indeed a submission. The person tapped (verbally or not) due to strikes. It wasn't a TKO because the referee didn't interfere based on the attack, but instead based on the submission of the victim. It makes no sense to even discuss that. If it's clear somebody tapped (regardless of what his opponent was doing) then it is a submission. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you find funny. I am conceding you to edit it against what I would like and the main source (sherdog). No need to still be confrontational. The choke was an anaconda choke but it wasn't the typical execution of it and thus I understand the confusion. It's still just an anaconda choke, not modified, but if adding modified is entirely necessary to you then okay. Changing it to D'arce, Peruvian, or guillotine is silly though. I would just like you to stop undoing edits that have no reason to be undone. It comes off as vandalism when you change my edits when you don't even seem to agree with your revisions.

The TKO vs Submission thing makes perfect sense & I was following Sherdog with my edits there. You think it makes sense to introduce a 12-0 fighter as having all submission finishes and have all of those finishes coming by submission to strikes? It's just weird. When a fighter bows out due to leg kicks in K1 it's declared a TKO not a submission. Pat Barry won his first UFC fight this way and it's still called a TKO everywhere. The guy clearly tapped though. As for Oliynyk's submission, I added that interview previously and it was reverted by you or someone else. He didn't actually mention the name though. Didn't realize it had been finally fixed, although, the position is what is added at the moment not the name of the submission. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas on how to get him blocked at the moment, sorry. TheGoldenSamurai (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember you, GoldenSamurai, but I assure you I have not once said "we should never follow Sherdog for MMA records and fighter stats and that we should follow any other source, reliable or not." Seems like a completely hyperbolic statement to me. I've said they're not always right, if fact, they are often wrong when it comes to less common finishes.

Hey, IP sign your comments it's confusing who wrote what, I think Reranian should be blocked as I am getting sick of his constant edit warring for no reason. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94, Good news! Reranian has been blocked indefinitely as it turned out it was a sockpuppet of another account, you may already know by now but just thought i'd share it anyway. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The guy that kept changing "Arena Ciudad de México" to "Mexico City Arena"? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

UFC on FOX: Lawler vs. Brown

Please stop undoing my edits as I'm witnessing the results happen I am placing the results officially JMichael22 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I don't know if you are in the same zone as me and I'm seeing the results happen before you are but I'm only posting them after I see them announced so I'd appreciate it if you would stay away from my edits because I'm only posting accurate results JMichael22 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Halifax FN event

I had already created a page earlier for the event and then saw that you had created one too. So, I then redirected the original page to the page newer page, instead of trying to "move" the original. I copied and pasted some of the initial content and sources from the original page, to the newer version. I was not trying to hijack the newer work. Cheers. Ppt1973 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, but I was referring to some stuff that were right already (like name of the arena for example). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cartel do Júnior Cigano

Olá Gsfelipe94, eu reverti suas mudanças no cartel do Júnior Cigano na página dele em inglês, de TKO (punches) para TKO (slam & punch). Como você sabe, os gringos são bem chatos e ficou decidido entre os editores de MMA das páginas em inglês que o cartel dos lutadores e o método de vitórias/derrotas na wikipédia é o que tá listado no Sherdog. Claro que o Sherdog não ta 100% correto, alguns resultados listados lá são vítimas de debates pra saber se serão considerados ou não pra daí ai sim ter mudança, mas caso não haja essa discussão, o aconselhável é não mudar. Chosen Um (talk) 23:21, 24 semptember 2014 (UTC)

The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned

Please discuss things here instead of reverting each other. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Paco Alcácer

Olá Felipe, "falando" desde Portugal,

por favor não voltes a remover a referência na tabela de gols internacionais deste (e de nenhum outro) jogador. Pelos padrões da WP temos de referenciar, sempre que possível, esta seção e a de títulos (Honours), mesmo que já apareça na historinha.

Votos de um bom trabalho, obrigado --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Também peço desculpa se exagerei no sumário mas, como se tratava de uma reversão gravíssima, entrei em "wikipânico". Não voltará a acontecer, com certeza. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sem problema. É que normalmente não se vê referências ali e além disso já tinha uma outra no texto mencionando o gol dele. Tudo tranquilo. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• (better in English, since this is the English WP and your level of English is also very good) Please, i am trying to keep it coherent in several articles and nobody has ever reverted me. I am talking about the compression in the international goals chart, i remove the UEFA (in this case, also FIFA in other tournaments) because what's essential is that the reader understands what type of tournament we are talking about - if the EURO QUALIFYING part is visible, of course they'll know it's organized by UEFA, if they see WORLD CUP QUALIFICATION, it has to be organized by FIFA.

However, if after this explanation you still revert me, that's OK i give up, i tried my best. Happy week --84.90.219.128 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why there's no need to remove it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cara, pense bem. A "caixa" tem que ficar o mais curta possível. O que é mais curto: UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying ou Euro 2016 qualifying? Tchau, MYS77 ^✉ 21:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mas ela não está comprida. Sempre foi assim e esse é o máximo que pode chegar. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, já vi que não está muito afim de aceitar outras opiniões se não a tua. Deixarei-a assim, mas pense bem: o nome completo já aparece na historinha acima da caixa (não sei se você reparou). MYS77 ^✉ 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eu também desisto, deste lado do oceano não vai haver guerra de edições (edit war), fique descansado Felipe. Expliquei o melhor que pude o meu ponto de vista, OK fica assim.

Com os melhores cumprimentos --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:The Amazing Race 25, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Irony is a great thing isn't it. I'll return later for discussion at your article's talk page. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You called me "delusional" across four different articles' histories. That's a violation of WP:NPA. Don't do it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet again you're going on and on about how I'm wrong and a danger to the project when you do not have consensus for your proposed changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop making snarky edit summaries that attack me. This is your final warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

:"Keep it as Ryulong prefers" is an attack? Obviously you're the only one that sees it. This will go nowhere. This is a final reminding. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion, prior to your fourth edit. Please use that and do not revert again, or you will be blocked for edit warring. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And do not falsely accuse me of personally attacking you either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The same goes to you, Ryulong. Saying that we should keep it as you prefer is a personal attack? lol Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, stop edit warring and stop making personal attacks as you did here or you'll be blocked. On article talk pages and in edit summaries, focus strictly on the editorial content of the article and do not comment on other editors per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you have a problem with another editor's conduct, the follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny fact is that the only "personal attack" I did was that. I say that because based on other stuff he accused me, this would also be a personal attack. I warned him about it. I don't hate him, actually I don't really care at all, while he hates when people change anything that do not please him in an article. It's all over there if you need to check. He's the one that starts edit wars, not me. Good luck on the Ryulong club then. Or is that also a personal attack? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've warned Ryulong about making personal comments as well, but I have to say if you can't see the difference between saying "because you hate me" and calling someone "delusional"", then you need to rethink things quite a bit. Dreadstar ☥ 02:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I might have to repeat myself here as I already mentioned the only "personal attack" was that delusional update. And then I'm referring to what you just said as he once again came here to complain about "another personal attack". It's obvious that I'm comparing his two accusations of personal attack. If he accuses me of personal attack because I said "keep it as Ryulong prefers", then definitely I'm able to accuse him on that same logic. Keep an eye on him for that disruptive behavior. Not the first time I've seen it. I apologize if I did the same thing, but I'm definitely not doing the same stuff as him. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag of NI

It doesnt have one. In some sports it uses the former flag, but you would have to show it is used in the sport, or its WP:OR. Murry1975 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you creating a big deal about this? Thats the flag they usually display for sports events and the one that goes on the tale of the tape. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Show it used in UFC. Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Any source for it yet? Murry1975 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Still showing up once in a while to create disturbance? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are arent you?

Here are a few links for you.

So again I will ask, do you have a source for its usage?

The reason I am asking before removing, I have found out its addition and removal come under Troubles restrictions, which are kinda of biggy. Murry1975 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how far you're going/willing to for this subject. I've seen nothing related to mixed martial arts, only stuff related to Northern Ireland. Do you search through each article anything related to that country that you can change or bother who edited it? There's no source saying "hey, we use this flag for Norman Parke!". Yet, the flag used is the most common as we didn't go with the UK flag. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

So it is unsourced. Murry1975 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Petros's Profile

Hi Gsfelipe94

Please check this official information from Corinthians football team: [Petros's profile] and this unofficial site but most complete about Corinthians football team: [Profile] My intentions when I editing Sport Club Corinthians page on Wikipedia is have most updated information about players. I hope rely your comprehension

Best Regards

November 2014

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence The Amazing Race 25. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Mass messaging people is canvassing. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

When I think you can't surprise me... Here you come again. It's hilarious. Now inviting people to create a consensus about something you changed all by yourself is wrong? I'd do it anyway regardless of who was involved. Get over it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

People don't need to be sent messages. They can go to the talk page and see it for themselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I think it's pretty hard to understand it right? You can't call people to give their opinions because Ryulong doesn't like it. I won't reply here anymore. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't go out and ask people to vote in your favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And you can't go out saying whatever you want to be considered the truth. Having trouble with text interpretation? Oh right, not the first time. You can think whatever you want. With facts laid on the table, there's nothing you can do to distort the truth. You can't turn an invitation to a discussion in a talk page to "ask people to vote in my favor". The same way you can't turn "keep it as Ryulong prefers" into a personal attack. Keep in mind that you need some serious text interpretation or you can keep it to yourself, because if you go around complaining about that, people will say the exact same thing I just did. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Is there a reason why my edits are an issue or do you just want to pump up some contributor tally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.145.238 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All updates must wait for the official announcement instead of just updating it as you want to. You don't have to update it to become the one who did it. Wait for official results before doing it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I get it. In that, case, the results of Frankie Edgar vs Cub Swanson was announced as a submission via rear-naked choke by Bruce Buffer during the official decision. If the official decision is supreme, why is the result tallied as a submission via neck crank (not arguing here, just looking for clarity on that. It's mostly a non-issue but I am wondering which source is more important, Bruce Buffer's announcement versus Sherdog/BE/ect.). Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You're telling me something I didn't tell you. I said you need to wait for official decision/result to update, not that it is the true. Specially because most of you "speedies" don't add the time as you want to be the ones that got the update as soon as a fight ends. You gotta wait for official time as well. And the result is correct as neck crank. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to be the one to get the update, I just rather update then watch the same MetroPCS commercial for the 1000th time. If I cared about that sort of thing I would have made an account here. I know you didn't talk to me about the Edgar/Swanson fight, I'm asking for clarity on that, that is all. As in, which source is more useful, Sherdog or the official announcement after the fight. 146.115.145.238 (talk)

UFC on Fox Fight Card

Listen I'm not stupid, I know there are sources out there that state that to be the finalized card. However, we can't use them as sources because they are not from UFC's official website. If things worked the way you want them to, we would never even have an "announced bouts" section. Don't you think we could just find any source out there that says that, and use it? No. We use UFC's official website and if it's not on there, then we don't use it in the article. Simple enough? WWE Batman131 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for you to come over and simply decide that because you want it to. It's always been like that. Sometimes the UFC takes too long to add a fight or put the order official, but just as the source of that fight and plenty of other cards says, the information is linked to ufc officials and they're reliable. Therefore, that's the correct order. I don't get the buzz to revert it and create chaos where there isn't one. I'm sure everyone that's used to follow the articles and update it will agree. It's been like this forever. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, think about the announced bouts section. We have that section until the fight is CONFIRMED on UFC's official website. I'm not creating chaos either if that's how you're interpreting this. I see it as a conversation. And what do you mean it doesn't make sense for me to come over and decide things. I stated that because that is how it has always been. It's not like I'm violating your personal property, so relax. All I'm trying to say is that CONFIRMATION is everything and the bout order has yet to be CONFIRMED on UFC's website. This is how it works, period. WWE Batman131 (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, somebody else updated it first - that means that there's more than one person that agrees with me. I'm not defending a "personal property" here, but a public article and the way it's been always updated. There's a source and we've always updated it as soon as one showed up. So I'll tell you how it really works. If you have an objection and want to change it, fine. You go into the article's talk page and start a discussion. Gather other editors to put their opinion and we'll go from there. The default option remains until a decision is made - keep it or change it. That's how it works. And as you like to use it, this is the point of this discussion, period. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol, okay. WWE Batman131 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about your edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

I noticed that you made a change to an article, Conor McGregor, that clearly violated one of Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see WP:MMA as it outlines why your edit was reverted. WWE Batman131 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Creation of UFC events pages

I decided to bring this discussion here, perhaps we can't add all of it later in an specific page to keep it easier for all editors. Anyway here is the matter: I recommend avoiding creation of Fight Night events (perhaps even Fox events) until at least a fight is announced for the card. Also, it would always help to put a link for it to avoid creation of same pages with different names. The most recommended would be the List of UFC Events page and on other events that already have a page and have a "previous and next" event reference. I'd like to get the input from you guys. I've sent a pingback to some editors and feel free to bring others here as well. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Just my opinion, but I recommend creating the article first with the generic title of "UFC Fight Night #" or "UFC on Fox #" until the organization confirms the actual name of the event. At that point the page can be titled by the UFC offical event name. Most media outlets refer to the events by the numerical designation. With more and more events, the "numbers" are going to go higher and higher. The page can always be renamed or redirected as long as the contributing editors know what they are doing as to not lose context or breaks in continuity. Cheers! Ppt1973 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually prefer the way we do it. For example, we have all the info ready for UFC Fight Night 74 but the main event has not been announced and we leave it as a redirect to the List of UFC events page. Once the event headliner is announced, then we simply move the page to UFC Fight Night: Velasquez vs. Miocic. Just my opinion. Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's my point. If you do create an article for a future event, put a link on it right away on pages that feature that article (like the ones mentioned above). But preferably wait for some more info to do it. Like UFC 183, an event that was announced way before its date. Another good example is UFC 189. They've announce it a couple of months ago and the event will only take place in July. But regardless of that, if anyone creates a page, adding the link to other pages would be crucial to avoid different articles for the same subject. At least that's been something that happened recently. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Other example related to what I've just said is the date of the event. For example, UFC on Fox 17 in Chicago. The event is six months away. They'll probably take a maximum of 2 months from now (maybe 3?) to announce a main event or at least a couple of fights. It would still be 3/4 months away from the event, but it would have enough content to justify creating the article. Creating it now, wouldn't be really necessary. Obviously that's just a suggestion about event creations. The Kraków FN is relatively close, justifying it's creation (specially with the top 2 fights announced), while Berlin and Glasgow are too far away atm. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what are you suggesting we do differently from what we do currently? WWE Batman131 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically what I've just said on the second paragraph of the last message. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, but whatever. What did you mean when you said "At least that's been something that happened recently." What happened recently? WWE Batman131 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Two pages for the same event. Happened for the Machida vs. Rockhold event and now for the Cro Cop event as well. Anyway, what I've said it that if an event is still too far away (like the example I gave), there's no need to create it, unless a fight comes up or obviously the main event. If the event is close already (like the Kraków event would be, even if they didn't have a main event announced or any fight at all), it would be "ok" to create the event already, even with the UFN 64 name on it. Berlin and Glasgow cards are too far ahead and don't have a fight confirmed at all, so it doesn't require a page at the moment. Got it? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no one created pages for Berlin and Glasgow, so no problem there. The only reason there were two pages for the Rockhold event and Gonzaga event was because you created them when all you had to do was move them to the designated title. Coincidentally, both of those events' pages were created first by someone and then the other ones were created by you. Only then did we have to deal with the redirects, linking, and talk pages. Recently, I moved UFC Fight Night 62 to UFC Fight Night: Faber vs. Assuncao. I didn't create two articles it was just one that was moved to the correct title. We have yet to create pages for events that are really far away and we likely won't until they are pretty close or until the main event is announced. There's no visible problem here, is there?. WWE Batman131 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There were other events last year that had the same problem I mentioned. The Fox event enters the fact that it wasn't linked anywhere and with the "on Fox 15" name. The Cro Cop event was announced already with the main event and the other page was created 3 minutes earlier because I waited to get all info into it. But if the editor created with the event's title, I would've seen it as I directly looked for an article and there wasn't any. The UFN 62 is the right way to do it. And no, there's no problem in it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

👍 WWE Batman131 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Urijah Faber eye-poking Francisco Rivera

Why would it not merit a note in these men's records? Why would the large number of eyepokes in MMA mean that it should not be noted? Seeing as it led to Faber submitting Rivera, it seems warranted. Furthermore, an argument I saw for not having a note of it in the record was that it was mentioned prior in the article. However, that is often the case with many things that are customary to note. A fighters record is often looked at in itself - without reading an entire article.

In short, please make a proper argument. Don't just be removing stuff. I'll happily oblige, if you have a proper argument for why the reason that the fight ended should not be noted in the record. Best regards. 129.241.35.148 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So should we always add a note when a fight is controversial? For example: Cerrone -> Controversial decision. Should we? Everyone, except you, seems to think no. Unless they do revert the result or something like that, it's not necessary to add it there. As I mentioned, several fights have pokes and we don't add them. Sometimes they do influence the result, others not. I'm pretty sure if it wasn't Faber involved, you wouldn't be here questioning that. But, if you really want to keep that, I suggest you this: It will be removed and then you should create a discussion on the talk page of the article and gather editors to give their opinions on the matter. If a consensus is reached, then the edit comes back. That's how it works. Ok? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"So should we always add a note when a fight is controversial?" No, that's a matter opinion. What happened in the Faber/Rivera fight is not. Furthermore, I never made that argument. Strawman.

"Unless they do revert the result or something like that, it's not necessary to add it there" You're simply making the claim, no actual arguments. That's not how Wikipedia is to be edited.

"I'm pretty sure if it wasn't Faber involved, you wouldn't be here questioning that" Pure conjecture, and not true. I actually know. The suspicious mind conjures its own demons.

Following your reasoning, or lack thereof, you should visit Anthony Johnson's page and remove the similar note from his record. You would be wrong in that too though. Unless you have actual arguments the prove otherwise. If you do, please post them. If you have none, I will go ahead and add the notes back to Faber and Rivera's records.

129.241.35.172 (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The result clearly states that it was a TKO due to the eye injury. I agree with that one. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The only difference is that Burns didn't choke Johnson, hence it was eventually ruled to be due to eye injury. Notice how the result wasn't overturned. In fact, seeing as it clearly states that the TKO was due to eye injury, why is it still noted in addition? Because it is very important to make such events clear - especially so when results are not overturned (they rarely are). Anything else? 129.241.35.165 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You know they're different. It was the eye poke that stopped the fight in Johnson's case. He was "defeated" because the referee judged it as a TKO, while it was simply an absurd of eye pokes (with a final one) resulting in him being totally out of combat due to those illegal moves. That's different than Rivera's case (Though I agree it should be a NC due to the direct result of the eye poke being Rivera's not defending himself as he would normally do).

Try

Go ahead and try to report me. It won't happen. If you know anything about the rules, I won't get blocked so long as I'm the one trying to resolve the situation which I have, I've pinged numerous editors and have taken the task to the talk page to try and resolve the situation. If anything, you are the one edit warring, and if you report me, you have a higher chance of getting blocked. WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at UFC on Fox: Lawler vs. Brown. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gsfelipe94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've tried to resolve the issue by keeping the consensus already discussed. I told the editor to see the talk page of the article to see it by himself and even warned him via talk page. If I'm the one trying to keep the article restored but always providing a reasonable argument + warning the user and I get the block for that? Didn't get it at all. None of those edits were disruptive. I've provided all info at summary + said to editor to read the talk page of the article + sent him a warning (didn't work as he kept reverting) about the edit warring and the fact that if he wanted to change anything, he needed to bring discussion again and in the meanwhile the article had to remain how it looked.

Decline reason:

None of the reasons you gave allow you to edit war. Repeated reverting of the page is not allowed even if you are right, even if you are communication and even if the other user is not. It would not be reasonable for me to unblock you while you are not understanding the reason for the block. If you make another unblock request you might include something that demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and that you are not going to continue if unblocked. Chillum 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gsfelipe94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, I understand that. My intentions were always to keep the consensus reached 6 months ago in the article. I always tried to make sure the editor realized that and stopped reverting the original edit. Even one of them was to tell him I was going to fill a report. I understand that I did break the 3RR rule even though it was good faith. I'm making sure that next time (regardless of this block being removed or not), I'll maintain the 2 reverts and directly approach a report in case the user does not comply by his talk page warning or the article's page discussion. That's why I'm appealing this block. Ever since the beginning I was looking to maintain what was agreed way before the editor came. He tried to open discussion again but as of the moment, people still agreed with the original call. Anyway, that's the main reason I approached it. I felt it was necessary to fill a report due to his behavior. I'll make sure next time I do not fall into the same error a disruptive editor does. I've been changing that. Anyway, thanks.

Accept reason:

Per the request itself and the discussion below. Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to leave this second review for another admin. While I cannot speak for the blocking admin I have no objection to whatever action the next reviewer wants to take. Chillum 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Gsfelipe94, when I glanced at the content at issue, it looked fairly innocuous as content disputes go. Can you please show me where this consensus was reached? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It was discussed during the event. We had it at the talk page. All my explanations are also within the edit summary. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I was right. It was a really silly war. The discussion in July 2014 doesn't look like a clear consensus to me, but I do see that "your" version remained in place without controversy for six months before the other editor and you battled over it. I'm going to unblock you based on your unblock request, but if I see any further battling, the next block will be significantly longer. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it was what we did during the event. We gathered everyone involved at the moment and it was a suggestion by one user just like this time. Anyway, I appreciate it. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson

I know we've had our differences, but could you please give your opinion at Talk:Anthony Johnson? Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nothing against you

You're absolutely right, brother. I'm sorry if any of my edits disrupt you. Can we clean the slate? Enjoy the fights tonight. WWE Batman131 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, man. For example Hettes/Brandão was just canceled, so they shifted the time due to it. Also, you can reply the messages in you own talk page, makes it easier to keep the conversation going. Enjoy the event as well :) Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanking sections

Please refrain from blanking entire sections of articles without discussion, as you did at UFC 168. A discussion was held and it was decided in the past to not blank out the section. If you want to discuss it again, please create a new section on the article Talk:talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Already did it again. You know very well the importance of updates in Wikipedia. You never updated anything MMA related other than this completely irrelevant update. Seriously. I suggest you to accept the edits as it was removed by many editors and others also agree with me. You're only complaining because you want that non sense edit of yours to remain. More info on the talk page. Please spare our time, I don't want to get more editors just to make it clear and obvious for you. It will happen. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gsfelipe94. Thank you. —Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UFC Fight Night: Gonzaga vs. Cro Cop 2

The article UFC Fight Night: Gonzaga vs. Cro Cop 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Favor

Hey man, how's it been? I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me open up a sockpuppet investigation on this guy and this guy. He's been warned so many times on his "Moulko00" talk page that he has created the new account to avoid blocks and get away with vandalism and disruptive edits, which clearly hasn't worked out for him. They're both obviously sock puppets of eachother and his edits are the kind (of vandalistic/disruptive edits) that are really frustrating for users like us. I can understand if you are busy with other priorities but your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that's a perfect example of sock puppet. Go ahead with it, I don't think there's any doubt about it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Keeping UFC Events Current

Thanks Dude!--Achim Hering (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! We're just helping the content of UFC events as good as we can. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: List of UFC events update

Done. They just tweeted the announcements. I assume there will be better references later in the night and I'll change those as needed. Sasukemario (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)