User talk:Gsfelipe94/Archive 7
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
SP
Hi Gsfelipe94, Just to let you know that we just found out User:Regice2020 is a sock. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey man, thanks for letting me know. I just found that out as well. Kind of expected for such behavior. Hopefully that means we can all finish those controversial requests this weekend. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, We could either remove all Regice 2020 tags as per BOLD and move all the discussion on WikiProject page in one setting for merge proposal effected by Covid-19 (including the one raise by one other editor - which we need to talk to him first). That would clear up the event numbering and set merge discussion aside and get things back to normal. Your thoughts. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I do believe the tags could be removed as they were developed in a disruptive way by Regice2020. Since we had the discussion for readjusting the event numbers and it appears that we will follow UFN 171 as the first Fight Night after the cancellations of events, we could move on. A list of all merge proposals could be displayed at the talk page for archive. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- We could do BOLD as Regice 2020 is a SOCK for 4 accounts and believe he will be back for another SOCK in the future - see here. There is naming proposal in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and it looks like it is a majority consensus, so that would be the way to go. However, User: Fbdave we need you to agree to move the merge discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts talk page for this will be the easier and faster way to get all the numbering in place. Pls revert Fbdave thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm up for that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fbdave G'day. Just to let you know that UFC Fight Night articles has reached consensus agreement and the discussion has been closed. UFC has announced another 4 events in July in Fight Island in Abu Dhabi - see HERE. we seek you agreement for the merging discussions of Covid-19 effected UFC event pages to be moved from article talk pages to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts so we may moved and use the "UFC Fight Night xxx" to be relocated to the rightful pages as per UFC Fight Night articles and also new articles can be created so we may sort out the numbering system. If the affected COVID-19 pages needed/reach agreement to merge with other UFC event page, we could do so without issues. Kindly response and your cooperation is most appreciated. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm up for that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- We could do BOLD as Regice 2020 is a SOCK for 4 accounts and believe he will be back for another SOCK in the future - see here. There is naming proposal in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and it looks like it is a majority consensus, so that would be the way to go. However, User: Fbdave we need you to agree to move the merge discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts talk page for this will be the easier and faster way to get all the numbering in place. Pls revert Fbdave thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I do believe the tags could be removed as they were developed in a disruptive way by Regice2020. Since we had the discussion for readjusting the event numbers and it appears that we will follow UFN 171 as the first Fight Night after the cancellations of events, we could move on. A list of all merge proposals could be displayed at the talk page for archive. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, We could either remove all Regice 2020 tags as per BOLD and move all the discussion on WikiProject page in one setting for merge proposal effected by Covid-19 (including the one raise by one other editor - which we need to talk to him first). That would clear up the event numbering and set merge discussion aside and get things back to normal. Your thoughts. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
UFC name numbering
Hi Felipe, as per UFC Fight Night articles - do note that the discussion should be closed soon and if does, as per the discussion/vote is consensus, that means we will forgo the UFC on ESPN xxx event names which means UFC on ESPN 10 will be change to rename as UFC Fight Night 174. There are at least 5 events will be held in Fight Island to replace the International Fight week in Las Vegas - see here. Thanks. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Replace UFC on ESPN with Fight Nights forever? That was not proposed and accepted as a whole. It was among Regice2020 many requests, but did not make sense as the other ones. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I got it now... You mean that it is likely that on that date it will be a FN event instead of an ESPN event. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Felipe, Just to let you know that UFC Fight Night articles has reached consensus agreement and the discussion has been closed. Stay safe and cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Finally. That's great and we won't have problems again I hope. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- as per your "You mean that it is likely that on that date it will be a FN event instead of an ESPN event" I meant the proposal get rid of UFC on ESPN xxx event name. In a way it is a good as eventhought it break away how the historical naming as per event broadcast on that particular TV channel, it is a lot more easy to name the event name since UFC this year has change from ESPN to ESPN+ or from ESPN+ to ESPN without going as per schedule as previous. This also means UFC on ESPN 10 will be named UFC Fight Night XXX. In this sense, we have to update the in WikiProject MMA. 02:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I figure most of that is due to sports programming still being up in the air due to the pandemic. Since most of these events were announced within a month maximum, they are not as easily planned when it comes to broadcast as it used to be. If that were to happen, we'd have to change all events from the past to make sure all of them follow the same pattern. We can't have 10 events as "on ESPN" and then the new ones are just fight nights. I think we could create events that do not have a broadcast 100% defined as "Fight Night" and then change it depending on the broadcast. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your point but there would a lot of changing (round robin change) and many might be on the last minutes and all the affected MMA fighter ages need to change as well. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship events Template (at the bottom of every event page we still put UFC Fight Night XXX on ESPN and ESPN+ section. I would prefer the historical way, but at the moment, it would be best to have on UFC Fight Night xxx and it also the agreement of the editor of the discussion. The issue is we need info the editor who usually change the event name so they may know. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion was related to correcting the Fight Night numbers due to the cancelled events, not naming all of them as Fight Nights titles. I understand that it could mean we're going to change a lot of events, but apparently that's something we might see on June/July (maybe just this month as they are getting things back together). Apparently the biggest issue would be changing from ESPN to ESPN+ only, but that happened only once and it was the first event after UFC 249. By creating events that are not 100% certain as Fight Nights, we could wait until broadcast is definitely confirmed and change the titles. It's not that big of an issue to change it on fighters' page. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning but the discussion was consensus in agreement for such we have to follow it. As the c-19 effected many things in life and guess this is one of thme. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, the discussion was related to correcting the Fight Night numbers due to the cancelled events, not naming all of them as Fight Nights titles. That was not the proposal nor the response from everybody. It was agreed that we would jump the numbers for those event cancelled, not that it's PPV or Fight Night events from now on. It's pretty clear there. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes correcting the number and UFC on ESPN date was in the list and it was propose to change to UFC Fight Night. We can go back when it is unanimous, especially it was a mess prior with all the name change, it will just reignite the whole problem again. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- You said it right: "date". From my understanding, the June 27 event was just an example of Fight Night that he gave, not looking into broadcast by ESPN or ESPN+. If he added "on ESPN" there and another date became an ESPN event, would you say the same thing? He just clarified it below. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes correcting the number and UFC on ESPN date was in the list and it was propose to change to UFC Fight Night. We can go back when it is unanimous, especially it was a mess prior with all the name change, it will just reignite the whole problem again. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, the discussion was related to correcting the Fight Night numbers due to the cancelled events, not naming all of them as Fight Nights titles. That was not the proposal nor the response from everybody. It was agreed that we would jump the numbers for those event cancelled, not that it's PPV or Fight Night events from now on. It's pretty clear there. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning but the discussion was consensus in agreement for such we have to follow it. As the c-19 effected many things in life and guess this is one of thme. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion was related to correcting the Fight Night numbers due to the cancelled events, not naming all of them as Fight Nights titles. I understand that it could mean we're going to change a lot of events, but apparently that's something we might see on June/July (maybe just this month as they are getting things back together). Apparently the biggest issue would be changing from ESPN to ESPN+ only, but that happened only once and it was the first event after UFC 249. By creating events that are not 100% certain as Fight Nights, we could wait until broadcast is definitely confirmed and change the titles. It's not that big of an issue to change it on fighters' page. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your point but there would a lot of changing (round robin change) and many might be on the last minutes and all the affected MMA fighter ages need to change as well. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship events Template (at the bottom of every event page we still put UFC Fight Night XXX on ESPN and ESPN+ section. I would prefer the historical way, but at the moment, it would be best to have on UFC Fight Night xxx and it also the agreement of the editor of the discussion. The issue is we need info the editor who usually change the event name so they may know. Cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I figure most of that is due to sports programming still being up in the air due to the pandemic. Since most of these events were announced within a month maximum, they are not as easily planned when it comes to broadcast as it used to be. If that were to happen, we'd have to change all events from the past to make sure all of them follow the same pattern. We can't have 10 events as "on ESPN" and then the new ones are just fight nights. I think we could create events that do not have a broadcast 100% defined as "Fight Night" and then change it depending on the broadcast. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- as per your "You mean that it is likely that on that date it will be a FN event instead of an ESPN event" I meant the proposal get rid of UFC on ESPN xxx event name. In a way it is a good as eventhought it break away how the historical naming as per event broadcast on that particular TV channel, it is a lot more easy to name the event name since UFC this year has change from ESPN to ESPN+ or from ESPN+ to ESPN without going as per schedule as previous. This also means UFC on ESPN 10 will be named UFC Fight Night XXX. In this sense, we have to update the in WikiProject MMA. 02:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Finally. That's great and we won't have problems again I hope. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Felipe, Just to let you know that UFC Fight Night articles has reached consensus agreement and the discussion has been closed. Stay safe and cheers. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I got it now... You mean that it is likely that on that date it will be a FN event instead of an ESPN event. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My personal preference – just like Sherdog shows it
Hi Gsfelipe94 (I agree with you), and Cassiopeia (I want to agree with you), so I would redo the consensus proposal and do another vote on this, numbers included and all, just like Sherdog has, if it clarifies any unresolved issues. Avoiding the links below, we could vote on what we just see here, for example, UFC Fight Night 172: Blaydes vs. Volkov would be the actual article itself instead of UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. Volkov. Same thing with UFC on ESPN 10: Eye vs. Calvillo, instead of that being UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo. What do you say? If all three of us agree to this, then we should put this up for vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. If not, well it was worth a try. Thoughts? — Cheers, --Discographer (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. From my understanding ESPN events stay "on ESPN" and ESPN+ stay "Fight Night". That was never the point of the discussion, it's pretty clear there. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Thank you. --Discographer (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- But in that case, the numbers would not go on the title. They would just appear on the body of the article and redirects. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely agree with you. --Discographer (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- But in that case, the numbers would not go on the title. They would just appear on the body of the article and redirects. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Thank you. --Discographer (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer Ok I saw your reasoning in few of the talk page. Let do this then. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia Thank you. --Discographer (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let's begin this vote, shall we, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Thank you Cassiopeia and Gsfelipe94. --Discographer (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer, As per your table (view in source editing mode) the numbers (examplea UFC Fight Night 173: Poirier vs. Hooker and UFC on ESPN 8: Overeem vs. Harris will be removed on the title page. If so, you might want to create another column to state the page name as many editors might not notice. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, Okay, done. Thanks. --Discographer (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer I have tweak a little at WikiProject MMA talk - pls have a look if I did it as per our discussion. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 12:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, Okay. Did you want the UFC flagship fight articles to stay put at where they're at, or can we move them (example UFC 246) to UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy, like that of all other articles having the main fighters names shown? --Discographer (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer and Felipe, I am down if we need all the page title as per Sherdog and if we do that it means we are moving to a new naming - see here (2) I am also ok to stay put as the historical naming which means UFC Fight Night: xxx vs. xxx and UFC on EPSN: xxx vs. xxx with no numbering and PPV is just UFC XXX. Your thoughts. Cassiopeia(talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia I agree with you, thanks. --Discographer (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, Gsfelipe94, Is everything okay then with the wikitable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#UFC fight articles, or do you want anything changed? I'm good with it, actually. We will have a lot of redirects to attend to should this pass, but that's okay, I'm ready to help out if needed. --Discographer (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer and Felipe, Discographer, currently, your new fight naming in WikiProject MMA talk is not as per historical naming norm as for PPV, the article name is just UFC XXX. (no healiner names on it). Cassiopeia(talk) 13:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, Okay, how's it look now? --Discographer (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, If there isn't anything else, and we're done, I won't mess around with that wikitable anymore. --Discographer (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Discographer What you have done is the same Wikipedia UFC historical article naming. I am OK with it. Thank you so much for doing the work. Appreciate it. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia, these three fight page articles would look something like this, right? --Discographer (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- UFC 246 redirects to UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy
| UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
- UFC Fight Night 166 and UFC on ESPN+ 24 and UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. dos Santos redirect to UFC Fight Night 166: Blaydes vs. dos Santos
| UFC Fight Night 166: Blaydes vs. dos Santos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
- UFC on ESPN 8 and UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris redirect to UFC on ESPN 8: Overeem vs. Harris
| UFC on ESPN 8: Overeem vs. Harris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
--Discographer (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer For Wikipedia historical UFC numbering, and article name and on the lead section would be like this
- PPV event - see UFC 250
- UFC Fight Night event - see UFC Fight Night: Edgar vs. The Korean Zombie
- UFC on ESPN event - see UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Rozenstruik
- You could check out all the event at List of UFC events at the past events section. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia the proposal's for Wikipedia future UFC numbering, not past (historical) or present numbering. It is adapting with advancement. --Discographer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discographer the one you propose in WikiProject MMA is taken from Sherdog - see [1]. Felipe, your thoughts? Cassiopeia(talk) 11:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Cassiopeia it is, and that's what these pages should be called also. --Discographer (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I was working for the last 24 hours so I couldn't see this. Honestly I prefer to keep the titles without numbers and PPV with no main events, in a manner that it is easier to access those titles and it has been the way we've been doing. I don't think that putting the numbers on Fight Night events will help that much in finding that info. At the end of the day, people find it simply by the main event or PPV number. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, you've both made your points very clear, so I've rescinded the proposal-to-be from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. --Discographer (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
re: Pedrinho (footballer, born April 1998)
Hi, Per the Benfica source in the article, Pedrinho is still a Corinthians player until the Portuguese transfer window opens, which won't be until the current Portuguese season ends at least. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira – reverted merge
If there was no consensus, please explain to me what being bold here actually means because unless you're an administrator, I really don't understand how it's possible. Also, this article doesn't require merging because it's a "totally different event" to that of UFC 249 and UFC 250 right? I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Those events were originally supposed to take place on April 18 and May 9, 2020 before they were respectively postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Do those cancelled events have their own articles? No. Why can I not facilitate a merge between the Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020 and UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira pages? If the cancelled UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Harris event had taken place at a later date under the same title, I would try and facilitate the same thing. Instead, we create pointless articles like Cancelled UFC event on April 9, 2020 and Cancelled UFC event on May 30, 2020 for literally no reason whatsoever. No event was ever planned for April 9 and UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns actually took place on May 30, following some initial speculation around an event date one week earlier. I will not be looking to merge "apples and oranges" like this again, but you're obviously more than welcome to rectify your mistakes at any time. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yet I did not create those articles you mentioned and even questioned their creation as well. Thing is: UFC 249 and 250 are fix events as PPVs, so we do those changes in the same article. The April 15 event was cancelled and had Smith vs. Teixeira as main event. The UFC later announced a previously non-scheduled event for May 13 and eventually booked those two guys to headline it. That makes a coincidence in main events, not the same event being rescheduled. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gsfelipe94: That's not the point though. You felt the need to revert my merge, but not recommend the cancelled April 9 and May 30 articles for deletion? I cannot understand that for the life of me. Also, why aren't all UFC event articles, PPV or not, "fix events" like you touched on? What difference should it make regarding UFC Fight Night and UFC on ESPN articles? The announced UFC event for May 13 might have been a previously non-scheduled one, although that's easily supportable and conveyable through the use of both factual citations and an appropriate explanation (I actually believe there's one already). This makes it the only UFC event page of its kind and it shouldn't be. After yesterday, I'm simply not prepared to waste any more time going back and forth with you now. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I told Cassiopeia that those articles should be nominated for deletion by her because they did not make sense. The only reason this merge is being asked for is that it has the same main event and broadcast. If there was a different broadcast or ME, it would not be merged. The only articles actually called by their numbers are the PPVs, that's why I said they were "fix" events. You've had plenty of other contributions that were good, I just don't feel this one is 100% doable. Keep on keeping on. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @29cwcst and Gsfelipe94: Hi guys, g'day. (1) The article can not be deleted as it is well sourced and pass WP:GNG notability requirement which is the core requirement to have a page in Wikipedia main space. (2) I am with 29cwcst here. It does not matter the event is non PPV event but it is the same event should headliner by the same fighters which was cancelled due to c-19 and rescheduled to other date and location, to me it should be merged. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- The event wasn't postponed and kept the same as UFC 249 (and that was the reason we moved the information, as the UFC announced that it would still be UFC 249). When it comes to the other event, it was a Fight Night scheduled for one date in a different city with Smith/Teixeira as main event. The event was cancelled. Then the UFC announced a previously non-scheduled data for a new event after they returned, to take place in Jacksonville. Eventually they announced that it would feature Smith vs. Teixeira as main event. They are separate events and one article does no harm to the other and the main info is on top. It does not make sense for you to request merge, Cassiopeia, when you have two innacurate articles created and does not want them to be deleted. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @29cwcst and Gsfelipe94: Hi guys, g'day. (1) The article can not be deleted as it is well sourced and pass WP:GNG notability requirement which is the core requirement to have a page in Wikipedia main space. (2) I am with 29cwcst here. It does not matter the event is non PPV event but it is the same event should headliner by the same fighters which was cancelled due to c-19 and rescheduled to other date and location, to me it should be merged. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I told Cassiopeia that those articles should be nominated for deletion by her because they did not make sense. The only reason this merge is being asked for is that it has the same main event and broadcast. If there was a different broadcast or ME, it would not be merged. The only articles actually called by their numbers are the PPVs, that's why I said they were "fix" events. You've had plenty of other contributions that were good, I just don't feel this one is 100% doable. Keep on keeping on. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gsfelipe94: That's not the point though. You felt the need to revert my merge, but not recommend the cancelled April 9 and May 30 articles for deletion? I cannot understand that for the life of me. Also, why aren't all UFC event articles, PPV or not, "fix events" like you touched on? What difference should it make regarding UFC Fight Night and UFC on ESPN articles? The announced UFC event for May 13 might have been a previously non-scheduled one, although that's easily supportable and conveyable through the use of both factual citations and an appropriate explanation (I actually believe there's one already). This makes it the only UFC event page of its kind and it shouldn't be. After yesterday, I'm simply not prepared to waste any more time going back and forth with you now. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No Arena Name
UFC 251 has no arena name. "Fight Island" is not arena name and Yas island is obviously a location. The person who placed "Fight island" in that slot was "all in the head". Source also does not verify the arena name. All this "Fight Island" are all PR.
I DO NOT KNOW WHY KEEP AUGURING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE CHANGE JUST LIKE YOU DID WITH @29cwcst:.Kent Bargo (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why so loud? There's no need for all the caps lock. The venue is the UFC Fight Island facility, it has been always that way and it's the way it's been advertised. It's not about an "arena". So you take your personal opinion and use it as an argument? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Gsfelipe94 "UFC Fight Island" is just a PR stuff and not the arena name. Venue is nothing but a simple definition for arena. The arena has not name yet according to source. Kent Bargo (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- If a name to satisfy you does come up, we can gladly add it there. Just like the UFC has the UFC APEX facility in Las Vegas, they baptized the one in UAE as Fight Island. It is also obvious that they will use that as marketing. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yea seeing that you argue with others users. I do not believe you resolve this smoothly.Kent Bargo (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Argue? You clearly know nothing about anything. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
@29cwcst: Hi Felipe and 29cwcst, same as all the cancelled or postponed events, they never happened so was Cancelled UFC event on April 9, 2020 - pls read the content. The article is nominated AfD at the moment, if the the closing favor delete then remove it from the list but as of now it stays in the list. Thank you.09:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- So you should create articles with a wrong date for every city that had their original event cancelled. That means at least 5 articles to be created. Are you going to do it? Seriously I do not understand why not just redirect the original UFC Fight Night 176 title to the List of UFC Events page until the actual UFN 176 was announced. Makes no sense to do that redirect and keep adding it to the events page. There never was a UFC event planned for April 9 and the Kazakhstan event was supposed to take place on June 13 (but was relocated to the US and still happened on that date). You do not give an argument for its existence, just that it should wait for deletion (that will happen per obvious reasons). Makes no sense at all. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Either way Cassiopeia, just ensure that you do so properly without simply reverting past edits the whole time. If and when required, be prepared to actually edit articles accordingly. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- 29cwcst I did try to fix it in several edits, you might want to check the history log. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Felipe94, Greetings. Articles are created as per sources which meet the requirement of the guidelines. If AfD closing result is delete then so be it. And if not and the article needs to redirect to UFN 176, I am ok with that as well. Just wait for a few more than after the AfD closing to action. Have a good day. cheers. Cassiopeia(talk)
- @Cassiopeia: All the same to you. However, that shouldn't be what happens to the article if it's not deleted. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- 29cwcst I dont wish to redirect to be hones if the article is not deleted what means the article deems notable and should be kept in the list. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then we'll need to add a discussion about its removal. It's incredible that you're adamant about keeping an article with so many innacurate information. The sources you have on it are completely opposite to what you're article says. There's no excuse to keeping it on the list. Shocking. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Felipe, if the AfD closes as delete then it will automatically remove from the list, if not you are welcome to have a discussion. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then we'll need to add a discussion about its removal. It's incredible that you're adamant about keeping an article with so many innacurate information. The sources you have on it are completely opposite to what you're article says. There's no excuse to keeping it on the list. Shocking. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
UFC 251
What is Kent talking about like UAE Wikipedia? IMAHua (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- That we should put the correct date on an Arab version of the Wikipedia only. That's so non-sense. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
3RR
My initial comment at the Help Desk was just a friendly reminder that you were edit warring on UFC 251. Rather than reflecting and acknowledging your mistake, you pushed back in two separate responses in an attempt to justify your actions. After my final warning to, your very next edit was to revert another user on the very same article. Really? Look, I'm not actively looking to block you, but I came very close to doing just that after that edit. Although not a bright-line 3RR violation, since you had four reverts (1, 2, 3, 4) in 24 hours and 30 minutes and another three in the preceding 24 hours. I'm really trying hard to AGF here, but that looks like a blatant attempt to me to skirt by 3RR, which is still blockable. So, now you have my full attention. Tread lightly and be careful with your reverts. I would strongly suggest you read some of the links I've left before you come back claiming that your reverts were exempt from 3RR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to skirt the 3RR, I'm aware of 4RR and all that stuff. Those reverts you mentioned could have easily been made within 24 hours and I wouldn't have noticed. The issues raised on that discussion were pertinent and I understand the points that were made there. However, the other edit that made you come here has nothing to do with it or anything else. I was just fixing a detail already on the article, not being disruptive. That was good faith. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I never thought you were intentionally being disruptive. I understand what you are trying to do, but the problem is you can't be the only one doing it. If someone keeps changing the consensus viewpoint on something, you can only revert them so many times. At some point, you either need to report them (if they are being disruptive themselves) or let someone else revert them. In the meant time, continue to engage them. Let's face it, unless it's outright vandalism, it's not going to do any harm for the wrong time/date or venue to be in the article. Finally, 3RR doesn't only include reverts to the same exact content. It can be any content to the article that one editor put in and you revert/change (either through a rollback, an undo, or an edit) it back to what it was earlier. Anyway, best of luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Makhachev vs. dos Anjos.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Makhachev vs. dos Anjos.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Orphaned non-free image File:Santos vs. Teixeira.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Santos vs. Teixeira.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Blaydes vs. Lewis.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Blaydes vs. Lewis.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hermansson vs. Holland.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Hermansson vs. Holland.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
|
|
Thank you! Wishing the same things for you and thanks once again for helping the community! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
.jpg){kind=small}
|
Happy Holidays! |
| Hi, Gsfelipe94! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year!! Holiday cheers, ----Discographer (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Wishing all the best for you too! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
You been Editing back TKO to KO multiple times without review
UFC Bruce buffer announced as TKO sherdog posted as TKO. This supposed reviewed before you edit in. Dustin Poirier defeated. Conor McGregor by TKO not KO (But you keep putting back ko like 4 times already) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_257&action=history Kent Bargo (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Swedish fighter
Hi Do you write a wiki about a Swedish fighter? Amr.ataeii (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- What? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Are you writing an article about Saeed Ganji? 178.239.148.164 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- No. Why would you say that? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Are you writing an article about Saeed Ganji? 178.239.148.164 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Question about certain user
@Gsfelipe94: Hey, is Kent Bargo a troll or something? He seems to just try to do the most random and counterproductive moves possible, likewise some strange obsession about drug testing in MMA. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no expectations whatsoever. He always manages to come up with something even more bizarre every time around. Not helpful at all. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Re: "mofo"
I really do apologize if that offended you. Sincerely. Sometimes I don't think before I speak and I just say things to have fun with myself lol. But if it rubbed you the wrong way, I am sorry. Now I know and I won't do that again. Thank you for letting me know. Powderkegg (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, man. But that might give you problem with other people here. In certain situations, I get what you mean... But that's not the environment we're involved. Just sounded like you might have been pissed and let it out. Let's move on. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UFC on ESPN: Sandhagen vs. Dillashaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meniscus.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
João Fernandes
I understood your opinion on several things.
I just did not agree to remove the nationality of the fighters and the weight of the category (EX: 79 to 84 kg) from the topic “Weight lost Fight for the title”.
The greater the number of information, the better the page.
What's wrong with saying nationality? And I find it interesting, for example, to know the weight of the midlleweight, welterweight, etc, without having the work to do the research later. People want to know how much the fighter has failed to cut weight.
I also did not understand to remove the topic "curiosities". There was a lot of cool information. Jon Jones, for example, was the only one to have a victory converted to no contest and the title canceled, because he tested positive.
Meanwhile, Sean Sherk, Josh Barnett and Tim Sylvia were stripped, but have not had their victories converted to 'no contest' nor their title or defenses canceled.
Canceled is different from being stripped. Canceled is as if it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've said everything about the flags already. And regarding the last part, as I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a trivia page. The page itself already has those informations and people should search other articles to gather more knowledge. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC champions
It is wrong to count the days of the provisional title in the "Multi-Division Champions", if the topic "The longest combined reigns" does not count. If it is to count days of the provisional title in the 2 topics, George Saint Pierre will have 2349 days, because he had 112 days as interim champion and not 119 days.
And McGregor was a lightweight champion for 511 days and not 611 days. If you go to the "Men's championship history" topic and see the lightweight title history, you still will confirm this information. McGregor has 861 total days of combined reigns.
And this topic you still will also see that all interim titles are not counted the days, because he is the number one challenger and not the king of the division.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC champions
According to the "Champions by nationality table rule, the United States has 71 champions, not 70.
Now, I believe that the rule must be different. A fighter with multiple reigns must be counted only once. People do not want to know, for example, how many reigns the United States has in that division, but how many champion fighters they have had. It is the same as saying that a fighter with 5 reigns without defenses is bigger than a fighter with 1 reign and 15 defenses. Merit of these fighters who did not win and lost. So, in my view, there should be 61 champions for the United States and not 71.
Current Rule:
USA - 71
Brazil-16
Canada - 4
New Rule:
USA -61
Brazil - 15
Canada - 3
— Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's why this website is called Wikipedia, not Joãopedia. It's not about your view, but the facts. Your comparison makes no sense. The count is regarding every time a fighter from that nation was a champion. So if the same fighter wins the title more than once, yes, it will be counted like that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC champions
I found an error in the topic Champions of various divisions.
Randy Couture won the interim light heavyweight title on June 6, 2003 at UFC 43 and the topic didn't have this information. You can check the the titles history of topic "Medium Heavyweight Championship".
I put that information on the topic, because the topic has the interim featherweight title of Conor Mcgregor and that of Georges St. Pierre's welterweight.
- Good job! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC champions
Hello,
I found an error in the topic Champions of various divisions. Randy Couture won the interim light heavyweight title on June 6, 2003 at UFC 43 and the topic didn't have this information. You can check the the titles history of topic "Medium Heavyweight Championship".I didn't understand why you reverted the edition, but I corrected this error again. You had already seen that I was right.
I also didn't understand why you removed my topic "Champion of two simultaneous divisions" that shows the period of simultaneous titles, the number of days and defenses in that exact period, but I created it again. I believe it was removed automatically by you, because I changed a lot on the page.
In topic "Champions by nationality", England have 3 only TUFs. The flag of northern ireland is similar to that of england and someone counted wrong for it. I corrected this error.
In topic "Tournaments", the division of the first tournaments were Openweight, so much so that the winners of these tournaments competed for the "Superfight" belt, which was an openweight division. I just specified it, because before it was "no" division. I improved this topic.
In topic "The Ultimate Fighter", the TUF china featherweight final was on August 23, 2014 in UFC Fight Night: Bisping vs. Le, because the final was delayed by injury. And André Winner, runner-up of TUF 9, is from England, so much so that his TUF is team USA against team England. I corrected these errors.
In the topic "Bantamweight Championship", Dominick Cruz did not give up the title. He was stripped of the title. Vacating the title is the fighter willingly giving up the title. I corrected this error.
- Jesus, please sign your freaking posts! I've kept some things you had right, but changed all the others you wanted to do based on your desire. Please stop removing information regarding a fighter retiring at an specific date and the belt being vacated on another one. Also, check some sources. There's no need for another part of Simultaneous two division champions as the table already has it. Stop adding double information. It's been hard to fix all your changes as you start doing things on your own without really taking care about what you're doing. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Waterson/Rodriguez background
Hello!
I felt the need to explain my edit and removal of info I thought to be unnecessary and redundant. It seemed the edit irked you judging by the somewhat indignant sounding edit summary you provided. I found the edit to be unnecessary going off previous articles where other fights were contested at weight classes the competitors did not usually compete at but did so due to short notice. For example, Kelleher vs. Azure, Yadong vs. Vera, Rivera vs. Stamann. In none of these cases was it noted what weight class the competitors usually competed at. I also found it redundant as it repeated the bout was at flyweight, which the previous sentence had already established. I do not wish to edit war with you, I just wanted to explain my thinking. Thanks.
Sdpdude9 Sdpdude9 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello! I agree that we shouldn't have to list every single bout that takes place in a different weight class than it would usually be contested. That's why those cases weren't listed. However, the bout was mentioned in the background due to becoming the main event. That leaves the opportunity for such mention. In those cases, we should take the most of the information available. I do agree that I mentioned the flyweight word again, which was corrected later. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Moving page.
Just asking did you move UFC Fight Night 194 to another page? UFCFan26099292 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, because one of the Fight Nights before was supposed to be broadcast by ESPN2. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay. Just making sure. UFCFan26099292 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC Champions
Michael Bisping, Ross Pearson and James Wilks are English. There is no other English TUF champion. Someone probably counted Norman Parke as an Englishman. He was born in Northern Ireland.The flag of England and Northern Ireland are very similar. England only has 4 TUF champions and not 3.
And I had put Japan ahead of Mexico, because tournaments are worth more than TUFs, but this is optional.
João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Tony ferguson
Someone badly fu***** up the page. Can you fix it. I tried to but it did other stuff. UFCFan26099292 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just pick a previous version without the mess and restore it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC Champions
I put in the middle of Cormier's defenses "NC. vs. Jon Jones at UFC 214 on Jul 29, 2017", because they put it like that on every MMA page. Examples: Bellator, One Championship, Invicta, Pride, WEC, etc
On the Strikeforce page, for example, they do this and on the line below they say that the cyborg had its title removed.
João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 Jun 2021 (UTC)
- It is not a simple "NC". Jones won and then got his win overturned. It's already written there, can't you see? Don't change it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
OK I understand. It wasn't just a no contest and dismissal. The title was also returned to the loser. It only happened once in a big event (Invicta). And they put it both ways, but it's optional.
About the name of Cyborg, I apologize, because I thought it would be more accessible to those who read the English wikipedia.
Paulo Costa is known as Paulo Borrachinha in Brazil, but I only see international news calling him Paulo Costa. Thiago de Lima Santos is known as Thiago Marreta in Brazil, but I only see news calling him Thiago Lima, Thiago Santos or Thiago de Lima Santos. I believed that it was not common for the fighter to be known by his nickname outside Brazil.
Hi, just wondering why you're making repeated unexplained changes to the formatting of the international goals table at Raheem Sterling? I don't see any benefit to our readers of merging the competition cells, or by adding inconsistency with how we refer to qualification tournaments. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just following other articles' pattern. There were unexplained changes from that as well, that's why I reverted it. UEFA Euro articles always had "qualifying" on them, while World Cup had "qualifications". Just small details. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- But what makes those "other" articles right? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We should be guided by what is laid out in the appropriate MoS, and I can't see anything at MOS:TABLES that encourages us to merge cells with the same values. The inconsistency between the World Cup and Euro qualification titles is an issue in itself and it's something I've been meaning to raise at WT:FOOTY for a while. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's no right or wrong here. The main thing is consistency. If you feel that's best, then change it back. I used to update them the same way you're saying now, but most of the time it was changed to merged cells. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- But what makes those "other" articles right? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We should be guided by what is laid out in the appropriate MoS, and I can't see anything at MOS:TABLES that encourages us to merge cells with the same values. The inconsistency between the World Cup and Euro qualification titles is an issue in itself and it's something I've been meaning to raise at WT:FOOTY for a while. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
List of UFC Champions
Having the event in which champions won the title linked is useful. The Bellator page does the same thing. Rcpilot9 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- That information is already available on each of the divisions' timeline within the article. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it should still added. Information dean be in an article more than once. The events being linked isn’t a major change to the article. It shows when a champion won their belt without having to scroll through the division timeline to find it. As I said before, the Bellator list of champions article does the same thing and I think it should be added to the UFC one. Rcpilot9 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:FOOTY/Players: Brazilian players should contain league and state league apps/goals in the infobox. Thank you, BRDude70 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Domestic is related to the national league... Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)