User talk:Dancter/Archive 11
 | This 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
MMA Wikipedia guidelines
Hi Dancter, Greetings. (1) Pls do not remove source, as nothing wrong to provide hidden text to indicate the source), (2) Sherdog.com is used for the info for MMA fighter as per WP:MMA guidelines, if you want to change the guidelines, then pls go to the talk page and seek consensus. (3) on Loma Lookboonmee page, pls provide source for other name and content you added as per WP:V. Anything else, pls bring it to talk pages for discussion instead keeping reverting the edits. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA:
- The sourcing was already addressed through the Notes. If you had heeded the advice of your own comment, you would have realized that.
- Please quote me the actual text in WP:MMA guidelines which indicates that Sherdog.com is privileged over other sources in these particular instances.
- I did.
- I have tried numerous other approaches to reason with you on the issue of whether Loma Lookboonmee should be listed a nickname, but I'll try one more: Per the article Notes: "All names presented are in accordance with UFC website profiles." Your listing of Loma Lookboonmee as a nickname is not in accordance with her UFC website profile. Dancter (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Dancer, pls ping me so I know you have sent me a message. I just checked, no source is provide on the "other name" (in infobox) Loma Lookboonmee and we dont need to put "professional" debut on fight table as they are professional fight and you can go and check all the fighter page and if ametuer fights are recorded, the fights will be in another table) (you can put atomweight debut - but other editor might remove it which i have seen them many times). The info is as per Sherdog.com for Loma Lookboonmee for List of UFC current fighters and her name is Konklak Suphisara and that is how the fighter nickname is presented and if you would provide source indicted other otherwise, I am happy the nick name is changed. I can only go by English source info as I dont read Thai source. I dont understand why you single out one fighters and yet all 600+- fighters nick name is as per sherdog for UFC.com doest not indicate their nick name see examples Shevchenko or Pudilova. If the nick name has not been changed by Sherdog.com then we dont changed until the source change itself. Same here with Lucie Pudilová which I saw her twitter stated she has no longer use "Bullet" as her nick name and requested Sherdgog to change it but Sherdog has yet to change HERE, so the nick name remains the same since we uses WP:V. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA:
- With respect to pinging, if you're referring to this reply, then I apologize. Otherwise, I do not know what would have prompted this request.
- The sources for the other names mentioned in the infobox are referenced in the body text. It is absolutely not requisite to mark footnotes for the same claim everywhere in the page, especially to clutter up an infobox.
- Specifying that the bout is Loma's professional atomweight debut was meant to clarify that it was only her atomweight debut as a professional, under the presumption that she already had MMA experience in the weight class as an amateur. That presumption was based on the claim in this article that the Albu fight was Loma's first fight at strawweight, as well as the recognition that her opponent in the amateur bout was primarily an atomweight in MMA.[1][2][3] Whether or not that presumption was valid, the edit I made ensured that the note would be accurate regardless of whether Loma had previously fought as an atomweight.
- Your expression of concern about whether "___ debut" notes may be removed is misdirected—I wasn't the one who added them in the first place. I actually don't like the format, but that is the convention. I was only trying to correct what was already there.
- Establishing a source as not reliable for a particular claim does not require the production of a source that explicitly refutes that specific claim. The burden is not on me to falsify a claim that you are trying to include. Tertiary sources such as Sherdog Fight Finder typically lack editorial context, and generally should not be used as primary verification for disputable claims. High-profile sources can be and often are wrong. I dont find your Sherdog-based argument to be substantively different from editors making appeals to the IGN or GameSpot databases regarding the release dates of video games. Those sites are similarly prominent, and their databases have similar track records in terms of reliability: fine for uncontroversial claims that have plenty of other available sources, poor for settling controversial claims.
- You claim that if I would provide a source indicating something different than Sherdog on Loma Lookboonmee being a nickname, you would be happy to have the nickname changed. I did provide one, though. And it was in English. Despite your claim that you "can only go by English source," I suspect that English may be the real language barrier at issue. Your go-to sources for citing claims are Dutch-language websites, and with your frequent omission of articles or linking verbs; odd neglect of pluralization, grammatical tense, sentence separation, or punctuation in general; unusual misspellings and word repetition; your writing does not carry the syntax of a native English writer, but rather resembles broken English. In addition, you sometimes seem to completely ignore details of arguments I have made, as if comprehension is an issue.
- As to your accusation that what I'm doing is "singling out": don't do that. The fact that I haven't pushed for revisions of other listings in the Nickname column of the article should have no bearing on this matter. I'm not here every day. On the days I am here, I can't submit a gross of edits on a wide swath of articles, patrolling a vast watchlist the way I used to. As it states at the top of my user talk page: I get busy in real life. I can't do everything I think needs to be done on this site. I don't even have time to do the big things I would prefer to be doing here. When one doesn't have the kind of time and resources that you currently seem to have, it is necessary to pick one's battles.
- In picking this battle, I thought this would be an especially straightforward matter, just intuitively as a nickname would almost by definition not be the same as the proper name, and that listing the same name in both the "Name" and "Nickname" columns in List of current UFC fighters—as in this case—is unusual, strange, and counterintuitive.
- I did mention some of the other nickname listings I have issue with. And I believe I did ping you for that. When I see that nothing I have provided has disabused you of the notion of Sherdog's primacy, it doesn't exactly encourage me to pursue those other changes. And it's not like challenging the shortcomings of the UFC website (the reliability of which I believe should be considered as separate from that of its parent) would be any easier.
- I don't know what point you are trying to make with your examples about UFC.com and nicknames. Despite what you seem to claim, each seems to accurately indicate the fighter's nickname (or lack thereof) as presently claimed by the fighters themselves.
- So, you acknowledge that Lucie Pudilová personally verified through Twitter that she no longer uses the "Bullet" nickname—which you found to be sufficient enough to edit her Wikipedia article accordingly)—but are arguing to me that it isn't sufficient per WP:V, because it is not reflected on Sherdog Fight Finder? Please quote me the actual text in WP:V that you are using to support your position. Also, please explain to me how those two acts are consistent in principle.
- For that matter, you still haven't quoted me any text from WP:MMA as I requested. I have yet to see anything in any project pages you have cited that supports your positions on this. Or the article itself. On the one hand you implore editors to adhere to practices set in a Notes/key section that you yourself largely wrote, but when I cite actual text from those notes, you prevaricate and traffic in whataboutism.
- Both the Lucie Pudilová and the Ode Osbourne incidents demonstrate Sherdog Fight Finder profiles becoming significantly out-of-date, with the analogous profiles on Tapology proving to be more timely and verifiably accurate, and yet you continue insist on Sherdog as the final arbiter of fighter data despite neglecting to cite specific supporting policy or guideline text in any of the project documents you invoke. I've asked you on multiple occasions. I should repeat that in this case, I am not the one trying to push for the inclusion of material. The burden is not on me to establish that the source isn't reliable, but rather on you to demonstrate that it is. Dancter (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA:
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 |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
The article Aqua Vita (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG with insufficient WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Dancter! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)