User talk:Pound4Pound

Welcome!

Hello, Pound4Pound, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Adam Hollioake. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Hollioake - Martial Artist

Hi. Thanks for your edits to this page. I've tweaked some of them a little bit - more or less on the grounds that a single fight doesn't exactly make him a martial artist just yet! He really is much more notable for his cricket career still. I've kept the infobox where it is but removed the collapsible table - once he has five fights or so then this might be more appropriate I think; until then it's just taking up space whilst the sidebar does the same job. Ive also removed the note in the lead (but kept the reference further down) - again, it's a question of using the lead to tell people why he's most notable - and his martial artistry really pales into utter insignificance in comparison with his cricket career I think.

But good work - keep it up and so on. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking over it, I can agree with what your saying, except it might be worth having the MMA record up on the page, I've seen others pages of well known MMA fighters that made their names outside the sport that have only a small number of fights that has their fight records on here (James Toney and Herschel Walker are two that come to mind). For this reason I'm going to put it back on the page, but thanks for the input. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK - it fills the hole next to the sidebar so lets go with it for now - but if he never fights again we'll take it (and I guess the sidebar?) down in a few months or something (is a few months a reasonable time to wait for an mma fight - I have no idea) Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would say leave it there permanently, a few months is kinda short notice when you think about it. Going back to one of my examples, James Toney only had just one fight in MMA, and that was nearly two years ago, but partly because he has still contemplated competing in MMA again and the fact that it was a notable thing in his life, the information along with the fight record has remained. Despite the fact that Hollioake did not fight for a major promotion like UFC or Strikeforce like Toney or Walker, the fact that his MMA experience was covered by sources like the BBC has meant that there is enough strong support to keep the information there for as long as the page exists. Pound4Pound (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. the information stays - as prose - for sure. Whether or not the side bar and fight record, which are clearly useful for more established fighters, should stay is more arguable. But there's plenty of time to wait and see about all that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The fight record should stay based on similar cases of cross-over athletes making some sort of mark in MMA. Not too sure about the side bar to be honest but I reckon that if he has another fight it should remain, but the fight record should stay in the same way as my examples have.

Speedy deletion nomination of Jake Bostwick

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jake Bostwick, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the original article written, but I do believe that the article I written is very good, as it is backed up by good sources, it is well written and meets WP:GNG. I hope that the speedly deletion goes away soon that it would be a massive shame for this good article to be deleted

Iain Martell

Fair enough, I've restored for now, I suggest you make it clear on the talk page how much you have done, perhaps with a diff from the earlier version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for replying back to me and restoring it, I will work on this right now. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

UCMMA

The article is well referenced and I like the History paragraph where you show the evolution. It should be a bit more clear that Dave O'Donnell was connected to Cage Rage and what exactly is the connection between Ultimate Challenge UK and UCMMA.

I would not use "as been slowly but progressively making steady moves to regain the same popularity" which sounds weak. How about "steadily approaching the popularity of"

finally some actual number with respect to viewers would be good to help establish Notability if you have them.

It is not clear to me what the ranking of UCMMA is in relationship to other European or UK promotions.

No matter what happens - an AfD will be necessary. Right now you will constantly see reactionary Speedy Deletes based on the past Afd.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the old debate and there were three points.

• Sourcing - I think that is well taken care of.
• Notable Fighters - not so sure about that - you have a list but perhaps a paragraph with a few exceptional names that have fought in the event. Has it hosted events with Tier 1 fighters - people who have done well in lets say UFC?
• Comparision to BAMMA - I don't think this is necessary per se but it was raised once so it might be raised again.

Certainly if I do submit it to AfD I will point out that the article is vastly improved and that the concerns raised in the first debate have been addressed. Thinking about it the only reactionary Speedy Delete was from me. Maybe we should just let sleeping dogs lie and if it comes up again then do an AfD. Your call.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Great - let me know if you need help.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sfl challengers logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Sfl challengers logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Iain Martell Afd

Because you participated in a previous deletion discussion about this subject, I'm notifying you that I've opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (3rd nomination). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

MMA notability

I disagree with adding BAMMA and ONE FC to the top tier, One FC lacks sufficient longevity, and thus has failed to promote a sizable number of cards. As for BAMMA virtually all of there belts are vacant.--Phospheros (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC) One FC is currently Asia's most watched upon MMA promotion, and if compared to Affliction Entertainment, they easily over pass them in terms of gaining top tier status, Affliction had only two events and the promotion died out when the main event to the third event was affected with a positive drugs test, and if a promotion like that can pass for top tier, I reckon Asia;s biggest promotion can pass for it as well. I had mixed feeling with BAMMA, but I felt that their new TV deal on mainstream TV as well as the coverage they receive were strong enough factors to upgrade their position. Feel welcome to change BAMMA if necessary but I feel strong enough about ONE FC to keep them as top tier. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Pound4Pound/sandbox

Block was reversed after review by Steven Zhang - Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Pound4Pound/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pound4Pound/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Pound4Pound/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I have only just got all this, and I really am surprised that I had not been informed that any such discussions were happening. I am not BigzMMA, as I have never even heard of this user until right now. Looking over the discussions that were going on, apparently we have edited on the similar pages, so I can see where this idea has come from, but I truely do not know of this person. What will it take to re-ensure you all that I am not this user? Pound4Pound (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2012 (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). Pound4Pound (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am not BigzMMA, I haven't even heard of this user up until half hour ago, and all I can see is that we have edited on similar pages, if there was any way I can convince you all that I am not the same user I would do so, but with the internet being the way it is I know that this is impossible, so all I ask is for someone to believe me. Decline reason: If you're not him, how come that you had the text of his deleted article at User:Pound4Pound/sandbox? Max Semenik (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2012 (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. I created that article, not him! He must of created the original but poorly written one that I saw last year, and I decided that Iain Martell was notable based on what I found on him over the last few months and decided to recreated it in my own better version, entirely from scratch and after my version was deleted, I decided to keep my version on my sandbox to keep it updated on there until a time came when everyone can agree that he has become notable without having to write everything again. I am not using anything that this user used and I am definitely not this BigzMMA. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I have taken this to the English Wikipedia Unblock Ticket Request System as I feel that any other future attempts to have my user page unblocked via my talk page would be denied in the same manner so I will await their decision from here on. Pound4Pound (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang has reviewed the block and has enough reasonable doubt that I have unblocked your account. He will add a rationale on my talk page later, I just wanted to get you unblocked now. Hopefully his assessment is correct and I will gladly defer to his decision in this matter. There were a few strong coincidences, including 36 common articles, common view on deletions, and some deleted material you had in common, which set off red flags for me, but he is comfortable that the style of you and BigzMMA is different enough to call this one giant coincidence and I will take his word for it. Sorry for the inconvenience. As you can imagine, sockpuppeting is a common problem from previously blocked editors, and the natural instinct is to block when we see this many coincidences. I'm not one to require all the bureaucracy when it comes to review, which is why I expedited this and just handled it myself by selecting someone I knew would do a fair job and not simply rubber stamp my previous actions, and didn't want to force you to go through the long winded formal process either. Hopefully, there are no hard feelings and while it was in error, I hope you understand how the error occurred. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I will be happy to explain. Glad to have you here, sorry about the bumpy road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've also restored your sandbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really graceful to Steven Zhang for his review as this has helped brought me back without any further complications. I do understand what you mean, I have looked over so many pages that BigzMMA since my block and can see something of a link between us in terms of interest and similar location, but after this we couldn't be any more different even if we tried. I forgive you for this error, but I do feel that everything went so rapid, the time from when suspicions were being made to deciding to block me was way too quick to process for a clear investigation (I only received the messages the day after I was blocked, any only used Wikipedia just a day before the decision was made) as well as not informing me of a investigation taking place. So with this mind I hope that you as well as other users give it a bit longer to investigate as well as informing the user in question so they get their chance to defend themselves and state their case so a clearer decision can be made. Thank you as well for reinstating my sandbox, much appreciated! Pound4Pound (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Invicta FC events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Kaufman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Invicta events article

I have a few comments about the Invicta events article. First, remember that the write-up you have for the first event was already deleted at an AfD discussion. Just listing the results does not show notability. I would suggest that putting a section on Invicta into 2012 in mixed martial arts events would be a better idea. Put in some prose highlighting the significance of each event and don't feel compelled to put in the results of every fight. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that seen as the events are being covered by reliable sources and that because one single MMA event page isn't notable that an omnibus page would be ideal for Invicta, it simply looked too scruffy on the Invicta main page to keep it on there. I had a look at the 2012 in mixed martial arts events page, and to be honest I reckon it should be either deleted or it needs to be revamped in leaps and bounds, simply because it is out of date, it doesn't reflect on MMA events this year in general and it is so bland it doesn't offer any real detail that would be worth anyone reading, both for the diehards or the wider community. If a page like that is to be kept, it should at least reflect on all the promotions that MMANOT have listed as notable, it should be updated by the event and should include notable things that has happened to each event, such as UFC 152's new main event due to UFC 151's cancellation. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if the 2012 page is out of date it's because editors haven't bothered to update it, but the concept of the page is still sound. If you want to have an Invicta events page, I believe my previous comments are still valid. That is, you don't need the results of every fight, you do need more prose, and the significance of each event needs to be highlighted. Otherwise, I believe you run afoul of WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Another problem with an Invicta events page is that, as the number of events increases, the page will become more unwieldy. I do agree with your moving the events out of the promotion's article page. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BAMMA, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Setanta and TDN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Kelly (fighter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WEC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Fight League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA

Is it still your contention that you are not BigzMMA as I find your editing patten striking similar. If you are then I wish to to give you one more chance to come clean and throw yourself at the mercy of the admins. If not it is my intention to re-open the SPI. Mtking ^(edits) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Accusations and deletions are your only contributions?173.168.140.188 (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already proven that I am not this user, there is just no way for us to be the same person. I have truly never heard of this user before I was blocked without any warning, or even a message to say that a SPI was going on with me as a suspect so that I could of stated my case, if it weren't for the fact that my IP address from my house wasn't blocked also then I would probably be still blocked now. I have proven to the admins that we are not the same, and I fail to see a clear enough link between us for another SPI to exist. I will be bringing up this message to the admin who unblocked me to see what I should expect to happen if you choose to reopen this. If you do reopen it, then I would very much appreciate some notification - as well as a link to the discussion so that I can state my case too. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you were unblocked not because it was proved you were not BigzMMA. Rather, you were unblocked because there was a lack of proof that you were BigzMMA. It is quite possible that, assuming the two of you are the same, additional evidence has come up (other than editing history) that shows a link. Tred carefully is the only advice I can offer at this point. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I not entirely sure what evidence there is for us to compared to, again I can say why some users may see us as the same because we have edited on the same/similar articles, but after that we aren't anything alike, as his approach seemed to be an aggressive, confrontational and even violent-like, and I have always tried not to be like that, even when other users push my buttons a bit I have tried to show a reasonable, calm approach to any difficult situation. I don't understand how I should 'Tred carefully' when I haven't don't anything wrong recently, all I have done was just edit pages like anyone else here and like how I have been for months. I will continue to maintain my posture, read all the information carefully and speak up when necessary, but after last time, you can see why this does almost anger me. As long as I actually get the SPI link when the conversation begin then I will have no reason to show emotion on here. I am still awaiting for advice from Dennis Brown, so once I get his opinion then I will be ready to deal with the SPI. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA. Mtking ^(edits) 08:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break

We are not the same user, I am tired of dealing with these accusations that somehow are being 'proven' true but I do still want to edit on Wikipedia, I will take a few months off here, then will attempt to regain my editing privileges back once I'm ready. Pound4Pound (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a good idea, have a read of WP:OFFER it list the criteria for getting your editing privileges back. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ready to return

After taking two months off, I feel ready to contribute to Wikipedia again and hopefully the hostility towards me has now died down enough for me to get assistance to finding an administrator to hear me out. I cannot edit on other users/admins pages so if someone can forward me a link to an admin off-wiki or bring an admin to my game to see this message so I can state my case through Wikipedia:Standard offer to try to find a way to regain my full editing privileges. Thank you. Pound4Pound (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sfl challengers logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sfl challengers logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —innotata 17:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)