User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nate Diaz

Your reversion is causing a break in the "small" template in the article which I'm surprised you haven't noticed in addition to removing a wikilink which is unhelpful and unconstructive. Please stop. If you'd like, feel free to continue the discussion of this edit's appropriateness on the article's talkpage where I've presented my reasoning. Platonic Love (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The BMF stuff isn't meant to be there per consensus. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus. There is only you. Please seek actual consensus before removing information that is relevant to the subject matter of the article. Platonic Love (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Pls review those who have removed the thing dozens of times. You will notice that it has been consistently removed by several editors over months. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Grime-y edits to "Homer's Enemy"

Thank you so much for acknowledging my efforts to improve the article on "Homer's Enemy." I'm not easily offended by good faith reverts and other changes because everyone has their own writing style and point of view. When I left a gentle reminder in one of my edit summaries to proofread any changes for spelling and grammar, I was rewarded with another pseudo-revert with the word Next capitalized in the middle of a sentence. As Otto Man might say, Bummer!

What does offend me about this anonymous user's reverts is that they're not consistent, e.g.: changing the word children to kids but starting the same sentence with the hi-falutin' (and, in my opinion, just plain pretentious Moreover.) Words do matter, and these inconsistent edits — which this user keeps doing — do make me crazy because I love the English language despite its imperfections (wait, now I'm sounding pretentious. D'oh!)

Anyway, I'm trying to keep cool about these edits, even though I'm seething like Mr. Burns. If you think it worth the effort, I'll gladly lend a hand if you want to involve WP administrators. To me, it all comes down to this: what is the best way to express, in as few (big) words as possible, what happens in this episode of The Simpsons?

Thanks again. It's nice to receive messages that aren't hate mail for a change! Kinkyturnip (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. They're at it again, sadly. I have posted a template on their talk page and will probably have to go to ANI. Keep up the good work!NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for changing page back to previous version. I agree: ours is clearer, flows better and fixes grammar flaws while nixing plotbloat. I know little about process WP admins use to referee edit wars & I'm not sure if you're asking me to notify admins or anonymous user(s) [or neither & you simply want me to watch page and undo edits which degrade instead of improve article]. Lemme know. Cheers. Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Latter option ought to suffice. Cheers NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy

I meant no harm, I was just trying to add context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Jorge Masvidal elegible for wrestling style?

Hey NEDOCHAN, do u think Jorge Masvidal is elegible to be classified with a Wrestling style as he wrestled in hs? Thanks. Mmagrappling (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is no. The longer answer is that the default position is no style at all, unless the fighter has a notable background in or has competed professionally in a sport. Masvidal doesn't have a formal wrestling background in a meaningful way, such as Cormier, Usman, Romero etc. He has a Kickboxing background, so that should be there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar conundrum

Hey grammar guru: can you take a look at this sentence from Dead Putting Society to check my grammar re: plural possessives ending (i.e., apostrophe S or S apostrophe)?

At the tournament, Bart and Todd make the finals but decide to call it a draw, forcing Homer and Ned to mow in their wives' Sunday best.

Thanks! You rock. 🎸 Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a delicious conundrum. The first bit is easy. each others' lawns should be "each other's lawn" - 'each other' refers to one person (the other person, either Homer or Flanders - not both) and each person has one lawn, so "each other" (Homer or Ned) mows "each other's" "lawn" (either Ned's lawn or Flandereses :) "lawn").

The next bit is harder. As it stands, it says that their wives share a single "Sunday best". They could also have many wives each. I have thought about it and it would be boring to go through the options, though I am happy to if you don't like my solution. I won't edit the page directly.

forcing Homer and Ned to mow in each of their wife's Sunday best.

or

'in their respective wife's Sunday best' (not as good as respective shows order, which isn't required).

I have had the sentence on my user page about being happy to discuss grammar for as long as I can remember (including IP days). Finally. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing at unintentionally implying Ned and Homer are polygamists (though Ned could easily be mistaken for a Mormon if he were a tea-totaler). Will edit the page accordingly. Thanks for your help. See you at the grammar rodeo in Canada! Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pleasure.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

People like you

I really really can’t stand editors like yourself. You don’t have ability but you do lord it over others, as if you do. I’m not going to tell you the article - because that will draw undue attention to myself. (So to annoy you I’ll keep quiet). But let’s just say I rewrote the entire article single handily, removing junk, gave it structure, and added references. After doing what I considered a good job, along come parasites like yourself who move in with the intention, I guess of taking my work as your own. The irony being is that before an uncredited editor like myself does any hard work - all material in the article is apparently OK and non debatable; it doesn’t need reverting or deleting. Anyway I work my magic only to find that the said parasites (like you) descend on to an article - and now- material that was uncontested before is now completely wrong. I reinstate material that was there before (remember all I did was format and grammar (nothing more) but now - in the context of a rewritten article- you come along and side with the moron who removed it.

Laughable. You’re laughable. The material had been there for a long time. And you never had a problem with it. But you did when I put it back.

I seriously hate people like you.

You don’t contribute anything but when someone makes improvement you take it as your own and then ruin it.

Vomit 81.159.165.171 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence contains a grammatical error. I am unable to take your polemic seriously even without knowing to which edits you refer. Learn about reflexive pronouns, identify your specific concerns and then come back to me without personal attacks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're so keen on preserving your work then I would suggest opening an account.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment! A couple people have mentioned edit summaries to me but a lot of the time I don't think the edits need summation. I'm mostly just mucking around with pages for boxers and mixed martial artists. It would take me longer sometimes to describe the edit I made than to make the edit. I'll leave a note if I think it could be a bit controversial, and if someone has a problem with the edit and reverts I won't be going to and fro without explanation, but this is just a hobby for me so I'm not worried about being perfect or doing everything strictly by the book if you know what I mean. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Gordon Ramsay

Regarding your change here, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Semicolons states: "Semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion." The sentence in question on the Gordon Ramsey article is one of the two of the following:

"These are: The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007, the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007 and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

"These are: The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007; the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007; and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

The former was the original; the latter was my change. I changed the list delimiter from commas to semi-colons because the list items themselves contain commas. This causes confusion in the list and therefore, per the link above (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Semicolons), the list should use semi-colons.

You also removed a serial comma here in the same article. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas, where it states: "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent", either with or without the serial comma is acceptable, as long as the entire article is consistent.

Also, please read Help:Edit summary in relation to your edit summaries in your two changes I linked above regarding best practices for edit summaries. Thank you. Useight (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. The first point is that semicolons should be used when it might result in confusion. In this instance, there is nothing remotely confusing.

The second point about internal consistency is also true. So why did you make the edit when it was consistent?NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry re reading this it comes across as more abrupt than intended. Please compare:

Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts, San Francisco, California, Singapore, and Millbank, London, England

with

The Narrow in Limehouse, which opened in March 2007, the Devonshire in Chiswick, which opened in October 2007 and The Warrington in Maida Vale, which opened in February 2008."

The non-defining relative clauses in the second relate to the years in which each establishment opened. It simply can't be confusing. It contains no ambiguity whatsoever, even to a reader with no knowledge of the places in question. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I knew your response was going to be "the list contains no confusion" because it's a subjective term that can't be factually argued either way. I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about whether or not a particular list is or can be "confusing." I'm not wasting my time or yours on ridiculous minutia. I, personally, find that a list can result in confusion if the list items have commas, including, but not limited to, your example of "Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts, San Francisco, California, Singapore, and Millbank, London, England." So I change all of them that I come across. I would change that sales offices example to use semi-colons as well, if I knew which article contained that text. I'm not going to change the Gordon Ramsay one back because I don't care. I'm the author of WP:LETITGO for a reason. But write your reason for undoing my edits in an edit summary. Something like "Nope" just wastes everyone's time with me coming to your talk page for clarification.

Regarding the serial comma, you're mistaken. Here is the article before I began editing it. You'll note in the section titled "Early life" that it contains the text "a swimming pool manager, a welder, and a shopkeeper" with a serial comma. The section "Eating and exercising habits" contains the text "He often competes in ironman, marathons, and triathlons" with a serial comma. There are a number of other places with serial commas. I added serial commas in a number of places in which it was missing (here, here, here, here, here, and here), in an attempt to make the article "internally consistent." Whenever I add serial commas, I check the article for any other locations that need them, in an effort to make the article internally consistent. Obviously, I'm not perfect and can (and do) miss some. But I added quite a few and yet you undid only two of them here and here (one manually and one as an undo), without an edit summary on either one, and then after you specifically undo a fraction of my work, accuse me of making the article's serial commas inconsistent? This is why edit summaries are important especially when undoing another editor's work. Good day. Useight (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair comment re edit summaries. It was late. Nonetheless, 'Nope' was inappropriate and I apologise. I do think Oxford commas have a place and should be used to show separation when it might not be obvious. If, for instance, he had been a shop keeper and welder at the same time then no comma would make that apparent; as they weren't, the Oxford comma makes that clear.

Since you asked, the sales office example was taken from MOS semicolons, the link to which you pointed me.

Anyway, I appreciate your discussing this with me, apologise again and finally it's great to meet the author of WP:LETITGO! Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Footnote D of MOS:HYPOCORISM

You're referring to this: Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe and Mischa for Mikhail) are not familiar to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture. " The footnote says non-English hypocorisms, because this is the English Wikipedia, and we're all expected to know that "Chuck" is short for "Charles". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Shame you reverted before giving me the opportunity to explain. You have left out the first part, 'As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix ..."; consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not.' Now, in the US, 'Chuck' is common, everywhere else, it isn't. It is neither "Shortening, often to the first syllable" nor is it "Addition of a diminutive suffix ...". It is "A short form that differs significantly from the name". Now, while a "few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms", "most are not". Chuck is not widely known as a name for 'Charles' outside of the US. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not reinstated the edit to practise what I preach.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You did reinstate it. I ask that you self-revert, because you're wrong and I don't want to edit war. The first part says As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections." Hypocorism#English lists "Chuck" for "Charles", because it's a common English-language hypocorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not reinstated the edit. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it's listed there but I maintain that Chuck would fall into the 'most are not' category.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Just passing by to say I learnt someting new - the meaning of 'hypocorism' and that 'Chuck' is short for 'Charles'. Thanks to you both. Ben MacDui 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not surprised. I didn't know, either. Perhaps it's because it's not widely used outside of the US????NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, which reinstated the hypocorism, but I see you rolled it back. Whether or not you knew that "Chuck" is a hypocorism for "Charles" is irrelevant. It's a common hypocorism regardless. I did not know it wasn't common outside of the U.S., so I learned something too. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As a point of order I reinstated it before you said I hadn't.:). Regarding my point re the name and its relative ubiquity, is it fair to say I might have had a point?NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Chuck. Tbh I am don't care much about the presenting issue, but coming from a small country I am a regular visitor to the sense of how frustrating it is when "everybody knows" turns out to be "complicated". Ben MacDui 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Gilbert Burns

Yo what's up? Just here to ask if I should delete the disambiguation page "Gilbert Burns" and replace it with the Gilbert Burns (fighter) article. You must be thinking "why?" and it's pretty simple, there only exists two Gilbert Burns' articles and the other one is about a farmer who's not even close to the relevance levels of the MMA Burns', so... like Tony Ferguson is not called "Tony Ferguson (fighter)" even though Tony Ferguson (skateboarder) exists due to the big differences on the social recognition, I thought the Burns' situation should be the same, what do u think? Thanks bud.

Yo. I have never heard of the farmer chap. No objection from me but I'm not sure of the protocol for this.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx, will ask Cassiopeia anyways just to confirm, that dude knows everything haha. Keep safe. (talk) 1 June 2020 (UTC)

PabloLikesToWrestle. Good day. We should NOT delete the disambiguation page of "Gilbert Burns" as there is more than one Gilbert Burns (fighter and skateboarder) in Wikipedia. Disambiguation page is a page to list that of similar names so the viewer could locate the correct subject (see examples - Mercury, Joker, Alexander Volkov, Robert Whitaker, Valentyna Shevchenko and etc).

As for Tony Ferguson - page name "Tony Ferguson", who is a musician, was created on June 16, 2009 - see here-1 and it was deemed not notable enough to have the page on Wikipedia mainspace and was redirect to The Troubadours on July 13, 2009 - see here-2. Two years later, "Tony Ferguson (fighter) page was created on 14, May 6, 2011 - see here-3. The reason why "(fighter)" was added to the name it is because there already a "Tony Ferguson" in Wikipedia at that time which was redirect to The Troubadours. Since "Tony Furgerson" was a redirect which means at the time he was not notable enough, admin change change "Tony Ferguson to Tony Ferguson (musician) - see here here-4 and change "Tony Ferguson (fighter) to Tony Ferguson" - see here-5. One year later Tony Ferguson (skateboarder) was created - see here-6. The editor need to add (skateboarder) since there was already a page name Tony Ferguson. Currently, no one created a Tony Ferguson disambiguation page, for such you dont see a page listed all the Tony Ferguson on a disam page, it is same as Megan Anderson (fighter), Luis Peña (fighter). You can create a disamb page if you want. Hope the above explain what you asking for. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary on Graham Linehan page

Hello. Your recent edit to the Graham Linehan page has the summary "undid edit that contradicted discussion" but I can't find this discussion. Could you link please? Thanks.Wikiditm (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The discussion I was referring to is that in the edit summaries, specifically as per LEAD. The edit I reverted was made by an editor who had not participated in any discussion and went against the principle of consensus (which can be shown by edit history as well as talk pages). Appreciate your talking, rather than battling - Thanks!NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a diff (there are several) to illustrate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Looks like it's gone back and forth a few times. Hopefully it calms down and we don't need another section on the talk page, but if it keeps flickering that might be necessary.Wikiditm (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I totally agree with your final sentence. Hope it calms down and discuss on tp if it doesn't. I am always grateful for this kind of dialogue and am to you for your instigation of it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

j.k. rowling

The version with the most support on the talk page is the one I just added. as you said "that's the point of tp."--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Says who? I see an ongoing discussion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cease your disruptive editing. we both have eyes. I placed the version that has consensus. A filibuster is not an argument.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your page says you're new here. Please act like it and discuss an article at its talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You do realise you're in the wrong here, right? --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

3rr. Onus. BRD. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

none of the three apply. Goodnight!--Licks-rocks (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sting reverts

Hi NEDOCHAN, you recently reverted a few edits I made on the Sting page, specifically the capitalization of the word "The" in references to his old band The Police. Your explanation was that these edits contravened the MOS. Could you link me to the section of the MOS that explains how this type of edit is in contravention? Thanks werewolf (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Happy to help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_(definite_article) NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! werewolf (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all! NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conor McGregor

You say on your userpage that you have "a passion for grammar and accuracy", so I was surprised to see you revert this edit. It's nothing to do with him being "retired from being Irish". It's a matter of the correct order of adjectives, for which see Adjective#Order. In this case "retired" refers to age and "Irish" to origin. Age comes before origin. --Viennese Waltz 10:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Replace 'retired' with 'former'. Former Irish professional boxer or Irish former professional boxer? Retired is not synonymous with age. Adjectival order is not and has never been an exact science. If you say 'retired Irish' you suggest he's no longer Irish. This exact edit takes place across Wikipedia all the time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you have begun this discussion without reverting is, by the way, enormously to your credit. Class act.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dan Henderson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't template me! I have requested pp already. The IP is changing sourced material from the agreed RS for MMA infoboxes, which is Sherdog. So it's an IP changing sourced material and there is already a PP requested. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I came here because of your protection request. I declined the request as it was from one side in an edit war. See my response on the Henderson talk page. Woody (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Woody (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the worst example of administration I have ever seen. I requested page protection to try to prevent the continual, unsourced and disruptive edits by an IP. You found sources on their behalf, ignored WP:MMA, ignored consensus, talk page history and years of edits, then banned me. Shocking.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I blocked you from editing that article as you reverted immediately after I warned you for edit warring over that edit. At no point did you edit the talk page or attempt to discuss the issue with the other editor, or any other editors. Noting that this is not a clear cut case of vandalism, you need to establish a consensus. I don't see any talk page history about this issue.

If you wish to contest the block, please follow the instructions in the block notice above and another administrator will review it. Woody (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing MMA pages for a long time. The infobox contains data that, should it deviate from the agreed RS (Sherdog), must be sourced. The IP never once attaempted to include a source. You went and found one for them! The edit they made was followed by 'Please do not change this. As per wikiproject MMA we have agreed to use the information from Sherdog. His height is listed as six feet one inch so that is what we have here'. They changed it repeatedly, never added a source, didn't discuss, and you banned me. Sloppy.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about Dan Henderson, it's about agreed RS for MMA articles. And longstanding consensus, which if you had taken the time or looked at any other MMA fighter article you would have discovered for yourself. This is the first negative experience I have had with an admin on Wikipedia. They are normally thorough. I am sure you're a great person but this is, in my opinion, the worst piece of admin imaginable. How you could look at this edit history and not conclude that the editor is NOTHERE is beyond me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this isn't about Henderson, it is about your behaviour. You were warned about edit warring and continually reverting without discussion. After being warned, you reverted. That is why you have been blocked. I did a partial block rather than a site wide block as this seems to be about this page rather than others. You seem to have a slight misconception about where wikiprojects sit in terms of Policies and Guidelines. Nothing that gets discussed on WP:MMA (or WP:MILHIST which is my relative area of expertise) override any policy of guideline, particularly behavorial ones and WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. Woody (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus. That's the whole point! The consensus is to use Sherdog data in the infobox. And the info that the IP added WAS UNSOURCED. They added unsourced information. Yet banned is me. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The information I restored was verifiable, sourced from RS and in-line with consensus. The information I reverted was not verifiable, not sourced and against consensus. Yet you ban me. It's a disgrace and a slap in the face as thanks for my efforts.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Woody: Out of interest, did you notice the link to Sherdog at the bottom of the infobox? If not, can you now understand that the IP was adding unsourced info?NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. I noticed it is labelled "Mixed martial arts record" in the mixed martial arts section of the infobox. It was not immediately apparent to me that this relates to the whole infobox. I looked back at the history and saw that this has been edit warred over since 26 April 2020 (!!!). At no point was this discussed on the talk page or was a consensus reached in any way shape or form. I wondered why someone would edit war over this for 4 months so I googled his height and lo and behold it is different to our article. This disparity is something that should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached. This isn't a discussion for a user talk page.

The issue here is that you continued to edit war after being warned over something that is not plainly obviously vandalism, that there is no discussion or consensus for at the article talk page. Do you understand this is why you have been blocked? I honestly don't care about how tall Mr Henderson is. Woody (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As a further note, personal attacks such as this are never warranted, no matter how frustrated or intransigent the other editor may be. Woody (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I accept that I was wrong there. I apologise for the personal attacks; I am fairly sure the same user has been making the edits for months, hence was not civil. Mea culpa.

The Sherdog issue and the source used for the infobox has been going on for years across talk pages. The overwhelming consensus is to use Sherdog in the infobox unless you put in a source. The IP did not include a source at any stage, and that, respectfully, is the point I think you might have missed. An IP was adding unsourced information and I was restoring info that is in accordance with an agreed RS as per WP:MMA and its talk page. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Response

My aim is to keep the discussion on the article talk page to the content of the article and how to improve it. With regards to this edit:

A): Responded on article talk

B) I want you to engage in discussion about how to fix this issue, not immediately edit the article. Wikipedia works by consensus, a consensus that needs to develop on the talk page in that discussion.

C) How do you know whether they are here to build an encyclopaedia? Have you ever spoken with them other than to put a personal attack on their talk page? Ever single one of their reverts is tagged as a "manual revert" ie not using undo or rollback which probably means they don't know what the article history page is. Not a single one of the reverts since April had any form of discussion with the editor that had been reverted. I have checked every single one (easy for most of them as they are red linked talk pages). Someone was bold (be it an IP or a new user), you reverted with a pithy edit summary and there was absolutely zero discussion on the talk page of the article or on the other editors talk pages.

With regards to this edit: I took "Instead, Woody went and dug out some sources," and several other comments like that as being against me finding sources. We should be looking to help improve articles not maintain the status quo. Finding sources for an article is a good thing!

You haven't answered my specific questions on the talk page about where this consensus has been arrived at. An unwritten and apparently de-facto agreement among a few editors at MMA is not a consensus and certainly not one that I will be held to. I work toward WP:V and WP:RS. Woody (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is often built gradually over a long time. Talk pages, product pages and edit history/ summaries all count. The easiest example of it in this instance has been the discussion that is taking place on the talk page, which appears to show consensus. If you would like to trawl through years of editing across pages to find it, please do, but understand I don't need to as there is no evidence for a lack of consensus that I can see.

I did attempt discussion. You'll notice that several IPs made the same edit and I am sure they're the same editor. I also put 'Please stop' on their talk page. It's also the only edit they have made, hardly a ringing endorsement.

You shouldn't have blocked me and you shouldn't have used my attempt to arrest the situation (requesting temporary pp) as an excuse to exacerbate it. The fact that several editors have pointed out that the source I was using is respected as RS and the fact that the IP hasn't responded at all both reflect badly on your handling of the situation.

Consensus isn't a link. It's reflected over a long period of time. If you'd like a specific example, check out Dan Henderson's talk page.

Finally, the IP was adding UNSOURCED INFORMATION. I was adding restoring sourced information. Going out to find sources on behalf of someone who wasn't using sources or edit summaries in order to bolster their disruption is, in my opinion, bad administration.

How you could look at my edit history and the IPs and conclude that we're in the same boat is beyond me. I will remain civil but I am entitled to disagree with you and to criticise your handling of the situation. I think, frankly, you've bogged this up in a big way. You should unblock me, protect the page and apologise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be looking at different issues here. I am aware of how consensus works. I'm not talking about the consensus on using Sherdog as a source. I have now been shown a few editors within MMA who believe it is a reliable source. I looked at it originally and it is a source. It isn't the only one though. This was never about Sherdog as a source, it is about your behaviour. This was about the lack of discussion about his height. One source may say one thing, another says something else. We need to report that their is a difference. We don't prioritise one source over another because you like it more. You were blocked because you continued to revert after a warning.

Where did you ask the IP to stop? Where did you ask them to discuss or even provide a source or give some guidance as to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies?

In terms of using "attempt to arrest the situation" please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG.

I was never trying "to bolster their disruption" and to say so is to do me a disservice. I was having a look to try and work out why there could possibly be such a long edit war over something so trivial. Turns out sources disagree and the UFC disagreed between fight cards.

The most recent edits are from Moscow. The 92.16.XX.XX IPs in May are most likely to be the same. The others seem to be from around the world (UAE, a university in Denmark, Perth etc). For some reason, there are apparently a large number of people around the world who think he is a different height.

As I said at the beginning, if you feel my admin actions are in error you are welcome to invite comment at WP:AN, WP:ANI or to ask for an unblock from an uninvolved admin using the template described in your block notice. Woody (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is where I asked them to stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.83.189.71&action=edit&oldid=971031616 and if you believe as I do that several IPs are the same person, look at me asking them, too.

And the fact that you say that several people think something is staggering. Have you a single example in which the edits were sourced or explained? The answer is no. Not one edit summary or one source. All unsourced changes, all from IPs, none of which had a summary.

Try editing MMA fighter pages! It's a shit storm and regular editors get used to reverting unsourced changes and a vast amount of subtle vandalism. People remove/ add the T from TKO, for instance. If you find a single regular editor of MMA pages who thinks I am not helpful I'd be surprised.

I don't like ANI and I don't want to waste time on nonsense like this. Hence why the simple solution of temporary page protection was what I eventually sought. I think the way that this has turned out has shown that the solution I sought and that you rejected would have been far better than the route you chose. I am not accusing you of bias or of not following protocol. I am stating my opinion that you have handled the situation badly and that your judgement has been found wanting. And you still haven't addressed my main point re adding incited information. That alone could and should have been reason enough to back the right horse. Include the editors' edit histories and your actions have been borderline incompetent. But not malicious and not necessarily against protocol. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Woody and NEDOCHAN: Good day. Hi NEDOCHAN, I come here with good will to help you to solve the issues that you are being blocked. I know you are a good contributor and understand your anger and frustration where by you were helping Wikipedia but instead you are being block for your effort. I hope you would read this message with clear head to know I am here to land a hand.

1. Communication: I understand you were trying to help and restored the sourced content of Hendo page in good faith. You didnt violate the WP:3RR guidelines; however, continues reverting for more than 10 times without leaving any warning messages or personal messages would suggest you were involved in WP:edit warring. The IP editor does not have a lot of edits - see here and the types of edit is either a wiki link or change of height of Hendo's. This suggest the IP editor is not very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines let alone WP:MMA guidelines and I doubt the IP editor's intention is to harm Wikipedia but rather has not idea the added info is unsourced. Without leaving either a warning message (unsourced) / personal message would not help for the IP might not know why their edits were reverted. If the warning message is not specific enough of what we want to convey then a personal message would serve well in explaining the issues at hand. Wikipedia is all about verification but Wikipedia is also about civil communication, collaborating among editors and help/support each other. We all new editors once and we remember the learning process was a steep up hill effort in the beginning not only there are so many guidelines to know/read but as a new editor we have no idea where to look for the information or ask for assistance or we have not idea if we have done some mistakes. A few tips/links and explained would help the new editors in a long way and there is where communication comes in. I have written hundreds if not close to a thousand "same messages" to new editors but to them it is the first time to received such info.
2. Unblocked - There are guidelines we adhere to in Wikipedia and certain channel if we feel an intervention is needed from an uninvolved editors/admins. To get yourself unblocked, you need to follow the process (pls read WP:GAB) and there is not other way around it. You need to "made clear to /convince the admins that you understand what you are blocked for, what you should have done instead in hind sight/in the future and you will not do it again". An uninvolved admin will evaluated your request and decide the outcome. If you think you are unjustly treated, then you can go to WP:ANI as for the last resort; however, honestly, you would not able to get far, for you have reverted the IP edit after an edit warring message had sent to you. I would highly recommended you not to go to ANI. I do hope you start the unblocking request asap and we all can get back to editing. As for the MMA infobox source, that would be another matter which I will share some comments tmrw on Hendo talk page. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick Diaz

Hello Nedochan, I see you reverted the additional context I put into Nick Diaz's intro, but you didn't say much other than "Restored prior to editorial additions."

Can we talk about the edit? Nick badly needs and deserves more detail on his intro, as in its former state it badly undercommunicated his significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateHazzard (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Definitely happy to discuss. The issue was mainly the source. The Nick Diaz talk page is the best place!NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is up. Check it out, I'll tell you why I chose the citation though I may have inserted it improperly.PrivateHazzard

Hi PrivateHazzard I have reverted your edit for the above page. The lead section of a page should record what already written in the body text where by the content is "significant" enough to be included in the lead and also should be written in cons ice manner - pls read WP:LEAD for more info. Note: content in lead usually dont need to have citations as it should be in the body text; however, for rare/certain occassion we incuded the source/citations such as when we include the full name/real name of the subject since the article name is based on WP:COMMONNAME or the info would change weekly/monthly (such as UFC ranking). Secondly, content in Wikipedia needs to be written in WP:NPOV, thus WP:PUFF words should be removed from the texts. You have include the info either in "Fighting style", "Personal" or "Background" sections with multiple independent, WP:reliable sources. Let me know if anything else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense

I hope you don't mind or are somehow randomly offended by me moving your vote in that silly RfC. I initially made a comment yesterday and wasn't going to vote, then decided to vote today, so created a 'Comments' subsection at the bottom and moved my initial comment there, just so that all the votes are in one place. I moved your vote (and a subsequent reply) up to the votes section but somebody seemed to think that it was an egregious breach of some imaginary policy and began an edit war lol I've left the reply to your vote in the comments section and still moved your vote up, just for easy reading. – ².O.^Boxing 13:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned. Things like this are such a waste of time. It irks me that so much time has to be spent indulging over-zealous editors. Appreciate your contribution. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Ferguson and non sense reverting

Tony works with the ufc , they list him officially at 5’11 , you are ruining Wikipedia pages with wrong info , stop reverting and being stubborn. Check his ufc stats and the link I gave next to his 5’11 listing . Do a better job and grow up

Hi. The infobox contains a source at the bottom. Secondary sources preferred. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tony_Ferguson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Perm 15:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tony_Ferguson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Perm 15:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The edit history of Tony Ferguson shows warring from you, not from me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Stephen_Thompson_(fighter), you may be blocked from editing. Perm 15:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not vandalism - please, report me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Stephen_Thompson_(fighter). Perm 15:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Do it!NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Lordpermaximum, you should give WP:NOTVANDALISM a read. Secondly, you're completely misunderstanding the purpose of WP:RSP. There is a subsection titled "What if my source isn't here", and it clearly states Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion, and, A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. So removing a perfectly reliable source like ESPN in favour of one listed at RSP as "generally reliable" is utterly pointless. As for "no WikiProject can override RS"...nobody has said that. What has been said is that the WikiProject sets out a clear guideline for the parameters used in the infobox. A reliable source has nothing to do with it. – ².O.^Boxing 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove any source. Next time, do your research properly and stop harrassing me. Check WP:HAR. I'm telling it for the last time. It's gettin really weird and creepy.Perm 16:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you editing against consensus regarding the style parameter. I'm talking about needless edits like this. And as far as I'm aware, I'm free to leave a message on NEDOCHAN's talk page to address an issue and give some advice when my watchlist is filling up with you inappropriately spamming incorrect warning templates. You need to take Floquenbeam's advice and change all this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. – ².O.^Boxing 16:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did you ping me then? Or discussed this needless matter? There was a dispute about ESPN's independence on that article which I had not edited before, I wanted to provide an indenpendent source for that without changing any content and I did. Why did you come here, ping me and discuss this matter in the middle of something else? You're constantly harrassing me. As for Floquenbeam, he warned me about my edits to comments after and I haven't done anything like that again or really discussed anything at the RfC in question from that time.

I won't be blocked. Because you try to. I will be blocked if I constantly violate policies and an admin decides it's necessary to block me. Now, don't ping me again for needless matters and stop HARRASSING me. Next time, I will report you for harrassing.Perm 17:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no dispute regarding ESPN, the dispute is whether Sherdog should be used or not. "The needless matter" is your misunderstanding of RSP in that a source listed as "generally reliable" means that it's above all other sources, which is incorrect. You're welcome. And your warning was indeed for your disruptive editing, which is what you're engaging in again. It doesn't matter what type of disruptive editing it is, disruptive is disruptive. Your battleground behaviour was noted previously by the same admin (as well as by numerous other editors) after your very own warning for harassment, it was just worded a little less diplomatically.

I'm not under any IBAN restrictions, I can address whoever I want. If I see an editor being disruptive, I'm well within my rights to raise and question the issue as well as correcting their misinterpretation of something.

Accusations of harassment without evidence are, again, surprise surprise, WP:ASPERSIONS. If you're going to report me for harassment then don't threaten me with it, do it. WP:BOOMERANGs hurt, just saying. – ².O.^Boxing 17:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, don't put irrelevant essays here like policies and act like an admin-wannabe. OK? If you think something's against the policies then report it. Now get the fuck out of my sight with your creepy harassing attitude. (Personal attack removed).Perm 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Perm 16:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Brill. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Hey NEDOCHAN, just wanted to say thanks for your contributions in the mixed martial arts community, I've been seeing you over and over again cleaning up flaws and fighting vandalism. It's great to have people like you doing the heavy work, I haven't been as active as I used to as I'm more into amateur wrestling now, but whenever I take a look around you're there. Keep it up. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Conor McGregor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Check the talk page

Heights/weights of mma

Hello , you seem to have been reverting excellent notes made with reliable sources . And you also seem to have started an edit war . Unfortunately that’s not how wiki editors should work because at the end our goal is The same , we need to make articles the best and most informative. I would like to discuss about the seemingly unconstructive reverts you have on 4 different articles . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's too late.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice response, but as usual not very constructive. Just like your reverts :) I feel like reporting you for edit warring but I still will be patient with you and hope to reach a consensus on different articles. Check the talk pages , I’m always happy to learn more and reach a new consensus Wikiman122112 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You were blocked for doing exactly this. The admin who blocked you advised you to take a step back from the pages. The day your block expired you went straight back to the pages and carried on in exactly the same fashion. Please stop wasting my time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This account got blocked because of a rather bad comment made by it , not mainly because of the edit reverting or warring as you like to call it , and besides why can’t you reach a consensus with us on the talk pages , we can make it work out I’m sure Wikiman122112 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Too late.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:17, 29 October 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dan Henderson again

In response to your note on my talk page, I don't feel like templating the regulars but once again you have been edit warring on Dan Henderson. I believe the IP is a user evading their block though so I have blocked and reverted them. I have protected the page to prevent block evasion.

I will say this again though: please get consensus for your edits on the talkpage when you know they will be controversial. That particular line was put in before the RFC on Sherdog. You cannot change how that RFC was closed: The balance of opinion does not follow your opinion. Sometimes that happens on Wikipedia. I would suggest you move on from that RFC and sherdog in general. I really don't feel like getting involved in the content of that article again. Woody (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of the RFC is different from mine. Option 2 edged 1, and they both said reliable, the second of which was caveated in terms which would still mean the Henderson edit was correct. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum. Just thought I'd let you know. – ².O.^Boxing 22:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand blocked. this made me chuckle though. They put a nice spin on how things went. Bless their liccle cotton socksies! – ².O.^Boxing 23:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Some odd people out there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Gsp’s weight reverts

Being too stubborn and Reverting too much and now you will be reported Legendstreak0 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hiatus

I've had enough. Don't bother. I'm going to have a break. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ANI_against_Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PUPPETMASTER, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Magnus Dominus (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

ESPN mma source

Why do you revert any edit on MMA fighter's pages which uses ESPN as the source? ESPN is an official partner of UFC and their stats are up to date and reliable. I don't understand what the problem is with citing them as a source on certain fighter's pages which are more up to date than Sherdog. I have no agenda here but I feel it's a disservice to the accuracy of Wikipedia to solely use Sherdog for every fighter page when it is not always the most accurate. Hunterb212 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for using talk. I don't doubt your good faith. It's not that it's the sole reliable source but it is the source at the bottom of the infobox, so removal of sourced data isn't necessary. There has been a lot of disruption lately so I think a more rational discussion is required, in which I invite you to participate. Please could I ask you to wait until that's happened? Specific issues right now can be discussed at the relevant article's talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand and believe me I'm not one of the disruptive vandals or am I associated with them. I really just look to improve accuracy where I can on here and keep things up to date. I do believe Sherdog is reliable in most cases but there are times when they don't update a fighters stats and their information can be outdated and not as accurate as other sources such as ESPN. I would gladly contribute my opinion on a new RFC on the matter. I don't want go cause any disruption I just feel in some cases we editors on here should be open to using other sources if they are more accurate and show the fighter's most recent measurements. The only ones I've found to be completely accurate and up to date are ESPN and the official UFC site. Hunterb212 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly disagree with you on UFC; not only is it often way out from what they themselves show during fights but it's also very limited indeed. I do understand your point but I don't think sweeping edits are needed right now. I also can't see how it's possible to say what's accurate and what isn't. Take Nick Diaz, for instance. If you're trying to find out about Nick Diaz and you go to his Wikipedia page, should it say that he fought at 185? Someone could read that page and conclude that Diaz was a middleweight, yet he wasn't (other than one fight). Anyway could I ask in the name of collaboration and good faith that we discuss things on talk pages and work something out? Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well what I want to clarify honestly is what is considered accurate? The measurements from a fighters most recent weigh in, or the measurements that they have had most their career. To me it makes the most sense to update their weight after every fight because in general fighter's change and sometimes they move up or down in weight classes. My issue with Sherdog is they do not always account for this and sometimes the weight they have listed is not the most recent weigh in for that fighter but a previous outdated one. In those cases I feel it's more accurate to use a source like ESPN. If you check ESPN fighter profile pages you'll notice they update the fighter's weight after every fight. Plus they are an official partner of the UFC so I believe they should be considered a reliable source. And the UFC website from what I've seen has accurate measurements as well although I have not done enough research on it to prove it's 100% reliable I do believe ESPN is for sure. Hunterb212 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop disagreeing if you have a issue please use relevant talkpage for mma articles! That RFC padded by a disruptive individual that led to a controversial outcome and ~ PER WP:NOTSOURCE - Wikipedia "itself: cant be a reliable source. Kent Bargo (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel is 91 kg or 200 lbs ?

Hello, I want to clarify that although the ESPN source states 200 pounds, it’s 201 pounds on Wikipedia because of how things work here with the rounding of numbers, 200 pounds is actually 90.8 kg which when rounded it gets to 91 kg. And I would suggest you add light heavyweight in the divisions in which he competed in when he fights for the title tomorrow. Good day.Thund31292 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that the given source was correct and the one that replaced it wasn't. I was fixing that. If I need any more suggestions, I'll be sure to let you know. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thund31292 and Nedochan, note: the weight is as per last fight and the division is all the profession mma fights the subject has fought. Use Ib and the conversion template. Only change the info tmr when the bout has begun. Enjoy the fights. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RepublicanMMA (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your rewording of the plot section of 'A Clockwork Orange'. It was poorly worded and your changes are a much-needed improvement which I did not undertake. RedTeme (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)