User talk:FoolMeOnce2Times
Welcome!
Hi FoolMeOnce2Times! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- And thanks for your vote. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Roger (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
You can haz cheezburger! Just because...
Thanks for being a page curator. Fylbecatulous talk 17:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
- So you want me to go from 220 to 240? OK, you don't have to convince me! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
RE-New Pages
Yeah i have created numerous new pages. Yea i accept that few links are not very reputable like imdb but these are just supporting. There are few other reputable links. Atleast 3-4 links are reputable. One article has youtube links, it's about the model and actress Vibhinta verma. These videos are the short ads where she had worked so i added them as supporting references. But you will find at least few strong references. I am adding more referencing. I am interlinking my articles. When the interlinking will be done, I will add more references. Thank you for your time and assisting me with Wiki policies. I really appreciate that i am thankful to you. Dr Adil 17:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)comment added by Candicell (talk •
Alliance
Yes, I thought I'd seen that before - thanks for the link. I've put both versions on my watchlist, and if it reappears I'll very seriously consider salting. A lot of the outfits posting stuff like this use throwaway accounts, so I'm not worrying about an SPI. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I absolutely HATE salting, but sometimes it must be done. I actually tried to save the article but couldn't find anything of use. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
MMA AfDs
Thought I'd take you up on your offer to discuss this topic further. As a survivor of the MMA wars that have raged on WP for the past two years or so, I thought I'd fill you in a bit on why WP:NMMA is so often quoted in these AfD discussions. If WP:GNG is met, then notability is achieved and that's that. The problem is that the coverage for most MMA fighters consists solely of routine sports reporting and thus doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, a consensus of MMA editors agreed upon the standard you see at WP:NMMA. It's a somewhat tougher requirement that many sports use, where any top level appearance confers automatic notability, but somewhat less strict than the standards for boxing (WP:NBOX) and martial arts (WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have seen what you have lived for 2 years which is why I rarely vote on MMA discussions (good luck to you if you decide to continue as it looks like a full-time job for those who want to do it). The issue that I have is that MMA discussions have become so contentious that many people seem to make their decision to keep or delete an article, and THEN go to the guidelines to pull up something that they feel will support their position. This is completely backwards. Prior to even saying the person meets ANYTHING under WP:NMMA, it must be determined if they meet WP:GNG. As you state above, many fighters fail WP:SIGCOV which is what I pointed out at the deletion discussion (there certainly are not enough WP:RS to go any further with a discussion at that point). Many people who vote to keep or delete go directly to one of the two criteria for MMA and fail to see if they even have significant coverage or if the sources are reliable. I agree that many of the sources are simply snippets about a fight they fought or fight records on a site that anyone can publish to. This does NOT raise to a level of significant or reliable sources. So basically, it disturbs me when I see people saying delete or keep based on the 2 criteria without even addressing the WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS (which I believe that you and I are on the same page about significant coverage and reliable sources). EVERYTHING dealing with notability starts with WP:GNG, everything! So, it would be better to state in a deletion recommendation that a person "fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS and subject also fails to meet WP:NMMA for (fill in reason here)." My comments were my way of saying "wake up" to everyone and take a look at WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS before you even go to the MMA guidelines, as without reliable and significant coverage, they are NOT notable. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think NMMA gets used because there is coverage by reliable sources, it's just not significant (i.e., it's routine sports reporting). Therefore, since GNG isn't met, the question becomes whether they've done something notable in their field and that's where NMMA comes into play. Always happy to see a new contributor to the discussions, especially since things have calmed down the past few months. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. Many people "assume" the significant coverage or do not understand significant coverage or reliable sources. They go straight to the MMA guidelines. Or, others "want" or believe in their mind that the person has significant coverage and then use MMA to support their contention. Good luck with future AfD. I only !vote on them if they happen to be in the same batch I am voting on for the day. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think NMMA gets used because there is coverage by reliable sources, it's just not significant (i.e., it's routine sports reporting). Therefore, since GNG isn't met, the question becomes whether they've done something notable in their field and that's where NMMA comes into play. Always happy to see a new contributor to the discussions, especially since things have calmed down the past few months. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have seen what you have lived for 2 years which is why I rarely vote on MMA discussions (good luck to you if you decide to continue as it looks like a full-time job for those who want to do it). The issue that I have is that MMA discussions have become so contentious that many people seem to make their decision to keep or delete an article, and THEN go to the guidelines to pull up something that they feel will support their position. This is completely backwards. Prior to even saying the person meets ANYTHING under WP:NMMA, it must be determined if they meet WP:GNG. As you state above, many fighters fail WP:SIGCOV which is what I pointed out at the deletion discussion (there certainly are not enough WP:RS to go any further with a discussion at that point). Many people who vote to keep or delete go directly to one of the two criteria for MMA and fail to see if they even have significant coverage or if the sources are reliable. I agree that many of the sources are simply snippets about a fight they fought or fight records on a site that anyone can publish to. This does NOT raise to a level of significant or reliable sources. So basically, it disturbs me when I see people saying delete or keep based on the 2 criteria without even addressing the WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS (which I believe that you and I are on the same page about significant coverage and reliable sources). EVERYTHING dealing with notability starts with WP:GNG, everything! So, it would be better to state in a deletion recommendation that a person "fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS and subject also fails to meet WP:NMMA for (fill in reason here)." My comments were my way of saying "wake up" to everyone and take a look at WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS before you even go to the MMA guidelines, as without reliable and significant coverage, they are NOT notable. Just my opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)