User talk:Luchuslu

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hi Luchuslu,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mt king ^(edits) 08:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aurelio

No worries. It is easy to make that mistake (I did initially at first too) when they guys share the same, unique name. Udar55 (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Tournament

You seem like a reasonable chap, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on what an article on the entire tournament (or even the finals) might need. For example, explain how the 16 fighters qualified for the Final 16. Were there 4 from 4 qualifiying events, or what? The LA article showed 4 fights that were supposed to qualify fighters for the Final 16, but Rick Roufus won his fight and yet fought on the undercard of the Final 16. Explaining these kinds of things would give the article the kind of prose needed to be more than just a list of fight results. I would like to support an article on either the entire tournament or Final 8, but these articles (like so many MMA ones) just give the results and I think I made clear that I consider that insufficient to show notability. I do think the Final 8 has a chance because it determines the champion of the premier kickboxing organization.

That's the same reasoning I tried to apply to UFC events (which I no longer comment on at AfD). You may have seen my compromise suggestion on UFC event notability--that those with championship fights are notable and the others are not. I've made that suggestion multiple times, but neither side ever likes it and it has never garnered any support. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, I agree that giving some context to the tournment would be helpful. I feel that the problem with most every MMA/kickboxing article is that there really aren't many sources which do more than simply give results outside of the Sherdog live play-by-play results. It's especially difficult for kickboxing because many quality, reputable sites aren't in english. I'll try to beef up the article when I get some time off work next week.

And I do agree that many MMA events that have articles on Wiki don't meet WP:N, but we should all try to improve the ones that do instead of fight between the "fans" and the "deletionists". Almost like a mini gang war on this site, eh? Luchuslu (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judo notability

I see where you added Judo to this article up for deletion. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Levan_Razmadze#Levan_Razmadze
I'm not sure how you would go about doing it, but I would try to find a way to get him moved from our project page to whatever project does Judo. He won't pass the notability for our project and I would hate to see an article get recomended for deletion by us when it should be kept. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:WPMA, the Martial Arts project. I'll let some of those guys know about the AfD. But I'm pretty sure it won't get deleted since it passes their standards for notability.

TUF notability

Just wanted to point something out to you. TUF fights are Professionally sanctioned fights. If they weren't, both the fighters and Zuffa executives would be open to criminal prosecution. An exhibition fight just means the results aren't turned into the ABC in time to be recorded, in no way shape or form are they anywhere near ammy fights. Ammy fights don't even use 5 minute rounds. Every argument against counting them per the current guidelines has failed and failed miserably. You also can't say there is a consensus against counting them because as you can see on the afd voting, the group is clearly split. There may have been a consensus at one time, but that consensus clearly doesn't exist anymore. At this point, the guidelines as they are written support TUF fights as counting. I keep trying to recomend some sort of compromise but we have a few editors who don't want to compromise. So at this point the facts and current guidelines are on the side of counting TUF fights so I will continue to fight the notability or at least until the group can come to some sort of compromise.
By the way, trying to consider TUF fights as ammy, for those of us who are involved in the sport, sounds absolutely insane. Ammy fights use 2-3 minute rounds (as I pointed out above), plus they use bigger gloves, and they have way more rules (which vary from state to state but may include no head kicks, no submission below the waist except for straight knee bars, no elbows, etc.). Are you aware that some states even require ammy fighters to wear head gear and shin pads. Willdawg111 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously TUF fights aren't actual amateur bouts. But they certainly aren't on par with regular UFC bouts. As I'm sure you know, TUF fights are two rounds with a third in case of a draw, and some on TUF Live were just one five-minute round. They are considered exhibitions, which you correctly point out are sanctioned by the NSAC. I reviewed all the active AfDs on WP:MMA and the page on WT:MMA and only Paralympiakos, Sepulwiki, PortlandOregon97217 support your interpretation of WP:NMMA. Also, most of the opposition to your interpretation is not "a BS smoke screen by people who don't want to count them to try to avoid the facts" like you asserted earlier. Yes, some editors will be against anything to expand WP:NMMA, but the majority are not. I understand where you are coming from, but it's just not the way a vast majority of editors interpret the policy. Luchuslu (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you would agree there currently isn't a consensus among the project to either include nor exclude them right now, wouldn't you (you agree that the group is split on the issue)?Willdawg111 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it's about 80/20, so it should be addressed in a RfC. Then we can come to an official conclusion and make any necessary changes to WP:NMMA to clarity the three-fight minimum. Luchuslu (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There never was complete agreement about what to do about TUF. At the original discussions, there was a range from "none should count" to "all should count" so a compromise of "TUF finale only should count" was agreed upon. The same thing happened when the minimum number of top tier fights was discussed--3 was a compromise agreement. I would say compromise is how consensus should be determined--no one got what they originally wanted, but all participants could live with the result. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Watson

I hope you'll reconsider your vote on his AfD after reading my response. After 50 years in the martial arts I can tell you that no one considers it notable to win, much less finish 3rd, in a purple belt division, regardless of the tournament. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly respect your opinion and openly admit that I don't have the martial arts knowledge or experience that you have. That being said, I'm just going by what WP:WPMA/N says. If it specified that the accomplishments had to be at black belt, I would be 100% on your side and push for the article to be deleted. Luchuslu (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "black belt" was put into MANOTE because no one involved in martial arts would consider anything below a black belt to be notable. In fact, most black belts aren't notable. Many martial artists with high rank have been deleted because the MA project has frequently said "high ranks alone don't show notability". A purple belt is generally considered an intermediate level (and note he wasn't even competing at highest purple belt level). Also, I don't see multiple high finishes. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they make that clarification, I'll change my vote. Luchuslu (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UFC 88

Hi Luchuslu. I've left a reply to you at the UFC 88 AfD. I wasn't trying to say the sources themselves are unreliable or not notable, but that the sources don't establish notability of the fight itself. I just wanted to clear that up. I also stated that if you found sources to help establish notability, then I have no problem withdrawing my nom. Ish dar ian 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Luchuslu (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Luchuslu. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Luchuslu. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ...

for the barnstar. Very nice of you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi ... I was wondering what your view might be. Do you think that the fighter here is notable (among other things, she is reflected as the world Muay Thai (thaiboxing) champion in the under-52 kilogram class)? Article not yet created. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for the question. Under WP:MANOTE, she could possibly qualify under the "world champion of a significant international organization" category or "Repeated medalist... in another significant event." I'm not familiar with Haaretz or if it's considered a reliable source. I see its Wiki page has some criticism, but it does show some significant, independent coverage for her. If you can find enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, go for it. It may be difficult, however, because Google News and Bing News have a combined two stories on her. Worst case scenario, it goes to AfD and you can make your case there.

Thanks. As to Haaretz, its nearly a century old, and as the article indicates considered the country's most influential paper by some sources -- I've not question that it is an RS. I knew that you had some familiarity with MANOTE, so was wondering especially what your view was there. But yes, GNG is the other option. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gentry

Once a PROD has been removed it cannot be re-added; as I advised you in the edit summary please take to WP:AFD. Giant Snowman 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed for a superficial reason, as the rationale was listed in the edit comment. But if you must, I'll bring it to AfD. Luchuslu (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javaris

The text in the Wiki page only says that he is "reportedly" a member of the gang. I didn't realize that the newspaper article flat out said that he was. I still don't feel comfortable with the category in general, since we don't always have absolute proof for these things. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive History

Per your reply on MMA project page. I've glanced over the archives and one takeaway is that none of the clowns trying to remove MMA content care about encyclopedia user experience. I conclude this from the fact they never express any concern about the wiki user experience. Another takeaway is that they now run the place. I conclude this from the incredibly aggressive way they threaten users and try to control the process with no consideration of rules: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:75.172.12.104.

I wonder if there's any group within wiki who care about content over politics this can be brought to the attention of. Simply posting a complaint to the admin boards would be shut down by a certain admin for obvious reasons just as my last one was. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the conversations got pretty heated back when we hammered out the details for event articles, the use of flags etc. It was mostly a handful of users with no interest in the sport pushing their interpretation of wiki policies on the rest of us. As a result, many good contributors (and some bad ones) just up and left wiki altogether. As a result, only the ones with enough backbone to stay and argue for common sense (myself and maybe 2-3 others) were all that were left who cares about the content and not the policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done. I try to focus on preserving content from deletion and arguing in favor of notable fighters in AfD. I agree the content isn't user friendly, especially the omnibus pages, but my feeling is that it's better than seeing 90% the UFC event pages deleted. Luchuslu (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any body in charge of or at least concerned with some consistency on wiki? MMA pages look to be created from same mold as boxing or wrestling events, not to mention motorsports, etc. Can we get some kind of precedent that applies across the board so MMA wouldn't be specially targeted? 75.172.12.104 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to establish some templates in the past to make the pages more consistent, like {{MMAevent}}, but as for the rest of the content on an event page, it's pretty much a free-for-all. Many pages are just results with one sentence of context. Those events may well be notable, but they get targeted for deletion because there isn't enough content to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. And WP:SPORTSEVENT is a whole other issue, as I content a notable MMA shouldn't fall under that category since it's different from most any other sporting event. It isn't a seven-game series like baseball, basketball etc. and it isn't just one game. But other editors with less knowledge of the sports beg to differ. I do agree that MMA is specifically targeted, but the only thing us editors can do is point to the policies and guidelines that support our positions and hope others will "play nice." Luchuslu (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports pages don't have long winded content. Most that do had it built up over a period of time, which is why stubs exist and people are encouraged to add to pages. This is pretty normal on wiki far as I've seen, and not just for sports. The bigger problem to me seems more with hateful people abusing the process while masquerading as QA, and driving off potential contributors while doing nothing themselves. It's the most sick you can probably do IMO on a crowd sourced project. For example, the dishonesty they showed on my page is pretty disgustingly off-putting 75.172.12.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While most editors are doing what they feel is best, I agree that some have pushed too hard in an effort to reduce the amount of MMA content on Wiki. The only way to counter this is to either 1) Continue to point out the policies and guidelines that support such notable material or 2) Take the issue to WP:ANI. However, many of the more active admins have a negative view toward pro-MMA editors due to the frequent socking in AfDs back in the day. That's why I choose No. 1 and try to simply get along. If an editor crosses the line, I try to come to a compromise. Over the years, this seems to be the best way to slowly move WP:MMA forward. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions. Luchuslu (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Luchuslu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Luchuslu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Luchuslu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Krant

Hi Luchuslu, Greetings. I have redirect Derrick Krant to List of current UFC fighters as the subject needs to have at least 3 fights in top tier (UFC/Invicta) to pass the WP:MMABIO guidelines. When he has fought 3 fights in UFC then you could add the additional info (2 additional fights) and then it would be in Wikipedia mainspace. The redirect is here [1]. Thank you and let me know if anything I could help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio McKee

Hi there! I see you previously voted against the deletion of Antonio McKee's page. The page is one again unfairly nominated for deletion and I would appreciate another vote against the proposed deletion if you have any time at all. Thank you User talk:16derria — Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]