User talk:MattParker 119

Yes, but BBC One is the "usual" airing, BBC Three is the "preview", so you are spoiling some poor folks! DBD 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated LMNO (video game), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMNO (video game). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When updating NFL player pages please follow the following:

• add the NFL Year template to the years in the infobox by typing {{NFL Year|2008}}
• all players released now should have their last year with the team say 2008, not 2009 because they never played with that team in the 2009 season
• delink the birthdates

Thanks.--Giants27 TC 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.detail&gid=21299 --Drr-darkomen (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just revered additions you made to Kimbo Slice. Please do not add future matches to a fighter's record history. Upcoming matches are not guaranteed to actually happen and could be called off at the last minute. In adding these fights early it results in more work for editors to track down all these matches and remove them. It is simpler for all to simply add the match once it is completed. You can refer to this discussion at the MMA Wikiproject for more information. Thank you for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Etch A Sketch (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:CRYSTAL

- Two years later, still nothing apparently.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{

I noticed you changed back all the flags. Thats awesome but its only half way. All of his opponents have the flag changed in there fight records as well. Just wanted to fill you in because I agree with the flag thing even though he is "brazilian" he was still born in USA so everyone else can suck it. Other people on here just don't want to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.253.122 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you don't do this again. The Brazilian flag is sourced and you've not given any sources for US nationality. He is U.S. by residency but his primary nationality is Brazilian. Do not change it again. This goes for the IP too. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was born in Weehawken, New Jersey he's American http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/ricardo-almeida-cachorrao-wiki

Go to Talk:UFC 117. Being born somewhere gives you residency. He was born on a holiday, he lived in Brazil until his mid-twenties, has Brazilian heritage. His claim to U.S. nationality is tenuous and is only through residency. His PRIMARY nationality is BRAZILIAN! I'm not doubting he holds American nationality, but it's only through residency. BRAZIL = PRIMARY. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

He's a US citizen and I have seen no proof of his brazilian citizenship

I've never denied he's a citizen of the U.S., but that doesn't make it his primary nationality. How can you possibly deny he's Brazilian? It's been sourced and he admits he classes himself half-Brazilian, half-American due to having a wife in America, that's all. Let's not edit war on this. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what don't you get about the weight parameter. It's not meant to be the same as the division weight. Otherwise there'd be no need for it, as it's a basic duplicate unless they're a heavyweight. 263 was McCorkle's weight for a matter of minutes and was a result of severe dehydration to make that weight. Do you think he actually fought at that weight? He'll have been at least 20lbs more come fight night.

Also, please stop just putting numbers for the division. It's hideous. 265 what? lbs? potatoes? Canadians? That means nothing to people who aren't in the know about the sport. Please keep it as "Heavyweight"/"Super Heavyweight" etc. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sherdog.com pound for pound 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/Sherdog.com pound for pound 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 good 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. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined speedy as it doesn't fit 'nonsense'. It's reasonably coherent, whereas 'nonsense' is things like xjytckllngfd or something that would get you thrown out of a Surreal Poetry Club for being silly. What this is, I don't know. Encyclopaedic, no. If you can't find a better category, prod it. (I don't think context would get it either.) Good luck. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC 137 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/UFC 137 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 good 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. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some sort of verification that Joe Stevenson has definitely not been cut before removing him from that list. I understand that he may be in some sort of contractual limbo as he himself has stated (on twitter) that he does not know what his UFC future is right now. As stated in this article any fighter removed from the UFC's active rosters will be removed from their division and listed as cut. Joe Stevenson has been removed from the UFC's active rosters. This does not mean that you cannot find his profile on UFC.com, but if you search through their lightweight and featherweight divisions, he is not listed there. If, this is a mistake and he is returned to their fighter listings, or announces a future fight in the UFC I will be happy to return him to the list of UFC featherweights. Until that happens, he should be considered released per the articles guidelines. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article

]

Your contributed article,

UFC on FX 1

.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit

article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. MattParker 119 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

UFC Event Pages & article naming scheme.

I'm not sure if you have the MMA Wikiproject on your watchlist. A discussion was started there yesterday about the naming scheme for UFC event articles. Your thoughts and input would be welcome. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited UFC Primetime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to

Mtking ^(edits) 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Mtking. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I can find no evidence that the user is engaging in the behaviors described by the generic template that you have left. I would suggest in the future, that additional comments be left to explain why you believe the user deserves the templated message as I have done here. TreyGeek (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse multiple accounts again

Please do not abuse multiple accounts again, like you did with

blocked if you do something like that again. Regards, --MuZemike 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Strikeforce Challengers: Voelker vs. Bowling III

The article Strikeforce Challengers: Voelker vs. Bowling III has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This sports event fails

diversity

.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

Mtking ^(edits) 21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of UFC 144 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UFC 144 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/UFC 144 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.

Mtking ^(edits) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Scivelation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scivelation 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/Scivelation 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 notice from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]