User talk:Vanisaac/Archive2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vanisaac. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Writing Systems is conducting a poll regarding its future goals, and we have identified you as a person with a vested interest in the future of that project. Whether you are a member of the WikiProject, a frequent contributor, or a passerby with an interest in the subject, we want your input as to the future emphasis that the Writing Systems project will take. Please take a moment to peruse the entries and add your comments where you have an opinion. You can visit the poll by clicking here, or on the project image, 書, on the right.

Hello, Vanisaac. You have new messages at Coastside's talk page.
Message added 06:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi! To save you from all the templates I moved File:Korean Final S Braille.svg and many other of your uploads to Commons and fixed them there :-) I hope everything looks ok now. If something needs to be fixed on many files I could do it with my bot. Some day I might move the rest of your files to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. I've actually been manually editing those guys down to about 1/4 the file size and uploading the new files to commons directly. So thanks. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great consonant shift. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeking wide input on the interpretation of Wikipedia's policy on 'See also'. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you have posted the message about the See Also discussion, but if you didn't post to everyone, it's called canvassing, and is frowned upon. The best place to post something like this would be on the dispute resolution discussion, rather than on individual editor's talk pages, so that everyone with a vested interest can participate. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have no intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion towards any one side of the debate. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Rihanna singles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, did you ever get the rest of the vowels? I'm listing Tibetan braille on Wikt. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Vowels are not marked for length, so that's actually a (semi) complete listing. The only exception is the vocalic R and L, and I have no idea whether they are used for modern standard Tibetan or just Sanskrit transliteration. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm only putting on alphabets we can attest to better than thru Unesco. There's a discrepancy in the coverage of Viet, where some say d = d and reversed z = đ, while others say d = đ and reversed z = d. The latter makes more sense while the former would be an easy mistake, but it would be nice if we could verify. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The '54 and '90 Unesco documents are in disagreement, so I think it would be wise to get a confirmation. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of castles in Belgium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I copy files to Commons and noticed these File:StenographieDuployé.jpg and File:Ecologytheta.svg. Are they still needed? If yes perhaps you could add a description to file #2? If no perhaps you could request a deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Two of your pages appear in Category:Unsupported braille input. Could you switch that off, so that the category is clean to work with? -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Go ahead an let me know when you are done, so I can revert those files - I like to keep my experiments around. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, next days I'll run some checks (e.g. on #2/2 numbers used) using the category. But restore them whenever you like. Did not see any problems just now when I put the template into live. -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make sure to post when you finish up with your checks, as I have a good, simple method for handling multi-cell output: it involves changing or removing 10 characters in /main and routing the logic through a single parser controlled by a few #if conditions; but I don't want to screw around while you're still working out kinks. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You're in. Best thing is time. When the template is stable (I want to do the /doc too), sandboxes are idle for new stuff. -DePiep (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The category has changed now (after talk): only article pages are there, not user nor template pages. So could you handle that error situation in your two pages differently? -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of collective nouns. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you give a nod when you are done with the sandboxes? I'd like to try some stuff. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm out of regular internet coverage for a few days anyway, so I'm not really going to be doing any wiki editing in that time. I'm also thinking through why the code I was trying failed, so I'll be working in private space anyway. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 19:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice holiday in the mountains. Anyway, I'll occupy the /sandboxes by marking my takeover edits, so reverting to your today's setup can be done. (I tried a bit to get your solution, but did not see it). -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

... once your are off 24h [1]. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that was my last hurrah. I'm stuck for now, so go ahead with whatever you had in mind. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 20:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

On multicell braille: the sandbox version is stable. I propose introduction. Japanese is in with two examples. Could you take a look? -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the regular Japanese inputs with multicell braille assignments. I don't really follow the code any more, so all I can say is that we should test, and if everything works out, let's ship it. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Will be live shortly. The Japanese additions are shown (tested) in Template:Braille cell/overview Japanese and Korean braille/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pushed them into live. It takes altogether like six lists and subtempates that should go together! That explained & done, I thank you for your support along the way -- upwaterfall swimming included. We have improved the Project. -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on finding as many minority/foreign kana combinations and their braille representation as possible and add them in when I find them. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do as you feel. Yesterday that was OK. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Enver Čolaković. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The article 2013 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates WP:CRYSTAL - doesn't look to have been announced, no evidence event will happen

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 proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 15:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Three Kingdoms. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of official languages by state. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Common English usage misconceptions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox model. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

On Keyboard layout, "Other original layouts and layout design software" is the specific section I moved Workman to. Giving it its own section was a generous thing to do since it hasn't been adopted by any major operating systems (yet). Deekayen (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Version. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Feminism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at this edit and the edit sum, can you explain to him your close of the RfC. Mtking ^(edits) 10:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please bring this incident to WP:ANI. Ignoring an RfC is WP:Disruptive editing, and can result in admin warnings and blocks. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was under the false impression that RfCs of that nature were not binding since I didn't see an admin involved (I may have missed it). I also did not see a consensus. I apologize and I will defer and you are right that it would probably be better to start a new RfC as you recommended. However before I might do that, might I ask your opinion as someone who specializes in flags and vexillological symbolism? Specifically, do you have a particular opinion on the usage of flags in Wikipedia reflecting their general usage in their respective sport? Like in contests that are not explicitly national competitions, but where flag use is heavily used in logos and broadcasting? Your input would be insightful. Beansy (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have any experience with that sort of usage in my WikiProject Vexilology work: I would not have been neutral enough to close the RfC if I had. In the half hour or so it took me to go through the whole RfC and investigate the policies cited by any contributors, I felt that the seeming intent of MOS:FLAGS was pretty much in line with what was argued in the RfC: that flags are only really appropriate where you have a person representing a country in a competition. The only real exception that I could infer - and it was by no means an explicit principle that should be trotted out without discussion - was where you have national "circuits", it may be appropriate to list competitors in cross-circuit competitions, where the flags are meant to represent, and would link back to, that national circuit, instead of the country. Like I said, MOS:FLAGS seems to take that position, but just like the MMA RfC, the Manual of Style is completely amendable by a discussion there. It may be that the use of flags and nationality for MMA competitors may be more concrete and meaningful than in most sports, meaning that there should be an exception in MOS:FLAGS, but the place for that kind of discussion is at MOS:FLAGS, not MMA. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was considering, if I had the time, an RfC for flags on all individual (non-team) sports of multinational interest, since so many currently use flag tables, which would include golf, tennis, Formula One racing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, kickboxing, and even Iditarod Sled Dog racing, but as a much simpler idea, do you think a separate table specifically with regards to the UFC (basically MMA's premier league) for Flags Of Promotional Representation would be a simpler route (also other promotions who employ the same practice)? I promise I'll try not to pester you on this beyond this question, but if you think one RfC might theoretically be of superior merit over the other, I'd still value your input on it. Beansy (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags should be used in results tables for ALL UFC events. It's always been a competition between countries. If it wasnt, there wouldnt be flags shown in the tale of the tape. Thats why the flags are always been on wikipedia, but MTKing doesnt understand this. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that an RfC is just an argument between the people involved. It isn't. It is a community-wide process that brings in the perspective of all editors. Every article on Wikipedia is a product of the entire community, and individual editors are charged with building that article to the standards of the community. Why do I bring that up? Because it wasn't just MtKing and the other people who !voted to remove the flag who chimed in. All of the people who discussed and formulated the MOS:FLAGS guideline were involved in the process, second-hand. They formulated a set of practices for using flags in coverage of sporting competitions, and it doesn't include that usage. So while you may think that you only "lost" by a few !votes, it actually wasn't very close at all: the dozens or even hundreds of people who made MOS:FLAGS were also !votes against your position. The great thing about this is that you may actually have a very good point about the usage of flags in UFC events, and it is quite possible that bringing a discussion to MOS:FLAGS could lead to a conclusion that UFC coverage merits an exception. It is also entirely possible that MOS:FLAGS started off as a blanket prohibition with a WP:WMF legal basis - remember that flags are legally protected entities in many countries - and that each of the current exceptions was painfully carved out of that prohibition, so it could be an uphill battle at MOS:FLAGS.

I hope this gets you to appreciate, first of all, the philosophy behind WP:Consensus, and more importantly, brings some perspective to your editing. WP:MMA has an unfortunate reputation as being an insular community that freely violates Wiki policy, and I hope that you take with you some understanding that when editors who disagree with you about these things come forward, it's because there are real concerns about the status of MMA articles. Like most of the content on Wikipedia, these articles need a lot of work on getting them up-to-snuff, and all of these kinds of discussions should be illustrative of what Wikipedia coverage of MMA/UFC needs to look like. The continuing mal-treatment of MtKing by members of WikiProject MMA is quite unfortunate - (s)he has a responsibility as a member of this project to bring his concerns forward and work them out, and the policy discussions that come from those concerns need to be respected as representations not just of the opinions of the few people involved, but as the weighty and considered opinion of thousands of Wikipedia editors who participated in the formulation of any policies or guidelines cited. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to hear that Mtking has been treated so bad by MMA editors. I think he may find out the reason why in this page:Golden Rule

I read the consensus, I clearly saw there was an exception for competitions between countries, and I have proved the UFC is just that. MMA on wikipedia deserves to be here as does any other sport. I have been nothing but respectful to Mtking. I respectfully disagree with him but the consensus is clear. And as he himself pointed out, the consensus on wikipedia is always stronger than the majority. The majority and the consensus agree, that flags are allowed to be used in a competition between countries. And I'm glad you agree that I made a good point. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so which country won the last UFC? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The USA had 6 victories, Sweden had one, Canada had one, The Bahamas had one, Brazil had one, and Germany(Or Russia if you wanna be technical) had one too. So the good ol' US of A won the last event. And America still holds the lightweight title. It was on Fox last Saturday, did you miss it or something? Oh and in boxing, Mexico definitly won that. lol. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the WP:RS to verify the claim that "US of A won the last event" or it is just your original research. Mtking ^(edits) 08:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Right here mate! http://www.ufc.com/event/FOX5/results JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing there to say anything about countries competing against each other anywhere there. Those fighters are representing themselves, not a country. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that on that page ? there is no mention of any country at all on that page USA or otherwise, no mention of which countries took part or which won. Mtking ^(edits) 08:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I thought you knew where the fighters were from but you wanted to know who won. http://www.ufc.com/event/FOX5#/fight This page goes into more detail. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You knew exactly what I am looking for so, but I will play your game, please provide :

• A link to an reliable source independent of the UFC that clearly states without the need for any Synthesis or interpretation that the USA won that event.

If you can't, just say you cant. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you asking for alot of stuff Mtking, what exactly are you looking for that I have not already provided for you? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What we're all looking for is a results page, saying the US won the competition. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones, please stop. Other than one or two UFC events, at no time does the UFC state that a nation is competing against another nation. And in the case of those few events, i would rather still see flags not used to keep tables and pages looking consistent. I was a part of the conversation on flags, and i did my very best to keep flags in results templates. We need to accept consensus and move on. The quality of MMA articles does not hinge on the use of flags, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done on MMA pages. Please, let's bite but bullet on this one and find other ways to improve MMA articles. Kevlar (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound odd, but I actually have no interest in MMA coverage at all. I just volunteer at at Requests for Closure, and one of the responsibilities is making sure that everyone knows how to implement your closings, so I've gotten sucked into this little ancillary corner of MMA, but I don't really have any dog in this fight, which is why I could be the bone this time around. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Trademark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WT:CSD regarding both my MfD proposal and your suggestion regarding a new criterion. dci | TALK 23:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about your closure of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG. In your closing statement, you said, "Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country." Some editors are focusing very heavily on the phrase "in results tables". Specifically they are questioning whether or not the flags can/should also be removed from other tables, lists, etc., such as List of current UFC fighters and List of UFC bonus awards. I would like to know if you believe the consensus applied only to results tables, or to tables across the MMA project in general. Note that I am coming at this solely from an administrative perspective; i.e., questioning whether or not people who insert flags on articles like those mentioned are violating the results of the RFC, and thus should be sanctioned for edit warring, especially given the fact that all MMA articles are now under general sanctions. My plain reading of the RfC was that you didn't actually intend for the closure to be solely restricted to results lists, but fully accept such a reading if that is how you interpret the consensus (in which case, a new RfC will probably be appropriate to question whether or not the principle should be expanded to all MMA tables). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers - the team they are fighting for - are appropriate to understanding the outcome of the overall competition."

I think it's pretty clear it says "results tables" in the RfC. If it applied to anything beyond that, why would there be an RfC about flags in results tables in the 1st place? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I also wanna point out that List of UFC bonus awards isnt even a created page, lol. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the scope of the RfC was limited to results tables, but a principle was in fact brought in, so it is always a good idea to look at the broader picture. Remember that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not written to be applied in a legalistic manner, and that trying to parse exceptions and exclusions is actually frowned on. Now bear in mind that I do not have direct knowledge of how UFC is organized or conducted - my knowledge is limited to the discussion and citations of the RfC - but that at least some competitions are organized along national lines. My reading of MOS:FLAGS - and this is only my reading - is that at least some fighters are definitively associated in a sporting context as representing countries, so it would seem that in a general listing, those fighters' sporting nationality is appropriate to indicate, as it is necessary to understanding their participation in those events organized on national lines. So I think the key is to determine whether a fighter has participated in a nation vs. nation competition, which has established that fighter's sporting nationality. As per MOS:FLAGS, a fighter's birthplace, residence, or citizenship is not an appropriate substitute for their having represented their nation in a sporting competition, so each flag included needs to be citeable on that basis. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is parallel to my own interpretation. In a sense, I don't even think the RfC ever needed to be held, because it was impossible for them to find that including flags was okay, because MOS:FLAG clearly says no (except in the cases you lay out). So, yeah. JonnyBonesJOnes, how would you like to proceed? Qwyrxian (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What are my options? I want to state that Vanissac isnt an admin, he is a regular user with an opinion. Flags are used in the UFC tale of the tape, they repersent countries! Chael Sonnen represents American, Anderson Silva represents Brazil. So I would like to restore flags to List of current UFC fighters page. If that cannot happen yet, then I would like another RfC on the issue, because as Vanissac states, that RfC in question was about RESULTS TABLES. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to reiterate that I think the MOS talk page is the place to review these practices. There are a couple of possibilities, each of which, I think, makes MOS:FLAGS the place to hold such a conversation: 1) MOS:FLAGS may, in fact, need to be updated to reflect realities of MMA/UFC competition that are unique to that sporting world. A discussion at MOS:FLAGS would bring in the larger Wikipedia community, especially editors with experience in drafting and implementing MOS guidelines, and reflect broad practice with large community buy-in, so that MMA/UFC coverage is actually a reflection of community practice, not an exception. Exceptions inspire challenges, and often have a very short shelf life on Wikipedia. 2) MOS:FLAGS may have enough exception in actual usage throughout Wikipedia that it may no longer be an accurate guideline, and needs to either be updated to reflect current usage or needs to be implemented more consistently. Discussion at MOS would be more likely to bring in input from editors from other sporting Wikiprojects, allowing the MOS to encompass a large-picture view of how flags should be incorporated into sporting coverage, and how they are incorporated in practice. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)