Talk:Conor McGregor

John Conor McGregor

Is there any sources for this being his birth name? Murry1975 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep up Luckylunyo (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Keep up"...? Pointless response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.68.71 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Belt

How can one have a BJJ black belt and then be mentioned later having a brown belt only... so which is it? 108.168.108.221 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

British?

According to the BBC McGregor is British, from the "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" (http://media.balls.ie/uploads/2015/07/12200708/bbc1a.jpg). Will we change it now that we have a "reliable source"? We can change it back to Irish when he loses a fight as I'm sure the BBC will give us a reference for that then. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think we should post it. BBC's report has not been received positively. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I see a bunch of bemused/amused tweets responding to an obvious error. [3] - they have not repeated it! --86.135.159.252 (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Change McGregor not a professional boxer (http://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/845838/McGregor-Mayweather-joke-boxing-Las-Vegas-50 ).

Change McGregor rank from #3 to #1 (updated on UFC ranking). Mtran76914 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done by Eoinmurray91. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

_________________

This article should include a segment on McGregor's critics regarding two points of contention:

1. Critics contend that Conor McGregor is/was protected from facing higher caliber fighters in the run up to the title fight with Aldo. This criticism was amplified after McGregor was booked to face Dennis Siver, but it has been somewhat tempered by his match with Chad Mendes, who was the most recent title contender, and has a reputation as a fighter of respectable skill.

2. Critics, most notably Wanderlei Silva, contend that Conor McGregor's fights show evidence of match fixing. Critics point to his opponents' seemingly inexplicable errors and lapses in judgment, coupled with quick referee stoppages and circumstantial evidence of the UFC's financial interest in the outcomes of McGregor's fights. Critics point to three of McGregor's fights in particular: Brandao, Poirier, and Mendes.

Replays of the Brandao fight show Brandao abruptly refusing to engage offensively, back fuck off ing up with his hands down, then falling down in a prone position. In the finishing sequence, Brandao can be seen blocking nearly all of McGregor's punches with his exposed palms, but not attempting to stand or otherwise defend himself.

Replays of the Poirier fight show Poirier falling to his knees after McGregor missed with a punch. As in the Brandao fight, Poirier seemed to abruptly cease meaningful offense and defense. After Poirier fell to his knees, all but two of McGregor's follow up punches can be seen to clearly miss the face of Poirier.

In his fight with Chad Mendes, a clearly slower McGregor was on the receiving end of striking exchanges for a majority of the fight, and was taken down on multiple occasions. In several instances, Mendes appeared to have a fight-ending position (e.g. McGregor's arms pinned and face exposed), only to relinquish the positions voluntarily. Despite not having cardiovascular issues in previous fights, Mendes appeared to feign exhaustion after the first round. In the final sequence, Mendes relinquished a guillotine submission attempt and let McGregor stand up, and thereafter stood with his hands down until McGregor landed a combination of punches. referee Herb Dean, who has also faced criticism for his officiating of the fight, stopped the fight almost immediately.

The UFC has not addressed these critics specifically, but has previously denied all allegations of match fixing.

Guest User 01 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

References

If you're serious (and you typed enough to make me think you are), most of that is unusable synthesis. You'd need reputable critics to analyze these fights and come to the same conclusions, not just point to fight coverage and then to a bunch of nuts on Twitter. Even if they aren't as nutty as the Bleacher Report article makes them out to be, they're still just riff-raff. Everyone has opinions.

In my opinion, what happened to those poor boys was what happens to many fighters who realize they're outmatched while also getting hit very hard and mocked: they crumble. Break. Give up. Whatever you want to call it. McGregor just says that's what'll happen, loudly, before he does it, so it gets more attention than when the polite, quiet sort do it. You ever really look at a Demian Maia opponent's eyes after 12 minutes of helplessness? Same deal, just slower.

Wanderlei's complaint might be notable, though. He's something of an expert. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont think Wand is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source :D There would be POV issues due to his ban by Nevada Comission and his legal action against them and the UFC Dimspace (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you are serious. Unfortunately wikipedia is not a source for Reddit-esq debate, it is for encyclopedic, factual information, not gossip. Also, you reference all of your outlandish claims, but not a single source has even an iota of reference to what you are talking about.

LeinsterLad (talk) 21:45, 05 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is McGregor has crumbled the uncrumblable and Demian Maia's opponent's eyes showed emotion for the first time. It sure wasn't joy. And it sure wasn't predetermined. By bookers, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Style shouldn't include BJJ

Per the norm with MMA fighters, style should indicate his general preference, not just disciplines he has learned. Otherwise, Royce Gracie should have Muay Thai listed as well, for example. --140.32.16.52 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone screwed up this mma records page, please fix

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the fourth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 1,139,804 views for the week December 13 to 19, 2015. McGregor became the became the UFC featherweight champion December 12. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That week, this also became the first MMA article featured "In The News" on Wikipedia's main page. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Aldo Fight KO

The McGregor Aldo fight at UFC 196 was called via knockout not TKO. It's listed as a KO (Punch) at sherdog.com and Bruce Buffer called it as being a knockout on the night. It should be changed. Marz8ar (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As source was added at the bottom of the table, two actually, one for Aldo and Mendes. Aldos from the "STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ATHLETIC COMMISSION" as is on the pdf, by TKO. There is a difference in the sources, I would personally call it a KO, the State Commission call it a TKO, I dont know why. Murry1975 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The source given, claiming that it was a TKO, also erroneously lists Anderson vs Weidman 1 as a TKO, to give one example. http://boxing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/boxingnvgov/content/results/MMA/2013/07-06-13MMA.pdf Whoever is changing the result to TKO, please stop removing factual content. Let's not be emotional about this. NerdNinja9 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Cites moved inline. , "erroneously"? It is the actual fight regulator. Murry1975 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But it's not infallible, and not an independent, secondary source. That's what Wikipedia prefers. And of course, the video is quite clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They are the sanctioning committee. What they declare is the official record. Any disputes with the record need to be taken to the athletic commission. Anybody else's opinion is ultimately irrelevant. It's akin to changing a fighters record because you don't like a judges decision. The sanctioning commission is the only relevant record. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

They're a sanctioning committee, responsible for fighters and promoters in Nevada. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, with its own rules and regulations. In our world, they're just a primary source making an exceptional claim, contrary to global mainstream sources and all of our own eyes. So we either find exceptional sources for the claim, or we disregard it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

Conor McGregor's win against Jose Aldo was a KO, not a TKO, as visible on Sherdog.com

99.229.246.18 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

See the section above which discusses this issue EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The NSAC (the athletic commission that sanction the fight) recorded the win as a TKO. This is the official record. Sherdog is mistaken. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nate Diaz fight

"he was taken down several times"? Diaz never took him down and never attempted to. McGregor tried to take himm down after getting rocked,but Diaz sprawled and went on top. Please correct that.--93.57.255.136 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 7

It says that McGregor was a -300 underdog. The source clearly says he was a -400 favourite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.218.180 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Retirement rumours

A single tweet that its fairly vague is not a verifiable source as far as "McGregor has retired" goes. If something official comes from the camp or the UFC then yes, but random tweets are not wikipedia sources. If we use that logic, CM Punk, Nate Diaz, and various others have also confirmed their retirements on twitter today Dimspace (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"I have decided to retire young", is not "I have retired", agree until something concert comes out we should be, well, encyclopedic. Just sayin'.... Murry1975 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I have added a line saying that he sparked rumours of retirement but nothing confirmed. Hopefully seeing that will dissuade people from repeated editing Dimspace (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like there is confirmation that his next fight has been cancelled, only his own word that he's retired now though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is definitely still too much up in the air. We're in no hurry as we are not a news source. We can wait for something definitive from him or as the stories begin piling up on the news sites and there still isn't official word from him then I guess we can mention it. But for now it feels too much like original research to assume anything from that text. SQGibbon (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the way we have it at the moment is fine, at the very least we want to be careful not to convey inaccurate information by stating that he's going fight Diaz in July. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We mentioned that the fight has been cancelled as that announcement was an official. The retirement one still feels way too much like speculation and giving too much credence to a vague tweet. It doesn't feel encylcopedic to even mention it at this stage. But I'm not going to press the point. The whole thing will probably be clarified in a day or two. SQGibbon (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As it stands is perfect. States the fight with Diaz is off, which has been officially announced, but anything beyond that is speculative. Looks good as it is until something actually happens officially Dimspace (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well since there has been many speculation about this I've decided to share what I've gathered

Conor McGregor refused to promote UFC 200 this weekend in Las Vegas, according to Dana White, which caused Dana to cancel the McGregor/Diaz fight at 200. I'm assuming that's what triggered McGregor's retirement. Seems to be him being frustrated at the UFC and Dana White, especially, and decided to retire because he knows what a big blow that'd be. -Zach(MMA Fighter) Jose13Noh (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Conor announced on facebook just this morning that he is not retiring yet, and very heavily implied it was nothing but a publicity stunt. A metal shard (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Aye, multiple sources are on it, Wikipedia is not. Seems he did break the Internet, because I can't add them. BBC has him in their football section. Just thought I'd point that out. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news outlet. The article can only be edited by admins until tomorrow, due to page protection caused by the heavy editing on his "retirement". Murry1975 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

Conor McGregor announced his retirement on April 19, 2016 in a twitter post.

204.186.238.206 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's being discussed above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

References

The truth about why wasn't Conor facing the UFC 200?

A supporters opinion. http://ufc.create.it/entry/zuffa-llc-fight-pass-fanatic-promotion-roy-dg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joej161 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

Reubenhealy96 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Misplaced request. Wikipedia:Requested articles is the appropriate venue to request an article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

212.235.180.90 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, correct the article, mr. Conor McGregor has fight today and the fight isn't shown as future fight with Nate Diaz. plzTHANKu

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
You must also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Submission grappling record

Mcgregor fought on the 2012 IBJJF European Open No Gi Championship, Middleweight (—82.8kg/181lbs) purple division. He lost by points 2-0, in the openning round againt Kywan Gracie Behring.

If someone can add this, the video is on youtube, I noticed other fighters have these records so why not Conor? Cheers Sasukept (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016

Conor McGregor -- should be Connor McGregor 2602:306:8343:E980:3C12:9468:9110:73E3 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider a requested move if there's consensus. i.e. {{subst:Requested move}} — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

89.101.250.169 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Last official weight is 168 not 170.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Please change birthplace. He was not born and is not from UK. 83.110.98.141 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. KGirlTrucker81. Sorry to disagree but I don't think a source is required to state that Dublin, the capital of the Republic of Ireland, is not in the United Kingdom. It was added earlier today. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Oh, I thought was a source required to do it. :/ KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Normally yes but this had several problems. It was added about an hour ago and was unsourced. A source would be required to prove a negative and it is the "water is wet" sort of statement. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Conor was actually born on the 12th of July

Source - Play at 2:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRYGi0ucorg

203.173.137.212 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

Why does his weight say 170lb? It says Weight not Weight class. His last weigh in was 168lb. On fight night, they announce his height as 5'9 and weight 168lb.

89.101.250.169 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

According to his ufc.com fighter profile, his current weight is 145lb. Please change his weight from 170lb to 145lb. 141.170.25.116 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. His weight has been updated within the article per the existing reference. Thank you for your request. — ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN Potential?

Hello guys. What do you guys think of nominating McGregor's recent victory to ITN? He made history tonight. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. His victory at UFC 194 was featured in that section. This was a greater win, and it occurred in the main event of the biggest MMA event in history. LlamaAl (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominated. LlamaAl (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, you have experience in this, maybe you could help by editing the blurb (English is not my mother tongue). LlamaAl (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

He has two sisters, Erin and Aoife .Niamh. (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done I treated your comment as an edit request & corrected the information in the personal life section regarding his siblings. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conor McGregor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140129015243/http://mmainsider.net/13967/mmainsiders-2013-annual-awards-the-results to http://mmainsider.net/13967/mmainsiders-2013-annual-awards-the-results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Personal life: Conor and his girlfriend Dee Devlin are now expecting their first baby in May 2017. It is expected that Conor will take an extended leave from MMA because of the pregnancy. Robkeane89 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Can you please provide a reliable source to support your claim? regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC).

Connor McGregor's Opinions on Free Trade, Global Warming, Gay Marriage and Deficit Spending

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bottom line, the inclusion of McGregor's opinions on gay marriage are irrelevant. Whether or not it has a credible source doesn't change the fact that it utterly fails to live up to the guidelines set out on wp:trivia. If McGregor was a longstanding and proactive LGBT advocate and it was actually a relevant component to his life, then maybe it might be a worthwhile addition but making a passing comment on a social issue is absolutely not worthy of inclusion. The problem with allowing this sort of thing to persist (and has been argued in detail on other articles) is that biographies of living persons then devolve into issue-signaling devices, where ideologues who fall on either side of some social or political issue are quick to enrich articles with agenda driven 'content' that is otherwise irrelevant to the individual in question but serves to further their desire to prove that someone famous agrees with them. This doesn't even begin to withstand wp:trivia, it has been reverted and I'd encourage mediation. If the standard is that this sort of thing *IS* acceptable, then beware; you're opening a huge can of worms. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be reliably sourced and it has been in the article for many months. There is no question of a BLP issue with the content, so repeatedly removing this without consensus on the talk page to do so is edit warring. Per WP:BRD this should have been discussed on the talk page before removing it the second time. let alone the third time, and the content should remain n the article while consensus is being reached. I will restore it pending the outcome of this discussion.

The edit summary with FactsAndHonesty's initial removal [4] mentioned WP:NOTABILITY and minor trivia as reasons for deleting it. WP:NOTABILITY only deals with whether topics are notable enough to warrant an article, and explicitly states that it does not apply to article content. See WP:NOTEWORTHY.

As for the suggestion that WP:TRIVIA requires that this material be removed, the guideline deals with lists of miscellaneous trivia, which is not what we are dealing with. It is a public statement by a notable person on a contentious issue. I don't believe the information is trivia at all, but it certainly is not the "list of miscellaneous information" that the guideline applies to. As with WP:NOTABILITY, this guideline seems to have been misunderstood. It explicitly states that it does not apply to article content: This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

The suggestion that Mediation be used to resolve this is extremely premature. There has been no talk page discussion (let alone the "extensive talk page discussion" required before any formal dispute resolution. Meters (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My initially citing WP:Notability was in error- I was thinking WP:Undue- but lets not go down the turgid road of arguing semantics and punctuation over actual substance. The brave, new standard you're proposing we accept for this article is not realistic, lest any comment anyone ever makes via any reliable source be considered magically worthy of inclusion into their article. So pick WP:Undue or WP:Trivia, plain reading of their intent, a passing comment Connor McGregor made on gay marriage is absolutely not noteworthy enough for inclusion. You can make whatever tortured interpretations and narratives you wish but I rest my case on the blindingly obvious, plain reading of WP:Trivia and WP:Undue, which speak directly to adding things like passing quotes on social issues for which the party in question is otherwise not a relevant player. I really don't see how we escape mediation on this, as there is no 'middle ground' on the inclusion of trivia or giving undue weight to a passing quote OTHER than to delete it, which is what you're trying to rationalize against doing. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@FactsAndHonesty: it seems you have misinterpreted BRD. You were bold in removing the content, and yes bold includes removal of content not just additions or alterations (see how to proceed), then @AffeL: reverted. You correctly started this discussion, but only after you removed the content again & then a third time incorrectly accusing @Meters: of violating policy when it was in fact you who violated policy. Therefore the content should remain until a consensus is reached. As for the permanent inclusion of the content, I'm unfortunately somewhat on the fence. However, I've notified the relevant WikiProjects so hopefully there will be a little more input & a clear consensus can be reached. If edit warring persists, I will request full page protection, then warn & ultimately report flouting users. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE, whether it's sourced or not. As you say, if he were really known for being an activist for an issue the way Ronda is known for body image stuff I might think there's reason for inclusion. That's not the case, so it doesn't belong. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't care whether this is in the article or not, but I still have not seen a valid justification for removing it. WP:Notability and WP:Trivia explicitly state that they do not apply to article content. User:FactsAndHonesty can insist all he or she likes that wp:trivia applies, but as the quote above shows, it clearly does not. It is simply not a content policy.

I'm not convinced that WP:UNDUE rules out the inclusion of this information either. How does it apply? Most of wp:undue is concerned with not giving undue weight to minority views in articles, but that is not what we are considering here. We are simply reporting a sourced, public statement made by a notable person. It's not an extraordinary claim or a minority view. It does not "give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or [to] include that of a tiny minority".it's simply what an article's subject said about a particular topic. We could consider the WP:PROPORTION portion of Undue, but I don't see it as a problem. His country had a referendum on a controversial subject. He made a statement on the subject, and we simply mention what he said. It would be difficult to report this with any less detail or weight than we have done. Is the argument that it should not be included at all because he is a fighter and we should not mention his public opinion about anything that is not fighting related? That line of reasoning would rule out an extraordinary amount of material in other articles about notable people... political affiliations of non-politicians and statements about humanitarian issues by actors, for example. Meters (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The operative point is that it doesn't warrant inclusion at all because it violates WP:Trivia and WP:Undue on its face (irrespective of whatever tortured narratives you wish to create about how otherwise plain policies somehow don't apply in this case). The fact that it is appropriately sourced is not in dispute, you keep reflexively citing that as though it's somehow relevant. It is not. It is indeed credibly sourced but it is trivia at best and absolutely wp:undue by any rational measure. Ultimately, though, since you personally don't care whether it's left in or not, that makes you one neutral vote, one other neutral vote and two against, so far. Lets stay focused on the facts FactsAndHonesty (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a neutral vote (I have no personal stake in whether it is in the article, but I think it should remain), and this is not a vote in any case. This is a discussion of whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines justify the removal of the material. Refusing to accept that wp:trivia does not apply does help your position. Please provide reasons supported by policy and guidelines why this material should be removed. This is looking like a case of I WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Meters (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the mention of Free Trade, Global Warming, and Deficit Spending from this thread's header. There is no mention of these topics in the material being discussed. Meters (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove, per WP:UNDUE. The statement is not a significant part of McGregor's personal life. FactsAndHonesty's original post sums up the situation perfectly, and dismissing the argument as IDONTLIKEIT because he fails to cite chapter and verse on policy is tendentious. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove as per WP:UNDUE. This was one comment. We do not include every single thing we can possibly include in articles just because there's a reliable source backing them up. If he were notable as an LGBTQ activist or if his comments created some kind of media stir that itself became notable then inclusion would make sense. But as of now it was a statement that doesn't seem to have any real significance toward an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. We are not Wikia where we want every single little possible nugget of information included on a subject. We want our readers to get a general understanding of the subject. Had he received death threats or major newspaper wrote op-eds about him because of this then that might be different. As it stands it does not warrant inclusion as argued convincingly above. SQGibbon (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Random quote not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, his wearing of a poppy garnered more attention than this glib remark, and led to him stating "Fuck politics and fuck religion. I just want to swing a few lefts and a few rights for a couple of hundred mill in peace." Igor Bišćan (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove I think the strongest point is what SQGibbon pointed out, that this was just a one-off comment. My thoughts were the same: if the comment were relevant to something that is a large part of his life, and therefore served as some kind of summation or reasoning for a component of the subject's life that was worthy of its own section in the article—that would be one thing. Or if the statement ended up becoming notable itself for some reason (e.g. he received professional reprimand, or someone filed a lawsuit against him, and he ended up making a public statement, etc.)...that would be another reason such a thing might be included. But at this point, Conor McGregor's views on gay marriage are no more relevant to a biographical encyclopedia article on him than are his opinions on a particular sports team. He could have easily been quoted in Time Magazine as saying he was a huge Boston Red Sox fan. If that doesn't qualify as unencyclopedic trivia, I don't know what does. The fact that such a comment is printed in a major publication is not a reason it should be included in Wikipedia. --Wikisian (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Thanks for the discussion. Meters (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Add 'return to lightweight' on the notes of the UFC 205 fight against Eddie Alvarez. 24.143.60.105 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The notes already say "Won the UFC Lightweight Championship." Wouldn't this be unnecessary?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Conor Mcgregor was not youth Amature boxing champion in Ireland

Take look this link. this record appears the Amature boxing record in Ireland but obviosly there is no Conor's name

http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/Nationalchamps/Ireland.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeasantProprietor (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conor McGregor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409065139/http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/04/ufc-on-fuel-tv-9-bonuses-mcgregor-madadi-pickett-easton-win-60000 to http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/04/ufc-on-fuel-tv-9-bonuses-mcgregor-madadi-pickett-easton-win-60000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fluent in Irish

He was taught it at school, like many schoolchildren are taught French. But he struggled with it in interviews. It seems as if he has a working understanding of Irish, plus the claim he speaks Irish fluently is unreferenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7A12:9D00:35A9:4692:3B90:2E18 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Connor McGregor VS. Floyd Mayweather....

Will Mayweather's career be hurt by this fight? If he wins he will hit his 50-0 on a MMA fighter, but if he looses than he lost to someone who only used ½ of there fighting style. Geraldgossett (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Mayweather fight needs to be edited. "7 March 2016" should really be "7 March 2017". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9501:2F2B:4589:756A:C35A:525D (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

124.29.207.238 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - you have made no specific request, but appear to be trying to add a spam link - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

Can I please write his relationship partner and his child Miss.trish099 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

Please delete xProfessional Boxer one fight does not make him a pro boxer he has only ever had 1 fight as a pro boxer debut fight says right in the articale Xigeneral (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

Aaaaa2300 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

MMA hiatus and boxing endeavours After winning the lightweight championship at UFC 205, McGregor announced he would take time off from the UFC to wait for the birth of his first child due in 2017.[148] McGregor would spend the majority of his public appearances in early-2017 campaigning for a boxing match with Floyd Mayweather.[149] After months of negotiations, the two finally came to terms on 14 June 2017 and announced the match to take place on 26 August.[150] The match ultimately ended in the 10th round with a victory by TKO for Mayweather.[16] On 10 November, McGregor appeared at Bellator 187, where he congratulated victorious SBG Ireland teammate Charlie Ward and confronted referee Marc Goddard.[151] McGregor's next scheduled fight against Tony Ferguson at Bellator 219 was reportedly pulled due to McGregor's unacceptable behaviour at Bellator 187.[152]

Conor's fight was pulled from UFC 219 not Bellator 219. Conor is signed to the UFC, so cannot fight for Bellator. Also, it was not certain that he was on this card, so it is best to say 'allegedly' he was set to fight. 81.104.73.140 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done I corrected Bellator 219 → UFC 219 and tried to reword the statement about the rumored Ferguson fight in line with the source already provided. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

McGregor racially-charged remarks

Edit: these changes have been approved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_McGregor&oldid=815141409#Controversies

I made some additions to the "Controversies" section that were removed for not being constructive. However, McGregor's racially-charged remarks are discussed widely among fans, media, and MMA community at large. They are more widely known and probably more controversial than his incident at Bellator 187, but that remains on the page. These remarks are a large part of his story and his trash-talking persona. They are a huge factor in why he is so polarizing among MMA die-hards and casual fans. I have followed MMA and McGregor for many years so I have context to these remarks, and my edits were neutral and relevant. I'd like to discuss why they should be included on his page- thanks.

Here are the full changes- the above link doesn't capture everything, as it was reverted before I was finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2o (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, should allegations of racist be added to the article? See here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have added it myself. I find it shocking that since the editor raised the concern last year - 2018, their edits were removed in an attempt to keep it off the page. Terrible! I've added a section for his racial antics over the years. That section can be expanded as per our policies..Tamsier (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Further Controversies

McGregor has being involved in several controversies since returning to Ireland,here are a couple that seem to have not gotten much international media attention.

Alleged fight with a man associated with the Kinahan cartel. Speeding charge.

There have been other instances involving cheating on his wife but they seem a lot less credible. I feel the wiki page does not reflect his current character very well.

Cj493 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Cj493

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conor McGregor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161130185327/http://entimports.com/2016/11/coach-kavanagh-gives-in-depth-response-to-ufc-stripping-conor-of-his-belt/ to http://entimports.com/2016/11/coach-kavanagh-gives-in-depth-response-to-ufc-stripping-conor-of-his-belt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

jfkhfkhjkfjhkhj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.34 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox person

Why can't McGregor have a person infobox to include his girlfriend and child? RKJ 5 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Silence about Scottish heritage?

Shouldn't this article have some mention of Conor's Scottish heritage? The article has very little about his background and, after all, people will surely wonder why he has a Scottish name. He has in the past expressed his personal pride about his Scottish and Clan MacGregor ancestry.[5] [6] Also, surely the [[Category:Irish people of Scottish descent]] should be added to the bottom of the article, as in analogous articles? 89.241.187.26 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nickname

There is a semi-official/unofficial nickname of Conor McGregor circulating on YouTube, spoken by a few MMA fighters, calling him "Mr. Confidence." Can you add it? I think Colby Covington said it.

 Not done: I don't think it is relevant enough to be added to the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

He practices Karate, boxing is useless in street fights 151.30.46.202 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kpgjhpjm 12:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

Karate, please 188.219.235.42 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

He also trains in Karate

He trained and trains in Karate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.219.235.42 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

McGregor TUF stint inaccuracy

McGregor then took part in UFC's reality television series The Ultimate Fighter where he would coach against Urijah Faber. This "U.S. vs. Europe" installment of the show was the first time that the coaches would not fight against each other at the show's conclusion.[88] Faber's team member Ryan Hall ended up winning the competition.

The text in bold is incorrect. The Ultimate Fighter season 2 had two coaches (Matt Hughes and Rich Franklin) that were not expected to fight each other at the season's conclusion, as both coaches competed in different weight classes. I know it isn't a huge deal, but it should be corrected in order to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsgrady (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 15:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Neck crank vs. Rear naked choke

Discuss here. It certainly appeared to be a neck crank. Enigma^msg 22:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UFC 229 Controversies

It should be *Dillon Danis not Dannis Dillon Blakeminnix (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't write that but the person who did was confused. Done. Enigma^msg 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

103.119.51.12 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

107.135.209.196 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Face crank instead of neck crank for Khabib fight.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Conor McGregor Net worth

Conor McGregor is reported to have the net worth of $137 million in 2018. He is the highest paid MMA fighter at current and has made about $12,072,000. He reportedly made over $100 million from his mega-fight against Mayweather. The Notorious earned around $50 million including $3 million fight paycheck when he fought Khabib at UFC 229. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh2132 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

"in December, [year]" = "in December [year]" 2605:E000:9149:8300:AD96:7ABA:7CA2:5D81 (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

hisotry => history Libby Kane (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

|4,600,000

the article clearly states that it's 4.3m not 4.6m please change it

References

Islamophobic anti Burka

Islamophobic anti Burka and Race row April 2019 Calling Khabib’s Wife A Towel and Goat https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2019/04/uneducated-racist-mutt-conor-mcgregor-s-anti-muslim-tweet-at-rival-slammed.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/8778792/conor-mcgregor-racist-khabib-wife-towel-traditional-wedding-dress/

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/769872/conor-mcgregor-twitter-khabib-nurmagomedov-racism-row-ufc-rematch-mma

https://www.mmamania.com/2019/4/3/18294277/dana-white-statement-unacceptable-conor-mcgregor-khabib-twitter-beef-towel-rape-ufc-mma

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2019/4/4/18295311/islamophobia-ufc-conor-mcgregor-ethnic-religious-tension-fight-promotion-khabib-crime-mma

https://talksport.com/sport/mma/521814/conor-mcgregor-racist-deleted-tweet-khabib-nurmagomedov-wife/

More Racism https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/conor-mcgregor-s-racism-and-bigotry-need-to-be-called-out-1.3155257 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenvoter (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Islam isn’t a race and therefore “islamophobic” comments are not racist. Isuausuhzhs (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Neck Crank for Khabib fight not right.

It would be more specific if it was listed as a fulcrum choke, https://www.scrapdigest.com/khabib-explains-why-conor-mcgregor-had-to-tap-out-early/42774/. Not a big deal but thought it should be listed correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yominick (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Paulie Malignaggi

Conor has pretty much engulfed Paulie Malignaggi, I have not seen and interview with Paulie where he doesn't refer to Conor and how bitter he is about the sparring session that took place for the Mayweather fight - I feel this should be referred to in the main article.

The upcoming Lobov vs Malignaggi has basically come to fruition on the back of the ill-feeling from the Mayweather sparring session.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

82.43.69.195 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Net Worth - $145 Million / USD

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Alleged sexual assualt

Go ahead and delete and hide his sexual assault allegations fanboys. It is a form of historical negationism and this page is now suspect. There are four unamed sources that point the finger at mcgregor, police report say video of his room was taken at the time, and hotel records say he was there. All that wasn't reported by now is him actually being literally and directly named by the irish LE. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2019/08/28/dana-white-gives-confusing-answer-regarding-conor-mcgregors-alleged-sexual-assault/#3e5f99171111 Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You missed a comma in the first sentence. Put a comma before “fanboys”. Please use proper grammar so you can be better understood. 👍🏻 Isuausuhzhs (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Style should include kickboxing, because he loves kicking

He does a lot of kicking techniques in his fights, like high kicks, low kicks, spinning kicks and others, boxing doesn't do him justice Saul Oliveira (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read wikiproject mma. Until you have done so I would ask that you make no more style edits.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Investigations

Numerous news outlets are reporting that Conor is under investigation for sexual assault including the NY Times, NY Post and CBS Sports can someone add this information to the article ? Souces. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/sports/conor-mcgregor-sexual-assault-accusation.html https://www.cbssports.com/mma/news/conor-mcgregor-under-investigation-for-second-sexual-assault-accusation-per-report/ https://nypost.com/2019/10/19/conor-mcgregor-reportedly-being-investigated-for-second-sexual-assault-this-year/. 46.45.138.100 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: for allegations such as these, we need the strongest possible sourcing (see WP:BLP). The NYPost article says "reportedly being investigated" and CBSSports says "per report" – which it later identifies as from the NYTimes. The NYTimes mentions "allegations" "according to people familiar with the matter" and that the "Garda[i] declined to comment on the profession of the person accused". Based on this, I am not happy to add this to the article. NiciVampireHeart 18:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Dana White and his UFC cronies are paying good money to cover the whole thing up. 172.58.227.13 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

They probably paid off some Wikipedians to including NiciVampireHeart. 172.58.227.13 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Next fight

Ufc president Dana White is thinking about Connor McGregor next Dana White suggest Donald Cerrone and The highlight Justin McGregor is returning next year 2020 TIRELO CHARLIMANS (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to add it to the MMA record chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:301:2670:2487:4725:30CD:EF48 (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts record - TKO win agains Donald Cerrone

McGregor finished Cowboy by TKO due to a head kick followed by punches. Considering this, it's description should include "TKO (head kick and punches)" at the "Method" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caioggarcia (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Robbery arrest

The text that originally discussed the robbery omitted important information and misrepresented the result of the affair. It said nothing about a settlement that is mentioned in various sources and represents the fan in a negative light that is not found in the source so as this concerns a legal case we have to tread very carefully. I added the missing information from the sources and was reverted, I have restored my original text that is in concordance with guidelines. Please de not remove without discussing first to form consensus. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For a case in which charges were dropped I think there is too much detail. This edit makes the point but we don't need chapter and verse. If there is consensus that's fine but my view is that this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_McGregor&diff=936872869&oldid=936863619 improves readability. I should add that consensus should be sought for inclusion not vice versa. As you know.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And it's not a legal case. Which is why the detail is unnecessary. Charges were dropped. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the line about inconsistencies as that could be misconstrued. Simply stating the facts briefly seems best unless consensus for inclusion is reached.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

:::As for the negative not being in the source:

"Based on the witness's credibility issues, his unwillingness to respond to a subpoena and the inability of the witnesses to testify as to his subjective mindset, the State of Florida cannot prove the charges against Mr. McGregor beyond a reasonable doubt," Madani wrote."'

Easier just to leave it out.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but consensus has not been found. By repeatedly removing content backed up by sources added by another editor you are coming close to entering an editing war. In the new version there is nothing about the fact that the fan dropped the charges not that there was a settlement. This is cherry picking to give the impression that the accusations were false. I shall reinstate the information as is backed up by the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hang on - where is your consensus? You are adding your edit. WP:STATUSQUO.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you up to? Why do I need consensus to keep the stable version? Why I am warring when I have actually addressed the issue?NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, you are adding information that is not in the sources. You said ' after the fan dropped his charges following a settlement.'. The source does NOT say that. The source quotes the accuser's lawyer as saying that his client "has been made whole".NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sought a compromise that is concise. It's still unnecessary, I think, but it addresses our concerns (yours for balance and mine for brevity). You have handled this quite poorly, if I may say so. Tagging the article as being paid for was very petulant and totally uncalled for.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

that is better and is what you should have done rather than carrying out multiple reverts without discussing. But I wish for it to be stated that the fan dropped the charges following a settlement as per this source [7] that says "The man who sued Conor McGregor for allegedly smashing his cellphone on March 11 in Miami has dropped a civil lawsuit against the UFC star, according to online records." As per this source [8] that states "Abdirzak, a resident of England, later dropped his lawsuit after reaching an out-of-court settlement with McGregor." as per these multiple sources that all say the same thing [9] [10]. In the future please discuss rather than repeatedly reverting and quoting status quo as a stonewalling tactic as per Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. I shall let you make the necessary edit to reflect the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice source selection. The bit you left out was the sourced, DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE FLORIDA DISTRICT ATTORNEY. Who I would have thought is fairly relevant. Anyway, I trust now you have had your fun. You have succeeded in making the article longer in order to detail a dropped civil case and a dismissed legal one. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames styles and page protection

Hi. Please can we protect the page? A sock is perpetually changing the article. To be clear, it has long been agreed that the nickname comes from Sherdog. As for style:

Do not use the style parameter from the

Conor McGregor

in MMA biographical articles. Modern MMA requires training several fighting styles, which means that no mixed martial artist uses a single style when fighting. References that describe martial arts ranks (i.e. black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) and/or martial arts training (i.e. training boxing) are not evidence of fighting style and are not valid to justify a fighting style in an infobox. Do not add your own interpretation of a fighting style. The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports (i.e. boxing or kickboxing) and who are notable in said sports and deserve an article for their merits in these other sports (i.e. Antônio Rogério Nogueira, Alistair Overeem). It is suggested to MMA editors that they actively remove the style parameter in infoboxes of MMA fighters that do not meet these criteria.

Please can we sort this out.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem with page protection.

As for the nickname issue, no, absolutely not. A (dreadful!) guideline on a wikiproject does not override WP:RS. One particular website being regarded as the bible for a whole topic? I think that's unprecedented, and goes against several main WP policies, including WP:V and WP:RS. No disrespect to your wikiproject, but no, we'll go by what the reliable sources say, the majority of whom list McGregor's nickname as "The Notorious", definite article included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue with the nicknames section is that there are multiple RS for a myriad of nicknames for fighters. It's a very specific problem. If we are to prevent there being half a dozen nicknames and sources for every infobox (which would be a mess) then we need an agreement. Which, through consensus, we have reached. Editors have agreed that we go by Sherdog and that consensus has been reached over many discussions. And, other than this instance, in which malicious editors have reverted the status quo, it works. Do you have a better solution and, if so, shall we restart the whole process? Consensus is key and we have reached it (we being the contributors to WP: MMA.

As consensus has not been reached to go against that which has been established, we should continue until an alternative has been reached.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You've pointed to a project, but not to any specific discussion or consensus. Could you link to one of these discussions, please? But again, I'm not seeing how the guidelines of a wikiproject can override established WP-wide policy. We're not even arguing over different nicknames, here - it's the inclusion of the definite article. (Btw, I've requested temporary page protection). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, thank you. I recently posted on the Wikiproject MMA talk page to renew the discussion. As per WP:CONSENSUS, the discussions have taken place on numerous talk pages over a few years. I understand that in this instance it is unusual that it's just the definite article but in many others (Henry Cejudo, Robert Whittaker, Michael Bisping) nicknames have been added as they've been announced (often in jest) and it's turned into a puerile game - look how many times 'Lefthook Larry' has been added to Bisping, 'Triple C / King of Cringe) to Cejudo. @Cassiopeia: might be able to help. Sherdog does seem effective for method of finish and other names. In this instance, it's imperfect (in my opinion The Notorious is better) but as a principle it does seem to work in >99% of cases. Do please bear in mind that the editor who has been adding it has also added other things, such as 'style' that are clearly agreed as wrong.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Withnail would be a better editor.😀NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Bastun Good day. I am asked to request for comment regarding the nickname as I am one of the regular MMA editors. I am with NEDOCHAN here, he has explained and gave his views which are same as mine and in addition, there are RS out there states just nickname without the definite articles. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

And my response is the same: it is not up to a group of editors to decide that one particular source (minor, in the greater scheme of things) can trump Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Link to where was this discussion took place, please. Clearly, McGregor himself uses "The Notorious", as do plenty of other sites. Clearly a Google search comparison won't work as any search for "The Notorious" will also return just "Notorious", so I don't know what the solution is. I do know it isn't "Some of us over here decided we'd only accept this one source." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The process you describe is WP:CONSENSUS, very clearly. Specifically, CONACHIEVE. I have already drawn your attention to examples, such as Cejudo's edit history. Again, I have already stated that these conversations have been taking place for a long time on many talk pages and, as per WP:CONACHIEVE, we have arrived at a solution for which we have WP:CONSENSUS. I invite you to propose a better solution to this specific issue (other names in MMA fighter articles) if you really feel it necessary, yet it seems a bit unnecessary, as other than notoriously unhelpful IPs and vandals, we don't appear to have a problem.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Bastun You will find the discussions here. Please understand that I don't feel the need to trawl through discussions I have been a part of but should you wish, here's the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_artsNEDOCHAN (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? So you're just asserting "This is the way things are!", then? There's nothing about nicknames on that page. There's nothing about nicknames on the archive of that page, either, and the only result for "notorious" is in relation to another individual entirely. Sorry, that most certainly doesn't trump WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry mate I have pointed you in the direction required and have demonstrated consensus through talk pages and through pinging another editor who's involved.. If you feel as if it's worthwhile, please seek consensus, particularly if you feel there's a better solution. I would be happy to discuss an alternative if you'd like to suggest one. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you have pointed at a wikiproject than does not contain what you claim it contains, and you canvassed someone... That's not demonstrating consensus - far from it! Anyway, I'm not going to argue for inclusion of The Notorious's definite article or edit war on it, as sources support both, but likewise, I'm not agreeing to the inclusion of the hidden "Do not change this" warning. WP:V. WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence that thanks to stones being thrown and no solution offered the very day protection is removed, here is the next edit, right where the instruction was. Bastun https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_McGregor&diff=948718198&oldid=948697144NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to request longer protection. I really don't think a hidden admonition to not change the nickname is going to stop an IP vandal, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Style

Re McGregor's style, can all of you - Domdeparis, AmThBeautifulScotThBrave, NEDOCHAN, PabloLikesToWrestle stop edit warring. Wikipedia policies apply, and only those - the most relevant being WP:V and WP:RS. If a reliable MMA source describes his style, it can be included, with the appropriate citation. Avoid original research, "ownership", and edit warring, which will get you blocked. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. In this instance it's abundantly clear. There is one editor who's changing a long-established edit that is unambiguously laid out above. To any other editor reading this, you may of course add sourced info to the article. Just not in the info box. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The following is the agreed status quo for the style parameter.

Do not use the style parameter from the infobox in MMA biographical articles. Modern MMA requires training several fighting styles, which means that no mixed martial artist uses a single style when fighting. References that describe martial arts ranks (i.e. black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) and/or martial arts training (i.e. training boxing) are not evidence of fighting style and are not valid to justify a fighting style in an infobox. Do not add your own interpretation of a fighting style. The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports (i.e. boxing or kickboxing) and who are notable in said sports and deserve an article for their merits in these other sports (i.e. Antônio Rogério Nogueira, Alistair Overeem). It is suggested to MMA editors that they actively remove the style parameter in infoboxes of MMA fighters that do not meet these criteria. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, you are mistaken, I have not been edit warring at all I simply reverted to a version that is in accordance with the project guidelines and asked the person who has been edit warring to take it to a talk page to avoid any further edit warring. Even though the project style recommandations are not policy they are very clear and there is little need to discuss them or look for sources that would clearly support going against them. The project guidelines say that a style should not be noted unless the person has participated in professional matches of any particular style and would have merited a page on this basis. AmThBeautifulScotThBrave seems not to understand this hence my message on their page to reinforce that of NEDOCHAN. WP:OR and WP:OWN clearly do not apply to mine and NEDOCHAN's actions. Hope this clears it up for you. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion is edit warring. As per previous talk page sections, project guidelines do not and cannot override Wikipedia policy. If you are a mixed martial artist, you will, by definition, be using mixed fighting styles - you cannot win an MMA match using a single style. This is even stated in the project's style guide, quoted above! However, the stated guideline "The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports..." is particularly arbitrary and perverse. Just because someone previously fought in some other martial art, it simply does not follow that that is the style they use in MMA. Insisting this is the case - "A implies B" - is a classic example of synthesis, a type of WP:OR. Insisting on maintaining this - "this is not up for debate" - is WP:OWN. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed. On the editor's talk page and on this one. So it's not edit warring. It's restoring a consensus version following its having been altered by an editor whose edit history shows a keenness to impose their opinion (including vandalising a trans woman's page to refer to her as a man). Your other points you are free to take up on the talk page to the project. Again, you have not offered any alternative, or volunteered to help in any way. You have argued against an instruction to avoid this problem (which is no longer there and, lo and behold, here we are), you have also argued against consensus on several occasions, including admonishing three established editors for reverting one with a short and clear history of vandalism. You did this as well previously, and the editor who you were defending was banned. We are talking about the style paramater in MMA fighters' infoboxes. It is a specific issue.

I hate to repeat myself but is it fine to change the genre of films if an RS disagrees? The answer is no. It's the same here. WP:CONSENSUS is clear. Please could you either address the specific issue on the talk page to the project, or, perhaps, could you leave it? I note that you haven't edited many MMA pages, so I would ask you to consider whether your actions are improving wikipedia. Please, I am asking you nicely to drop this ball.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is the explanation of the editor whose edit you're defending.

'So that means he's not a kickboxer just because he hasn't done a kickboxing match? You've never even done martial arts in your life. I am a martial artist and he is a kickboxer'

So if you go by RS, it's wrong, and if you go by the guidelines, it's wrong. So the edit is bad and has been reverted. Enough.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please indent consistently? I'm not getting into an argument with you. I don't stalk editors to find out what they do and don't do. Edits on articles do not get consensus from discussions on editors' talk pages. That's what article talk pages are for. Once again, wikiprojects do not get to override Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS. Especially a wikiproject that seems to have attracted only 10 contributors to its talk page this year, and has had only 5 edits to its main page since July 2018. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:RS, the edit that was reverted by separate editors is wrong. I still think you haven't grasped WP:CONSENSUS and the role it plays in wikiprojects. As you haven't addressed a single one of my points or made a single helpful comment or suggestion as to what you, a single editor, would prefer, I suggest we leave it. Perhaps edit a dozen film articles and change their genres (with RS refs). I think that will demonstrate the principle of WP:CONSENSUS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Idk if the conversation is over but that's what it looks like, I made a mistake and they fixed it, NEDOCHAN had already told me not to and I did it a second time and he told me not to and reverted it again. I don't really get the usage of the term "edit warring" right here bc it's stated in one of the articles above, if by your perspective a fighter uses one style in which he competed previously or not, it doesn't really matter as it's already stated and discussed that fighters with a notable background in another martial art/combat sport could have a section of "style" and put it there, so there's no "discussion" anymore. Again, I'm a "new" editor trying to do his best and having fun, I'm learning. I haven't even committed one act of vandalism so warning me about me getting banned just doesn't make sense. By the way, if you're laughing at a wikiproject because of the amount of members it has then I don't your 15 years of experience are really showing up in this conversation :). Best.PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nah. I understand WP:CON perfectly well, thanks. You did not revert anything because of WP:V and WP:RS, that's an entirely new claim, absent from your edit summaries. Asserting something does not make it so. What I would prefer is adherence to WP's policies, particularly WP:V and WP:RS, rather than you saying "some of us on this wikiproject decided this one time that an article subject's nickname will be decided only by what's listed in this one external site, and a fighter's style will be dictated by them competing at some point in some other sport, SO MOTE IT BE!" and edit warring with people who follow actual WP policies. I'll edit where I want, if it's all the same to you, in accordance with those policies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So, should we have unlimited styles listed in the infobox, provided they're supported by RS? Here's a reputable source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2017/08/18/conor-mcgregors-martial-art/. So we have boxing, kickboxing, Tae kwon do, Copoeira, karate and Brazilian jiu-jitsu for starters. Blimey...shall we set a limit of, say, 20? Otheriwse the infobox will look a right mess. But then what gets priority? Shall we create a priority list of sources, or articles within sources? Shall we go through every fighter article and name every one of the styles that a source says they use? Or shall we just stick to a system that works, is concise and has been agreed by CONSENSUS. It also works; except for a few known vandals and you there's never a problem. If you have such an issue, join the blasted project and moan on there.

Do you have a SINGLE SUGGESTION for what you're moaning about, or are you just being intentionally disruptive? If it's the latter, please let me know and stop wasting our time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a single suggestion. I've stated it a couple of times now. Once again: Follow WP policies (which - again! - overrule wikiproject guidelines). WP:V. WP:RS. WP:NOR. They'll do, for a start. Stop being so aggressive and defensive, stop your ownership attempts, and stop putting words in my mouth. Ok? As for "consensus" on the moribund wikiproject - which one? This one or this other one which is inconclusive (and discusses people leaving the project), or this other one, featuring only 3 editors? As to your "should we have unlimited styles listed", nobody is proposing that. If they were, I'd say once there's verifiable reliable sourcing, there is absolutely no problem listing several, as happens with, say, political party ideologies right now without the sky falling in. Wikipedia is not paper. We have the room. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And given the welcome given to potential new members of the Wikiproject, it's no surprise it's completely moribund. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How many styles would you suggest as a maximum? Unlimited? 10? How long do you think that would take to move towards uniformity? McGregor could be argued to have 11, some fighters many more. Indeed, the vast majority of modern fighters have trained exclusively in MMA, which is by definition a mix of styles. In a very few cases they're notable in another combat sport and have real achievements; some even have record PPV numbers in, say, boxing, so we should....

Do you have any support in this discussion? As for your question about the project, I am referring to this Anyway I shouldn't answer questions as you won't answer them and this process is fruitless as in this discussion alone consensus seems clear. I understand your allegations of the poetic 'aggressive and defensive' and shall respond by not responding. That is of course unless there is consensus to make the edits from other editors to counter the arguments of the two other editors to have commented so far. I have said my piece. Perhaps we both have.

Thanks for not making the edits by the way; you have remained classy.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Batsun I would suggest you go and ask for some advice at the project page if you disagree with the infobox MOS. You're showing some battleground behaviour and bludgeoning your point which is not such a good way of proceeding. Infoboxes are not mandatory and most of what goes in there is just supposed to reflect the main article. There was a stable version that was in accordance with the project MOS and was not against policy. This was edited by a editor who has already been warned several times about his behaviour. His edit was reverted and a discussion was opened but the editor continued to ignore the reasoned arguments. You are just pouring oil onto the flames. There is reasoned consensus to keep the edit as it is. Please go and ask for other opinions if you do not agree. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, not Batsun. Several points: 1) It was actually me who opened the discussion here. 2) I have not edited the style parameter. so there is zero battleground behaviour on my part. 3) "Infoboxes are not mandatory" - correct. 4) "most of what goes in there is just supposed to reflect the main article" - also correct. The article has five sentences on McGregor's MMA fighting style. One of those mentions boxing. 5) The vast majority of the article discusses McGregor's MMA career. McGregor has also been a professional boxer. 6) Project style guidelines do not overrule Wikipedia policies. As the discussion has now re-opened, I'll repeat, if reliable, verifiable sources indicate a fighter's styles are X, Y, and Z, then we can list those styles. We have the space to include main styles and this principle works absolutely fine for other topics including bands and films (genre), political parties (ideologies), settlements (electoral areas), etc. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest you go and ask for some advice at the project page if you disagree with the infobox MOS. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bastun if you had checked the now-blocked editor's page you would have seen that the discussion had already been started over there which is where you should have carried it on because we don't normally threaten other editors with sanctions on article talk pages. You can repeat as much as you like your opinion but so long as there is consensus that is in accordance with policy, guidelines, MOS etc it doesn't really matter. As NEDOCHAN and I have both suggested have a look at the project page and ask for some advice there rather than simply repeating yourself. If you think you can convince them to change the MOS on infoboxes fill your boots but I won't hold my breath waiting. Cheers and happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but no. You discuss articles on article talk pages, precisely so discussion is centralised and you don't have to stalk multiple editors' talk pages. That's what they're for. I have never argued anything other than policy > guidelines/local agreements. IIRC, nobody has even managed yet to point out where this "consensus" is listed, or agreed, on the moribund MMA wikiproject. I'll stick to policy, thanks all the same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I presume you haven't bothered trying to open a discussion at the project page. For the moment a part from a blocked editor the only person arguing this is you so there is consensus both here and from the project's infobox. If you don't want to open the discussion over there and it's really a problem for you then remove the style as per the guide for the infobox otherwise it might be better to drop the bludgeon or wait until someone else supports your POV here. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I think no style would be better than boxing here because he only had 1 professional fight because of his position in MMA. MMA fighters use so many techniques that it is impossible to say they have 1 particular style so I would support you removing it but definitely not adding more styles as per consensus here. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an info box. The contents are laid out by the project that designed the info box. The style parameter suggestions are fine. There are equivalent infoboxes whose parameters are also laid out by the parent project across Wikipedia. Anyone who edits MMA pages regularly understands the point made. In early MMA days it was style v style, hence the parameter. Normally we leave it empty for modern fighters, unless they have notable achievements or professional competition in another sport.

This is an immensely dull discussion and we're wasting time on vandals and pendants. We're picking peanuts out of poo. Let's leave it and move on.

The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports (i.e. boxing or kickboxing) and who are notable in said sports and deserve an article for their merits in these other sports (i.e. Antônio Rogério Nogueira, Alistair Overeem).

McGregor would have an article about his boxing as the second-biggest PPV fight of all time had him in it. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Domdeparis: Why would I open a discussion at the project page? It's moribund, practically dead. All I'm "arguing" is that wikipedia policy trumps idiotic decisions arrived at by a couple of people on a wikiproject, who can't even point to where consensus was reached. But apparently project guidelines will be known automagically by our readers, who will obviously know that a style in an MMA fighter's infobox refers to their nonMMA fights! I mean, that's only logical, right? /insert eyeroll gif here. I've removed the parameter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not consensus. Restored until you have it. NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That said, and please read and respect this, I am going to start a discussion on WP:MMA about the points Bastun has raised. I happen to agree with the parameters laid out and, broadly, the guidelines, but I do realise that if WP:MMA is to continue to be respected it DOES require more discussion and participation. The McGregor page should not still be C Class, it's better than that.

I will of course ping you all and we can chat it through. I have the time so will now endeavour to reinvigorate the project. I ask for some time to do this. Can we agree to, say, a month, to see whether there is still an appetite to continue with a revamped project? At the moment it seems like it's just a few of us. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"That is not consensus. Restored until you have it." So there's one user adding kickboxing, without citation; one adding boxing, without citation, but that's ok because everybody knows the MMA infobox style parameter is about non-MMA fights and this is obvious to everyone, daw; and two users saying no parameter makes more sense (or at least only use cited ones). But you have consensus? lol! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

He is the most followed irish celebrity with over 36.3 million followers. Post it. Eze jeffrey (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds like that should be there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Be bold. Once you have a citation, feel free to add. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempted Sexual Assault?

It wasn’t attempted sexual assault of the lady in the bar not was it said to be that by her. She claims he exposed his genitals. A news article labeled it attempted sexual assault. Neither the alleged victim nor the police did. The news article’s tittle was changed as well. Isuausuhzhs (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to amend, with citations, obviously. It does like the alleged sexual assaults committed in Ireland have been omitted, though. I'll try to add something later. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added a source in French where it says that he was accused of « tentative d'agression sexuelle et d'exhibition sexuelle » which means attempted sexual assault and indecent exposure. I've updated the text and modified the title. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dom. A foreign language source is hard to verify. I think the question should be whether the incident is noteworthy enough for inclusion, not nitpicking over the description. It was fine and sourced before. Sources in foreign languages aren't the way to go.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Foreign language sources are absolutely permitted, per WP:V. No reason to remove reported facts such as dates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

McGregor (former)

McGregor is no longer retired. Today he accepted a UFC fight with Dustin Porier. Therefore, he should no longer be considered a 'former' MMA fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas156cote (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas156cote Bout (as of this message) has yet to be official. So pls wait until both parties singed the contract and it is reported by the media. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Conor McGregor's Height Should be 5'11" and Certainly Not 5'8"

There's a recorded footage of Conor McGregor, where he was measured by a UFC official and his barefoot height was found as 5 ft 11 in. This is a 1st degree proof and it's very rare to have such a strong evidence for an individual height. It overrules any claims made by anyone including Conor McGregor himself.

A few user accounts which were probably made by the same people who constantly edit the article and Conor McGregor's on-page listed height to 5 ft 8 in and gives an irrelevant website called sherdog.com as the source. In truth there are 5 reputable sources in the order of strength of evidence:

• 1. There's a recorded footage of his height getting measured by a UFC official as 5'11".
• 2. UFC listed his height as 5'11" in the first few fights of his UFC career.(Link to copyvio removed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC) )(Updated the link with the official BT Sport video replay of the fight. BT Sport is one of the licensed publishers of the UFC content in Europe. 90 seconds into it, the UFC infocard for McGregor is seen and it listed his height as 5'11".)Lordpermaximum (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 3. His coach John Kavanagh claimed McGregor's height was 5'10" in 2016.
• 4. McGregor himself claimed he was 5'9" in 2014.
• 5. Currently, the UFC and the official UFC website - ufc.com - list his height as 5 ft 9 in.

Conor McGregor is a celebrity and a polarizing figure. These kind of individuals who are constantly on the media evoke personal feelings toward them and there's a significant chance that these editors (Cassiopeia, NEDOCHAN, Squared.Circle.Boxing) who try to downgrade his height has potential dislike towards him and that's why they use some obscure 3rd party site as the source for his height instead of using an actual recorded footage or UFC listing as the source. They reverted my edits constantly by giving that site as the source and Squared.Circle.Boxing reverted my last edit because of some potential copyright violation although it's pretty obvious TheMacLife who is the publisher of the linked video is a licensed media member of the UFC material. Cassiopeia refers to Wikipedia:MMA guideline but that project guideline does not force users to use sherdog.com as the source for fighter heights or profiles and that guideline cannot conflict with Wikipedia's main principles of verifiability, reliability and editors' moderation rights.

I suspect there's a potential organized sneaky vandalism going on here. Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS. That will be the extent of my input. Toodlepip. – ².O.^Boxing 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS has nothing to do with the subject and I only shared my suspicion for your hard to explain actions. I did not make any claims. If you have anything to offer about the subject, please feel free to contribute. Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether McGregor is 5'8, 5'9, 5'10, or 5'11, but we go by what the sources say. When there are six different citations available listing four different heights, then I'm not sure what the answer is. You are correct that no one site has more weight than another site just because a dead wikiproject makes such an assertion; and there is absolutely no basis for claiming "Potential copyright violation", because it's YouTube. One thing, though - don't edit war on the article page over it, discuss it here instead. If you edit war, you'll just end up blocked for breaching the 3RR rule. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I pointed out before, a recorded footage of someone getting measured by an official is the strongest evidence anyone can have for such a thing. It should have the highest weight. Then comes the UFC - which is a sports organization and known for measuring and comparing athlete attributes before competitions and also the organization where Conor McGregor participates and earn a living - and its official listings. Then comes individual (the fighter and the coach) claims. A 3rd party site that has nothing to do with the person in question should not have any weight at all. Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment. Let's see what the other editors say, too, though. If they don't respond, I'm happy to reinstate your edit. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Sherdog is and it has information on all notable fighters regardless of their promotion or whether they're active. Please see Dan Henderson for an example. There is not a single reliable source that lists him at 511. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• 1. The actual recorded footage of him getting measured by an UFC official is the most reliable source there is. You can't have any better supporting evidence. Content publisher YouTube has nothing to do with it.
• 2. No, sherdog is not a reliable source. It's not even a weak source. Check Proof by assertion for what you're doing. Who stops me from creating a website to list people's heights according to my wishes and make a couple of my friends agree with me to use it as a source for all MMA related content from now on in a wikiproject? I have nothing to do with those people and sherdog has nothing to do with MMA fighters.
• 3. I can understand not being able to find a height measurement footage like that before but not using the actual UFC site as the source for fighters that compete in its competitions in the first place is very suspicious.
• 4. What you're doing is against the core ideology of Wikipedia and WP:V along with WP:RS. Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

1. For all MMA pages in Wikipedia, we use Sherdog.com as the source in the fighter fight table and the infobox unless those parameters are not found on Sherdog MMA fighter profile pages or new content such as "fighting out of" / "Team" as the fighter move to another city or fight team. For such cases, we will add the content and support them with source.

1. Sherdog.com is the largest and most comprehensive MMA fighter database in the world follow by Tapology then Fight Matrix. We use Sherdog as for the reason just stated. Most sport fans would not heard about any Sherdog and few casual fans might know it as well. Sherdog is extremely well-known by all MMA fans who follows MMA for years/closely just as most people have not heard about Boxrec (Boxer database) if they only watch a few heavyweight title bouts a year or know about Rugby League Project if they are not a hard core fan of Rugby League. Pls see/check List of current UFC fighters for all 610 +/- fighter pages for verification. For McGregor - here, his height is 5'8".
2. Since 2007, Sherdog partnered with ESPN, providing extensive MMA content and fighter database to ESPN - see here - 1. There is also discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding Sherdog as a reliable source - see here - 2. Since Sherdog partnered with ESPN and ESPN is considered reliable then Sherdog info should be considered reliable as well which meetsWP:PROVEIT guidelines. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• 1. As I said before, sherdog or any other 3rd party site that has nothing to do with the people in question is not a reliable source. It's not even a weak source. Check Proof by assertion for what you're doing. Who stops me from creating a website to list people's heights according to my wishes and make a couple of my friends agree with me to use it as a source for all MMA related content from now on in a wikiproject? I have nothing to do with those people and sherdog has nothing to do with MMA fighters.

Besides, that site has Eddie Alvarez at 5'10" and McGregor at 5'8". In reality, McGregor was clearly and significantly the taller man in their staredowns and fight. Here's an example and the UFC published video where it's taken from. That means that site called sherdog had made 4 or 5 inches of error which makes it competely unreliable anyways. Funnily enough, Wikipedia lists Eddie Alvarez at 5'8" instead of 5'10" which is sherdog's claim. When I consider all of this, your defense of using that 3rd party fan site or whatever it is as the sole source of mixed martial artist profiles is getting beyond absurd and I feel bad commenting on such a silly matter.

• 2. You can't overrule WP:V and WP:RS with any wikiproject or getting one or two users kinda agree with you in a noticeboard nearly a decade ago. That wasn't a consensus back then and it's certainly not now. Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

1. YouTube in and of itself is not prohibited as a RS. Proof by assertion ("Sherdog is a reliable source") is a logical fallacy. 2. "For all MMA pages in Wikipedia, we use Sherdog.com" - no, "we" don't. Some authors might, and that's fair enough. A wikiproject may well have decided to use it, some years ago, but that wikiproject is dead and other sources of at least the same standing - such as ufc.com - have been presented and a wikiproject does not overrule wikipedia policies such as [[WP:V}}, WP:RS and WP:CON. 3. One person posting a query and three people answering on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, nine years ago, where they mostly go "Yeah, it looks ok", does not mean it is forever set in stone and other sources can't also be used. 4. Therefore, as a compromise, I propose changing the entry to read "5ft 8in,<sherdog reference> or 5ft 9in<ufc reference>". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought you agreed with the 'assessment' that he's 511 because of a 14 minute YouTube video? Make your mind up for this wind up.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, I agree with everything you said except the last part. I won't compromise on such an obvious thing. What they're trying to take as a source and disregard the actual evidence is against any principal and ideology of Wikipedia. It's against WP:V and WP:RS but that's only a minor thing compared to how it destroys any common sense and reliability of Wikipedia. If we let this go now, it would only lead to degradation of the quality of content and make way to unreliable sources in thousands of biographies of living persons in one swift stroke.

Besides, are we going to include every 3rd party site as a reference for people's heights from now on only to have 5, 6 or even more listings in the infobox for each one of them? I think even discussing such a clear-cut matter in length gives credit to what these few users try to accomplish by exerting their control on thousands of pages by a couple of them getting together and accepting some irrelevant 3rd party site as the only source for anything MMA related. I'm going to use every tool available to stop them from damaging the remaining reliability and credibility of Wikipedia any further.

I would like to have an administrator perspective on this before going on with other tools available for the quick resolution of this dispute instead of dragging it any further. Especially considering the resolution of this dispute affects thousands of pages. It looks Deepfriedokra, Airplaneman and Goodnightmush were the last administrators to had involvement with this page. I would like to hear their opinions.Lordpermaximum (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lordpermaximum - I'm an administrator, and I'm uninvolved - I think this article is only on my watchlist because I've reverted vandalism here in the past, I know nothing about the subject and have no opinion on him (if I'm honest, I don't really know what MMA is). Some things to get out of the way first of all:

• First, this talk page is categorically not the place for you to suggest that there is some kind of off-wiki collusion or bad faith editing going on amongst named individuals. On article talk pages, you should stick to discussing article content; if you want to make accusations of improper conduct, you need to take them to the appropriate forum, which for accusations like that would be WP:ANI, or (if it involves off-wiki evidence) you should ask an administrator whether you can e-mail them details. You should also read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm going to ask that you either withdraw those accusations, or present your evidence in the proper manner.
• Strictly speaking, YouTube is a medium rather than a source. So, if there was something reported by the BBC, CNN or whatever, which appeared on their own accredited YouTube channel, that would be fine to use as a source. Random YouTube channels, however, are just that - random YouTube channels, and they often do publish footage that violates copyright. I very much doubt that 'Best of UFC', a channel with 77 subscribers and no information on their 'About' page, actually owns the rights to the footage they upload to YouTube. Posting links to videos like that anywhere on Wikipedia is not allowed (see WP:YOUTUBE for more on this), because our copyright policy prohibits not just the posting of copyright violations, but also the posting of links to copyright violations. Note that the copyright policy applies to talk pages just as much as it does to articles themselves, so once I've finished posting this message I'm going to remove some of the links you posted above. Please do not reinstate them, or post links to YouTube channels of that sort again.
• I'm not sure what I'm meant to be looking for in the 'behind the scenes' footage video - does it make an assertion, or is the reader expected to listen out for something a doctor says in order to verify the claim? What is 'The Mac Life', and does it have the kind of reputation for fact checking that we expect from WP:RS? I will say that if he's 5'11", then the other people in the video seem to be unusually tall, but that obviously might genuinely be the case.

I haven't reviewed all of the sources fully - I'd suggest going with whichever seems best bearing in mind the guidance at RS, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SECONDARY. The UFC site is promotional, and wouldn't generally be my first go-to place for reliable information; that said, if you doubt the veracity of Sherdog, you could start a conversation at WP:RSN. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sources in a bit more detail now. I removed a link to one YouTube video which I believe was a copyright infringement; the others seem OK. I don't have any knowledge of Sherdog whatsoever, but I must admit it's not screaming RS at me - I can't find an 'about' page where they publish how they get their information, for example. BoxRec seems slightly better, in that they have an easily accessible 'About us' page where they list their editors, but I don't know much about their reputation for accuracy and they have some nice disclaimers about how any information on the site may be incomplete/inaccurate. Given that both RoxRec and UFC seem to agree on 5'9", and Sherdog seems to be the outlier at 5'8", editors involved in this discussion may wish to consider going with that. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit, thanks for spending your time to review this dispute.

• First of all,I haven't made any accusations. Those were only suspicions. If anyone thinks otherwise, I say "I withdrew them" for the sake of the actual discussion.
• Youtube was not the source. The actual recorded video is the source. You can access the same video by going to The Mac Life's own site. The Mac Life is a media platform which is officially accredited by the UFC. Here, the UFC's official page hosts one of The Mac Life's videos. I can include TheMacLife links instead of YouTube ones if it's a problem. However I agree that the one link you removed had potential copyright violation. I'm sorry I missed it but I provided 6 or 7 sources so, it's not that bad. I'll try to find another source that doesn't have any doubt about copyright violation for that one.
• As far as the recorded video of Conor McGregor getting his barefoot height measured by an UFC official/staff goes, you pretty much focused on procedures instead of basis and merits. Wikipedia's main purpose is to provide accurate and quality content and that prevails everything else, including minor procuderus of its own. That video is still the most reliable source, especially considering you validated it such that it did not violate any copyright.
• Still, although I stand by my claim that the recorded video of someone getting measured by an UFC official is the best source you can have for a thing like height and for that reason Conor McGregor's listed on-page height should be 5'11", I can live with your suggestion to take UFC and BoxRec listings instead of sherdog and make it 5'9". This is going to have an effect on all MMA-related content.Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, thanks for explicitly withdrawing that. To be clear though, since I recognise that you're new - it doesn't matter whether it's an accusation, or just voicing a suspicion - it's not permitted on article talk pages. WP:NPA is quite clear - you should focus on content, not contributors or their motivations.

With regard to the source, I'm afraid that's not how we work. That video might be an interesting source for a journalist writing an piece about McGregor, but as an encyclopaedia our mission is to summarise reliable, published sources. We use sources that make assertions of fact in the authorial voice; that video makes no assertions of fact of any kind, it's just a fly on the wall view of what happened behind the scenes that day, and overhearing someone saying "71" while holding a tape measure is very different from having a representative of the UFC say to the camera "McGregor is 71" tall". For us to draw any conclusions of any kind from it is WP:OR, which is not permitted. Who knows why that video doesn't match up with the published sources - maybe the bloke with the tape measure made a mistake, and went back and remeasured him later? Maybe he said 71 and then wrote down 69"? We can't know - and we aren't permitted to guess. I'm afraid that video is of no use for our purposes.

Let's wait and see whether the other editors agree with using 5'9" and those sources - I have no special authority here with regard to editorial decisions, we'll need to see whether a consensus along those lines emerges. To be clear though, a consensus established here amongst a few editors will not have any kind of binding effect on other pages - that would require wider discussion, either on the relevant a Wikiproject page, or (more probably) via a more centralised discussion somewhere like WP:RSN. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, although I haven't really contributed until late, this is a 4-year old account and I contributed a lot to Wikipedia in the beginning of it as an IP user since I've been a webmaster for 16 years. But I'm glad you're providing guidence on this because as you said I'm not really experienced on disputes or their resolution.

Still I feel, people shouldn't have to prove water is wet let alone fail at it because of some Wikipedia procedures. The benefits of actual evidence and reality far outweighs a couple procedures of Wikipedia in a matter that's crucial to Wikipedia's existence in the first place. If we have to prove what the UFC official meant in that video by saying "71 inches" (or wondering about if he made a mistake or not), we're opening a can of worms and it would send shockwaves through out the whole Wikipedia. As you could see in the removed link which I'm going to replace with an unquestionable source pretty soon, UFC listed McGregor 5'11" too before his fights in the begining of his UFC career. So that means the UFC took its official's measurement of Conor McGregor as correct. Lordpermaximum (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, on the contrary, this is not a can of worms: it's routine, it's what we do, and it's supported by core policies like WP:V, and WP:OR. We do not allow editors to interpret video evidence for themselves and then report their interpretation as fact; we don't try to prove things; we don't even evaluate evidence. We summarise secondary sources, written by people who have already done that interpretation and evaluation, and who have a reputation for doing a good job of it. That's by design - it's a feature, not a bug.

You are welcome to add any sources you like to the discussion, but bear in mind that we would go with whatever the most recent sources say - if there are old sources saying 5'11", but all the current ones say 5'9", we'll say 5'9". Who knows - maybe the old ones were wrong, or maybe he shrank, but we would use the most current sources to support an assertion about his current height.

(Sorry, forgot to sign the above post) ​GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand. But the strength of evidence should be the main factor to consider if we are to include a source. It should overrule recency if multiple sources' strength of evidence are not equal. That's common sense and it's based on my universal law knowledge. But if you do things differently here when it comes to the strenth of evidence and recency comparison, or rely on a single person or more outside of Wikipedia for the evaluation of an evidence the source has and therefore you can't judge it as an editor, I cannot object any more. But I still don't understand how do you evaluate the outside evaluator of matters, evidences, incidents etc. then. By the way I added another link to another video that has no potential copyright issues in the place of the removed one. That shows the UFC accepted it's official's measurement of McGregor and used it (5'11") as his height in the announcement and in the infocard. I don't know how you're going to evaluate the evaluator in this case.Lordpermaximum (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum As I said above, we don't evaluate evidence - we assess the reliability of sources which themselves evaluate evidence. The recentness of the source is not the only factor we'd consider - far from it - but an old source from the UFC can't trump a new source from the UFC. Who knows why they changed their minds about this, but if that's what they've done, and we think they're a reliable source, we go with their more recent value in the assumption that they have corrected an error. Squared.Circle.Boxing's sources below draw a line under this for me - 5'9" is what we should go with, supported by CBS, ESPN and/or the Indy. (Not the Express - that would tank at RSN) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I had my input and I have nothing more to provide for the core of the topic. But I see where you're coming from and if it's how Wikipedia operates, I can live with it being 5'9". In matters of like this, using sources such as UFC.com and ESPN instead of an unreliable source like Sherdog is far more convincing. In short, given how Wikipedia operates as you pointed out as an administrator, I agree with you Girth Summit and I thank you for your valuable input and guidance on this matter. I've learnt a lot from this on how Wikipedia operates and what some of its procedures are. I'm also glad we especially agreed on the unreliability of rather unknown 3rd party sites such as Sherdog which has very questionable information.Lordpermaximum (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, I'm glad this has been helpful; please note though that while I have expressed personal reservations over Sherdog, I am not an authority on the subject matter, and I have not said that I think that UFC is better in general terms. Please don't read anything I've said as implying that I would necessarily agree to changes to other articles. A discussion at RSN might be a good thing if you want to take more wide-ranging action. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I got it. Let me rephrase it again then. Although I still stand by my claim that McGregor's height should be 5'11" when I consider every information out there, I partly agree with you that McGregor's height can be listed as 5'9" here in his Wikipedia page, and I completely agree with you that sherdog is not a reliable source, at least in this case. I know that a discussion at WP:RSN would be more helpful for wider range of action on other MMA-related pages.Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, I have not said that I believe Sherdog to be unreliable. What I said can be viewed above: it doesn't fill me with confidence, but I'm not familiar with it, its methods, or its reputation. I go no further than that - I have not investigated fully, and I would want to hear others' views before making my mind up. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks for your contribution to discussion. Shortly, you think we should go with the 5'9" listing as Conor McGregor's height instead of 5'11", 5'10" or 5'8" and Sherdog doesn't scream a reliable source to you. That's all I could gather. Did I misquote anything this time? Hopefully not. As I said I've learnt some useful information about how a Wikipedia administrator thinks about source and evidence evaluation along with some perspective on a couple of the Wikipedia procedures. Thanks for that also.Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, that is correct - it doesn't scream RS to me. I have said no more than that, and intended to imply no more than that. You put words in my mouth above - I ask that you don't do that. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I'm truly sorry if I did that. I must have misinterpreted what you said. Thankfully everything's on record here and you have your edits here in front of everyone. If someone else misinterprets what you wrote again just like me, there's always that anyways. However, I'm very clear-minded on this issue and I stand by my claim that Conor McGregor's height should be 5'11" because of various reputable sources. I can only see the logic behind 5'9" listing and agree with it if all MMA-related biographies in Wikipedia consider sources such as ESPN, CBS, Independent, BoxRec, UFC, Bellator or One as reputable instead of some website called sherdog that has nothing to with the people in question or the organizations of the Sport but relied on as the sole source because of a Wikiproject that gathered a couple users a decade ago and has been long dead.Lordpermaximum (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, 5'9 is what all recent and reliable sources list his height as. In no particular order: CBS Sports, Independent, Express, and ESPN. Doesn't matter how many listings one can find from his early career that list him as 5'11...it's just not gonna happen. – ².O.^Boxing 17:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that ESPN gets its data from Sherdog. We have been through this on the Dan Henderson talk page. Sherdog is the best source as the UFC isn't that reliable and, which is far more, it only contains info on UFC fighters. If both heights must be listed in the way they are on the Dan Henderson page, then fine, but it opens a can of worms. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You believe? That's some strong proof. Sherdog is the best source? You mean the sherdog with its perfect Eddie Alvarez and Conor McGregor height claims? And the UFC isn't reliable like Sherdog? According to who? You? I thought we shared Proof by assertion before, but you don't need that, do you? It's also certainly easier to get everything from one source, right? Why do we even bother with trying to refer to different sources? We should have thought about it before. Thanks for your proofs and immeasurably logical approach on this matter.Lordpermaximum (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.sherdog.com/news/news/ESPN-Sherdog-Announce-Agreement-7538NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You're posting a deal that was made 13.5 years ago? It says "As part of the agreement, ESPN will highlight exclusive, in-depth Sherdog content contextually within ESPN.com, including news, interviews, videos, event listings, and more. ESPN.com's new Mixed Martial Arts section index will also feature Sherdog's Fight Finder module, which allows users to search the largest fighter database online for stats and personal information. Sherdog's weekly online Radio show will be offered at ESPNRadio.com and for download via the ESPN PodCenter." None of those things that were mentioned in the quote are found on ESPN right now and they haven't been found on ESPN for years. It's normal considering it's been 13.5 years. Because it's pretty much obvious that deal ended a long time ago. On top of that we still have ESPN as a reputable source. Why don't we use the real thing instead of settling for the other? As of right now, they have huge discrepancies between themselves anyways so it's another proof that the deal in question was ended, probably a long time ago. Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and Lordpermaximum:, Lordpermaximum, Sherdog is a reliable source as since 2007, Sherdog partnered with ESPN, providing extensive MMA content and fighter database to ESPN - see here - 1. There is also discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding Sherdog as a reliable source - see here - 2 that confirmed Sherdog is a reliable source. Since Sherdog partnered with ESPN and ESPN is considered reliable then Sherdog info should be considered reliable as well which meetsWP:PROVEIT guidelines. The reason by MMA infobox use Sherdog it is because there are thousands of thousands MMA fighter in the world and Sherdog is the biggest MMA database and it records not only UFC fighters but all fighter in the world and follow by Tapology (note: ESPN started broadcast UFC fights as of 2020 and also note: Wikipedia is about WP:V and WP:PROVEIT with secondary source and not about WP:But it's true - rightfully, ESPN is associated with UFC for they signed contract for the broadcasting rights of all UFC fights for 7 years (2020 to 2027) which makes ESPN not independent source, and Sherdog is a third party (secondary and independent source). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agreed to go along with citing Sherdog stats because of Cassiopeia's insistence but I just wanted to chime in here and say I don't wholly agree with it either. Yes it is a huge database for MMA statistics but at the same time should it really be the end all be all source for information on MMA fighters? ESPN has stats on their website for MMA which through some research you'll find is actually more up to date than Sherdog. A lot of the fighter's stats on Sherdog are actually out of date. ESPN updates the weight of fighter's to what they currently weigh in at which Sherdog does not do. While I agree that a lot of the older fighter's who may be retired have pretty accurate stats on Sherdog I would make the argument for current fighter's from UFC and Bellator still competing regularly that ESPN's website is more accurate and up to date. And it is an official source and partner with the UFC so I don't see how it is not as reliable if not more so than Sherdog which is a third party source honestly. Hunterb212 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunterb212 pls note, as I provided link above - ESPN used Sherdog info since 2007 (pls read). For weight we place upper limit of each weight class and not everytime of their weight in, except heavyweight as not all fighter hit their upper limit. Note each disclipne sport use its database and not ESPN, eventhought ESPN might have the info for ESPN is a TV channel and do have association (not independent source) whereby Wikipedia is all about secondaly, independent source. I do suggest new mma editor read about WikiProject MMA history to understand further how things work. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, people are raising valid concerns about Sherdog here. The RSN discussion was poorly attended, and a long time in the past. We don't know whether the tie-in between ESPN and Sherdog is still in effect, and as I said before I'm not seeing much on Sherdog about where their info comes from. That doesn't mean I'm about to move to have it depracated as a source, but in this particular instance we have multiple high-quality independent RS which disagree with Sherdog, and agree with each other - why would we go with Sherdog's figure? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes you have stated that multiple times Cassiopeia but that doesn't explain the discrepancies between the stats listed on ESPN and Sherdog. If that partnership is still in effect why are the stats different on ESPN's website than what's listed on Sherdog? Do some research and you will find like I said that the ESPN stats are more up to date and current. And who decided that the standard procedure was to use heaviest weight recorded in that weight class instead of current weight the fighter's have most recently weighed in at? To me using the most current stats makes more sense and is more accurate. For example look up Jacare Souza's weight on Sherdog, it's listed at 185 lb which is out of date because he moved up a weight class and now fights at light heavyweight and weighs in at 205 lb. That's just one example of many. Look at Stipe Miocic's weight on ESPN listed at 233 lb which is what he last weighed in at, yet on Sherdog it's still listed at 245 lb. This shows Sherdog is not up to date on fighter stats pretty clearly. To me I think ESPN's main website is a more reliable and official source. Hunterb212 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I please point out that this discussion was started by an editor who thinks the height of McGregor is 5 feet eleven? And who's broken the 3rr rule making that edit? If anyone is interested, Sherdog used to list McGregor at 59 but changed it fairly recently. It is just as plausible that it's ESPN that's not up-to-date as Sherdog. Info boxes are not compulsory and the one in question has Sherdog as its source. Sherdog also contains full fight records and even source for nicknames. MMA pages are vandalised and played with continually and the project that keeps it sensible need help. What we don't need is to have to spend ages reverting an editor who thinks McGregor is 5 feet eleven. The answer to this discussion is no. It shouldn't say 511. The Sherdog Vs others debate can take place elsewhere.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I did not break 3RR. You're lying and accusing me of something I did not do. I want you to withdraw your accusation. The edit history of the article shows I reverted other editors' changes 3 times that day and in the whole history, total, not more.
• No, Sherdog did not change Conor McGregor's listing from 5'9" to 5'8". You're lying again and here's the archive link as the proof. His height has been listed as 5'8" since 2013 in that site.
• So far, I provided around 10 reputable sources, perhaps even more in this discussion. You on the other hand have provided one dead source from 13.5 years ago that's barely relevant to actual topic, have only made false accusations and assertions. See Proof_by_assertion. I'm sharing this link for the 5th time or so.
• This section is about how to approach Conor McGregor and other MMA people's height and other attributes as far as reliable sources go. It's completely relevant to the title and my first edit covers pretty much the whole topic. There's not a rule that we should limit the whole discussion to one sentence in the section title and stop the discussion if one person doesn't agree with it instead of finding a middle ground after a compromise or or coming up with a completely new look at the topic after expanding the discussion into other relevant areas.
• Sherdog.com is self-published, has no about page, it's been very outdated through out the years, other reputable sources tend to agree with their listings but they tend to disagree with Sherdog's listings as you can see from the links I and others provided. Even if we take sherdog as a reliable source, which we definetely shouldn't, why should it outweigh other reputable sources and become the sole source for anything MMA-related?Lordpermaximum (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Where are the 10 reliable sources that say he's 5 11? You made the same edit 4 times. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I'm seeing a lot of ownership going on on this page. There are multiple sources as equally reliable as Sherdog, if not moreso, putting McGregor's height at something other than 5ft8. There is nothing to stop us using them. We're not talking about 5ft 11 any more, why bring that up again? We're talking about 5ft 9. Even extending to putting in an "or 5ft 8" and two sources. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Why keep fighting it? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with 5'9" and I'll stop insisting we should go with 5'11" if we are to use those reliable sources instead of Sherdog from now on. But I certainly disagree with coming up two values for the height. What happens if all of let's say 5 sources disagree with each other for another person that has a Wikipedia page? Why don't we use 5,8", 5,9", 5,11" altogether then since the video provided is certainly more recent than Sherdog's claim which was last updated in 2013? Before that there was no height listing for McGregor in sherdog.com according to archive.org. So, it seems someone entered McGregor's height in 2013 in that site as what s/he though it was at the time and never updated that again. So, taking that approach would not be ideal. However, I'll compromise and agree with the middle ground 5'9" here if this is to become an example for everything MMA-related. This discussion has already attracted far more users and has much much more indetail explanation than some RSN that was attended by two editors a decade ago.Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, I said I provided around 10 reliable sources for the actual topic and you provided one that's barely relevant. I did not say "there are 10 reliable sources that say he's 5'11". You're starting to skew the facts to suit your own agenda and you don't even talk about the valid concerns that were raised here. Instead you gou around the actual topic for some reason and not addressing those concerns.Lordpermaximum (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no benefit to bringing up Lordpermaximum's edit history. They made an edit, reverted 3 times, and have not edited the article since receiving a 3RR warning, instead opening a talk page discussion. That's exactly what they're supposed to do. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun. Please read comments. If both heights must be listed in the way they are on the Dan Henderson page, then fine.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

For my sins, I have indeed read all the comments before commenting myself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not okay with that. I agreed with others and not going on with 5'11" just because of recency and consistency among MMA-related content although there are two high quality sources for that claim. That's why I agreed to 5'9" claims of other RS. Now, why should we use a very doubtful source (completely unreliable imo for reasons I mentioned before) as one half of the information and include it in, when there are multiple independent reliable sources that agree with eachother and claim McGregor is 5'9"? Also what are we going to do if there are 5 different listings from 5 different reliable sources and sherdog.com? Include every one of them? Then we should include 5'11" as well. The UFC's claim of 5'11 and the footage of measurement are both more recent than out-of-date sherdog.com. But anyways, this is not an ideal resolution.Lordpermaximum (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you calmly and studiously begin a discussion to that effect. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that unlike the hypothetical scenerio above, there are actually no different listings among recent reliable sources for Conor McGregor's height. That's why I also agreed to 5'9" listing. Sherdog.com is the sole exception even if it's a reliable source which is certainly not for a lot of reasons I mentioned before more than a few times. Let me repeat some of them again for the last time. Self-publishing, inexistence of an about page, out-of-date information and consistent discrepancies between sherdog and the reliable and reputable sources. On the contrary, those reliable sources are pretty much consistent between themselves.

I feel like I'm going around in circles here because of NEDOCHAN and CASSIOPEIA's unwillingness to truly address my and other editors' concerns here. I feel, we're only going to make the discussion unnecessarily longer considering we all pretty much provided everything necessary to disregard Sherdog especially in McGregor's case and go on with 5'9" as his listing of height. That's the compromise I made. I think this discussion was definetely longer than necessary anyways.Lordpermaximum (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I want everyone to please note that, NEDOCHAN and CASSIOPEIA never once provided a useful source or basis for their claims, never addressed our concerns and despite all of these, they never truly compromised like I did. I did everything I could so that we can find a middle ground already.Lordpermaximum (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's time to stop personalising this all round - I sympathise with Bastun here, reading through the full discussion and reviewing all the sources has not been fun, and the levels of hostility that have been generated over the question of someone's exact height are remarkable. NEDOCHAN didn't need to refer to your earlier edit warring, and you didn't need to call NEDOCHAN a liar and repeatedly mention them - keep it focussed on the content.

The best sources I'm seeing in this - the sources which are unquestionably independent, secondary and reliable - are the Independent and the CBS Sports sites, and they both agree on 5'9". They are supported by several of the other sources, like ESPN and some of the UFC sources, which while 'official' are arguably not fully independent of the subject; it's also supported by the BoxRec database, which is independent and probably reliable-ish. The other sources are outliers - the subject himself and his coaching team seem to have given a number of different values over the course of his career, for reasons we can only speculate on in the absence of any sources discussing the disparity. I don't see any reason to do anything other than give a figure of 5'9" supported by the best sources (the Indy and CBS), and to draw a line under this. Does anyone have a problem with that approach? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not.Lordpermaximum (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nor me. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's an equal amount of reliable, independent and recent sources that list him as 5'8, then 5'9 is the only option. 5'11 is a definite no. And just to be clear, my opinion is not an endorsement of Sherdog being unreliable or the appropriateness of its use in other articles. This discussion is solely related to this article only and has no site-wide impact on the use of Sherdog. – ².O.^Boxing 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been remotely hostile. I was just pointing out that this discussion's title is no longer relevant and that its origin demonstrates that. If we want to discuss the infobox and the source used then we should: on WP:MMA. Stating that the Independent and CBS are the best RS isn't a good solution as we have to bear in mind that fighter info should be able to be verified and The Independent and CBS do not offer that opportunity for 90% of fighters. Please, look at Dan Henderson. This situation occurred and a solution was found.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, my view is that each article should use the most reliable sources for any item of information about the subject of that article. You seem to be saying that all our articles for MMA fighters should use the same source for their information on personal statistics. If that is your position, please can you explain what policy it's based on? If it's not your position, please can you explain what you're arguing here? And no, WP:MMA isn't the place to discuss changes to this article, although you are welcome to post a neutral notice there drawing attention to the discussion on this talk page. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is not compulsory and the info in it is sourced to an agreed RS. What I am arguing is that Sherdog reliably contains data that's in the infobox. Nicknames, for instance. Fight records, method of finish. It's not a coincidence that those of us who actually edit MMA pages understand this and those who don't, don't. Discussion as to infoboxes should take place at the place where the infoboxes were drawn up. The point, Girth, is that this is an infobox. It's not compulsory. Sherdog is the biggest MMA database in the world and, as Cass pointed out, a lack of familiarity with it and/or anecdotal observations as to its accuracy aren't going to change that. This discussion should be closed as it's supposed to be about his being 511. A new one can be begun, fine. But discussion about the infobox, which isn't compulsory, should take place elsewhere.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry NEDOCHAN, but that is not in line with my understanding of how discussions work here. The title of this discussion has no bearing on whether or not consensus for a change emerges - it was initially about 5'11", it's now about 5'9". I'd be happy to change the title of the thread to 'His height', if that would set your mind at ease?

You are right, infoboxes aren't compulsory - you could start a thread on getting rid of it altogether, if you like. However, if we are to have one, it should be reflect what the most reliable sources say about this subject. If it is your position that all MMA infoboxes should use a particular source for the sake of uniformity, even when more multiple RS contradict that source, I've never heard anything like it before - we always use the best available sources for each individual subject on the article about that subject. I don't know you personally, but I have worked closely with CASS in other areas of the project and I have a great regard for her judgement, so I don't rule out the possibility that I'm in the wrong here, but I would like to understand how your position is grounded in policy. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I will let CASS do that. I definitely don't see consensus here. I won't comment any more as this sort of stuff crops up all the time and it's dull. My position is clear. Sherdog is an agreed RS. There is some discrepancy. We could put both AS WE DID ON DAN HENDERSON. Please, please look at that page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I will wait for CASSIOPEIA to comment as I'd really like to understand that position, but I now count five editors who would be content with simply having 5'9" supported by the Indy and CBS - in the absence of a policy-based argument against doing to, I see that as good grounds for making the change. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been 1.5 days (~30 hours), the editor in question has been active in that time, has been pinged more than a few times and still decided not to participate in the final stages of this discussion. "Not hypothetical" section of Wikipedia:What is consensus? states:"While everyone on Wikipedia has the right to be heard, this does not mean that discussions remain open indefinitely until we hear from them. Nor does it mean that a consensus should be overridden by an appeal to "Wikipedians out there" who silently disagree." Moreover, "Resolving content disputes with outside help" section of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution clarifies: "Participation in content dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate if they do not care to do so, but it must be borne in mind that in some forums and processes[4] a discussion may proceed without an editor who chooses not to participate and consensus may be reached without the nonparticipating editor's input. Moreover, there is no policy or guideline which prohibits administrators or the community from taking an editor's failure or refusal to participate in content dispute resolution into consideration (or manner or degree of participation) as an item of evidence in a discussion about whether an editor's activities have, overall, been in the best interest of the encyclopedia."

Girth Summit, Bastun, Hunterb212, Squared.Circle.Boxing, CASSIOPEIA, NEDOCHAN, we've reached a consensus after a long talk here. I too count 5 editors which agreed with Girth Summit's proposal including himself. 1 editor is against the proposal and has stopped participating in the dicussions by his own admission and the last editor who participated in the discussions before, has failed to participate since then despite the fact that she was given enough time and pinged a few times. In light of all of this along with Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:What is consensus? and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution 's clear policies I propose we should move on and stop waiting indefinetely for the last editor who's failure to participate is obvious by now.Lordpermaximum (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, chill out with all the bold text and wiki links. I was going to give Cass a bit longer to see if she wants to comment further, then make the change if not. We don't need to get all shouty about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

English is not my native language. I'm relatively new in Wikipedia dispute resolutions. I don't know if using bold text for Wikpedia policy quotes in dicussions is prohibited or not. However I'm an international relations master, a data scientist and a webmaster. I've been doing my work for the last 16 years. I've been involved in many law actions. I've seen and contributed in the beginnings of Wikipedia as an IP user. I tried to be as civil as possible in this discussion. You may be a wikipedia administrator and an English teacher but if you don't stop your patronizing attitude towards me and put your past relations with other editors aside, I'll request comment on the suitability of you being an administrator. As a Wikipedia editor it's my duty to remind you that you are never required to use your tools, and you must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which you were involved according to Wikipedia:Administrators. Also, according to Administrator conduct, Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.

As a Wikipedia editor, I see the consensus here and according to policies of Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:What is consensus? and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, neither I nor any other editor should wait for one particular editor's opinion indefinetely if he refuses to participate in the discussion. And according to Wikipedia:Administrators, no Administrator can force any editor to wait for one particular editor who failed to participate in discussions and deny the execution of the consensus. I'm executing what the consensus requires and changing Conor McGregor's height from 5 ft 8 in to 5 ft 9 in, according to the reliable, secondary and independent sources of CBS Sport and the Independent as we agreed upon. If you have problem with that, achieve another consensus but you can't act as an Administrator on that because of the Wikipedia:Administrators policy, as you're involved with the dispute in the first place. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lordpermaximum, I don't need you to explain the role of the administrator to me - have I ever, at any point in this thread, threatened to implement sanctions against anyone? Or use the tools in any way? Have I suggested that my view is of more weight than anyone else's? Only at the very beginning of this thread did I claim to be uninvolved, when I was so, and I took time to explain a few simple points of proper conduct to you. I positively invite you to ask anyone you like to review this discussion and comment on whether I have acted improperly at any point. Your own WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is responsible for a large proportion of the unnecessary heat in this thread - I'm just asking you to calm down and speak to people politely. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth SummitI simply disagree with you on my attitude in the discussions. When I think of what you're probably referring to, at one point of the disccusions I only defended an accusation towards me just one time and proved the accusation and other claims made by that editor were completely wrong and called him a liar (which I shouldn't have done no matter what when I think now as I am out of the heat of the moment) because of the editor in question's habit of spreading false information as facts along with his condescending attitude towards me since I'm relatively new in content disputes compared to him. I immediately gave it a rest after you told me to stop after that just one edit. But, I don't remember you asking that editor to withdraw his accusation although you asked me to do in the beginning, despite the fact that I didn't claim anything like that particular editor, mines were simple suspicions which I still withdrew if you anyone saw them as accusations. It was my first edit in my first discussion also so I don't think it was too bad. Still, I want to remind him and everyone here of WP:But I'm an administrator!, User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #2, WP:Equality, WP:Newbies aren't always clueless. Being an experienced editor or an administrator doesn't justify any patronizing attitude. Anyways, I only talked about this because suddenly you claimed I wasn't being polite which I didn't expect and probably referred to the begining of the discussions which happened a few days ago, likely in defence of your patronzing attitude. Anyways, this is not content related any more and I don't want to attend to personal matters here.

The discussions seem to have come to an end. I thank everyone for their participation and I'm truly sorry if I ever offended anyone without knowing. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not as experienced an editor on here as some of you who have thousands and thousands of edits under your belt, but I have been watching MMA since the very beginning and am quite familiar with fighter's stats. When I began editing some pages including McGregor who I updated to ESPN stats and listed him at 5'9" Cassiopeia immediately gave me a warning that I was being disruptive. I found that to be pretty unwarranted as I provided a reliable, official, and accurate source for my edit. It seems that he/she and a few others on here police MMA pages as if they are the ultimate authority and revert anything you do if it does not pertain to Sherdog. This is pretty disheartening for a newer editor like myself who is only trying to improve accuracy and providing official sources when doing so. I relented because I know it's against policy to edit war and I don't feel like fighting over an inch of someone's height. But I will say I think ESPN should be allowed to use as a source for fighter stats in some cases especially with current fighters such as McGregor. This is because like I already stated ESPN's site updates their fighter stats and info after every weigh in which Sherdog does not. To me that makes ESPN a more accurate and up to date source and I don't see what's disruptive about using it or why I was threatened to be blocked from editing over it. For the record also Cassiopeia continually claims that Sherdog is partners with ESPN yet there are many discrepancies between the two sources information that seems to contradict that claim. Hunterb212 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Guys, give me a day or two to respond for it usually take about one week for discussion and if disucssion is still going on after a week then we will let other editor to voice their opionion. I have day job and I am also a counter vandalism and new page trainer, besides my normal editing, which I need to review assignment at times and since the we are allow to go to gym, I have limited time left after go to gym from work. Guys, pls do not revert the edit on the article and not edit warring for you will be blocked if you revert more than 3 times during 24hrs on the same articlee - see WP:3RR until the discussion is official close. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Two quick observations, since this is getting out of hand: I don't think any of you want me to look at the ANEW report since I'm in the habit of blocking people there. Observation one: let NO ONE claim that that YouTube video of his debut or whatever is reliable evidence of anything. Some dude is fumbling aroud with some measuring tape--NOTHING about that is acceptable. Observation two: MMA has turned into another fan zone, like rassling and K-pop, where unreliable sources with great commercial interests are treated like reliable sources; Sherdog is one of those, but it happens to be broadly accepted by all those who contribute to these articles, for better or for worse.

I do NOT want to go through the history to see who's warring more than whom, because from the looks of this conversation I'd end up blocking all of y'all. User:Girth Summit, User:Cassiopeia, you have some more thorough Wikipedia experience than some of the others; maybe you can set up something like an RfC, without the accusations (yes, Lordpermaximum, your "suspicions" are accusations and thus violations of WP:AGF, and I don't mind blocking for that) and the endless conversations/distractions. Surely this can be solved in a better way than my heavy-handed way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, I hope you don't go down the 'block all y'all" route too hastily, I only showed up to try to sort out last week's edit war, and got drawn into the content/sourcing discussion because I was as alarmed as you are at the suggestion of using that video as a source. This discussion has been heated, repetitive and ugly, but there have been a number of people engaging on talk without touching the article itself (and, sadly, a number of people doing the opposite).

CASSIOPEIA Would you be open to Drmies' suggestion of an RFC? I'm thinking along the lines of a choice between three options: 5'8" (supported by Sherdog); 5'9" (supported by the Indy and CBS, possibly with UFC and ESPN as well); and mention of both, supported by the same refs. The question would set out the options, with a Survey section below it, and a Threaded Discussion section where people could explain your position in detail. Does that seem fair to you? Cheers all GirthSummit _(blether) 06:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As an RfC has been mentioned, I think it should be noted here that there has been an RfC opened at RSN in an attempt to deprecate sherdog. Said RfC was started due to this discussion and the outcome would (probably won't lol) affect an RfC here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sherdog.com. Once that nonsense has finished I think an RfC here would be a good option. Most are in favour of 5'9 but NEDOCHAN mentioned how multiple heights are listed in a note on Dan Henderson (sorry, I must have skipped over that comment), which I don't see a problem with. – ².O.^Boxing 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And as I proposed on the 10th. I think the important principle, though, is we don't list what Sherdog says, and only that, and deprecate every other source, "because SHERDOG!", which is what had been happening. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe Sherdog serves as a common ground for most of the information. Obviously they are not the ultimate guide to it. If we have other reliable sources (like the measuring video for example), we should take that in account and use it as the most reliable option for that case. We use it as means to add fight results, but they're not always right. To me they are still a reliable source, but I never took them for the only option available. I believe such cases require discussion and people should be open to consider other sources as more accurate than Sherdog itself. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94, just for the avoidance of doubt, the 'measuring video' is not a reliable source, and could not be used to support any assertion of any kind on this project. This has been the subject of protracted discussion already - it is not in any doubt. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it in a way of saying that a different source (let's say another media website or even the UFC) used that measuring as their official height for McGregor. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94, we don't know whether anyone ever used the measurement taken in that video as a basis for their figures. We know that a number of sources used a figure that matched it in the past, and that they have since updated their figures. As far as I'm aware, no current sources use that figure - hence why I proposed leaving it out of the RfC suggested above. If any current sources still use it, please let us know so we can consider whether they should be included in the RfC. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Girth Summit: and the rest of the involved editors here. Sorry for taking a little longer than I would like to and here I am trying to stay out late to reply for now is close to 1 am here . A RfC for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) discussion has been raised prior I have a chance to start one and you might want to have a read. Secondly, the conversation here "the height of the subject" is in the infobox and not about Sherdog is the only sore source for the entire article content. Sherdog is a biggest MMA fighter profile page as well as a media source for MMA news in the world. Each fighter article do have external link to Sherdog. The MMA info box used Sherdog as the source to record fighter record, height, nickname, team, fighting out of among other things where the source is stated at the bottom of the infobox. Those info that in the Infobox but could not obatin from Sherdog MMA fighter page would need to be sourced such as reach, trainer, spouse, university and etc. It is common in Wikipedia to use its specific sport databases for the specific fields and usually the soruce are not tied to ESPN or major newspapers. Here is List of current UFC fighters for your reference. It is challenging at time editing MMA pages as MMA fans/editors are extremely emotinally tied to certain fighters. We do have a lot of vandalsim/trolling and editing warrings in MMA events/fighters page especially after some internet meme/name calling/lost a fighter in spactacular KO fashion or claiming one fighter representing of one country and not the other, or ethnicity. At times during big fight (PPV event) we do not have time to revert/correct the vandalsim edits as they come like a giant flood. MMA wikipedia communinity is rather broken due to in fighting and many have left or not to join any discussions. It is rather sad for Wikipedia is a place where editors collorate and support each other and yet MMA wikipedia community is struggling to achieve that at time. Stay safe and have a good night /morning everyone. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, no worries about the delay in response - we're all busy, but thanks for re-engaging. So, my concern is that we should be using the most reliable sources available for any particular fact about any particular subject. Yes, the MMA infobox includes a link to Sherdog - but I don't understand why we should slavishly make our content match that at Sherdog, which is presented as an EL rather than a ref: it's not a problem if we have information referenced to other sources within the infobox itself. I don't have a problem using Sherdog as a source for stuff that isn't covered elsewhere - but when Sherdog's info is an outlier amongst multiple other reliable sources, surely you would agree that the best thing to do is to go with the other sources? Please let me know whether you feel an RfC would be a useful thing, or if you could get behind simply changing this supported by the sources discussed above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies and Girth Summit: I have no problem with RfC. Some info here - Sherdog is not only the largest MMA fighter database but also a MMA media. All (I mean thousands of thousands) MMA fighter pages in EN Wikipedia, Sherdog is recorded a the source in the infobox (at the bottom of the info box) and at the bottom of the fight record (example Stipe Miocic the current Heavyweight champion where you can fight sherdog source at the infobox and bottom of the fight table - ref#97), also you can check out the fighters in List of current UFC fighters. The reason to use Sherdog in the fight record is to prevent editors to change its info as they interepret themselves especially in fight "method" as this is the WikiProject MMA - WP:MMA guidlines. This apply in the same reason that of the infobox. The infobox tempalate is set up with Sherdog as the source in place and any parameters (info) can not be obtain from Sherdog profile page will need to be supported by other source if info is added. Sherdog, MMAjunkie.com and MMA Fighting are the 3 biggest MMA media in the world with Sherdog as the pioneer where they establish in 1997 4 years after Pancrase and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)in 1993 two of pioneers MMA promotion established. Editors and admin (Woody) stated they never heard about Sherdog it is because Sherdog specilises/covers only MMA (a MMA media). Most sport fans and casual MMA fans would not heard about. Sherdog is extremely well-known by all MMA fans who follows MMA for years/closely just as most people have not heard about Boxrec (Boxer database) if they only watch a few heavyweight title bouts a year or know about Rugby League Project if they are not a hard core fan of Rugby League. Editors have not heard about Sherdog has nothing to do with the its independent and relaiblity. Media such as ESPN or other news channel would often partnered with "specific" sport media to get the info except for certain extremely popular sports national sports. To anwer your questions, why not using multiple sources, as it will have conflict of info such as this this page, we would record mulitple heights, multiple different methods of fight, nick names and the results will be edit warrings and many cases of ANI, disruptive edits, name callings, where you can see all the links here, commentary, and here and also on Reliable sources discussion (pls do read if you have time), we (MMA community in EN Wiki) would have such cases every 3/4 months in a year, and this one is particular spiral out of control. Editors spending so much time in all the disucssions in RSN, ANI/EW, editors' talk pages which some of comments are so discruptive and unhealthy that truely dampend the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikipedians especially to those tiredly given their time and effort to improve and provide good conributions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

* Isn't this the same text you added at the noticeboard? You are again asserting that "Sherdog is the largest MMA fighter database" (I don't know what "also a MMA media" means), so I will again ask for a reliable third-party citation that backs this. The history of Sherdog is irrelevant. It is unclear why a "fighter database" partnering with one TV sports channel makes it a more reputable source than any other. It is absolutely unclear that this "partnership" is still in existence - searching for Sherdog on ESPN returns exactly four results: one from April, which mentions Sherdog in passing, three from 2018 and earlier. A Wikiproject - especially what appears to be a dead or at least moribund wikiproject - does not get to dictate to the rest of Wikipedia what sources can and can't be used, especially when - as in this case - other (equally reliable) sources disagree. And note there is consensus for that last point on the RS/N noticeboard. Lastly, I would suggest that at least some of the edit warring encountered on this and other MMA articles is because of ownership by a small cohort of editors, insisting on only The One True Source, Praise Be Unto It, being used. If reliable secondary sources such as The Independent and CBS Sports say McGregor is 5ft 9, I'll include that. This is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sherdog is largest independent MMA media site in the world and Sherdog is the official content partner - see of ESPN reported by Sport Illustor. Some site such as Tapology - second largest MMA fighter database or Fight Matrix the third largest do not report MMA news (MMA media sites/news sites) such as sherdog, MMA Junkie, MMA Fighting, Cageside Press, Comabat, MMA PL, MMA Mania, and etc. It is not the ownship issues, do note, those involved in all the discussion except few new to Wikipedia edits countless MMA fighters page just like I - their contribution logs would show that. WikiProject MMA is not dead but marred by so many edit warrings, name callings, attacks and discourage editors to participate or they just simple quite edit mma page. With your solution, other editors would add different height from different sources and we would ended up with 4/5 different height of a subject, for one page we have already so many issues and we woudl image how many issues would come for other pages. Take care Bastun and good night. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• You mean Sports Illustrated? Ok, you've pointed to a passing reference to Sherdog being "the largest independent MMA media site in the world", mentioned in one fifth of an article, by someone who was associated with Sherdog. That article is ten years old, so very much not current. If size is relevant, then it would also be important to note that the article does point out that sherdog Sherdog.com "went without access to the UFC from late 2005 until the middle of 2009" - almost half of the preceding decade! - and had just again lost access to the biggest MMA franchise in the world. Where, then, would it get its information from, to report in its database? Perhaps it itself used other independent, reliable sources?
• Sherdog may well have been named - in a 2010 news article - as the official partner of ESPN. Once again: ESPN does not seem to know they are still sherdog's partner, as they mention them exactly four times on their whole website: one from April, which mentions Sherdog in passing, three from 2018 and earlier. Sherdog do not mention this ESPN partnership anywhere I can find on their website, either. I do not doubt they once had this partnership. I don't believe they still do, and no evidence to that effect has been provided.
• Even if you do provide it - what, exactly, is the relevance of one website being an official partner of one particular American TV channel?
• I confess I'm having difficulty parsing the rest of your response, from "It is not the ownship issues", on (I gather English is not your first language, and that's fine). You seem to be saying that you and/or the MMA Wikiproject will refuse to accept any other source than sherdog for the infobox, to forestall edit warring? Please clarify whether I have that right, or not, because that will determine where we go from here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun I applogies for my poor command of English. I am multilingual but master of none. In addition I have mild case of Irlen Syndrome which does not help.

• The link has stated Sports Illustrated. I have also mentioned/explain to your regarding "went without access" in the WP:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion. Do note, UFC, although is the largest, is one of hundreds of MMA promoters in the world. Fighters fight in regional circuits which their info already in Sherdog. Only a small percentage of MMA fighters who are good enough to be signed by UFC. Sherdog database is not only record UFC fighters but all thousands of thousands of fighters in the world. How they get the info, I cant tell you for I dont work for Sherdog.
• I have already provided you the source (sport illustrated - independent source) that ESPN partnered with Sherdog for content. [

 HERE] is the announced from Sherdog. (I didnt provide you before as editor might argue that is a primary source).

• we all remember well Ariel Helwani and his associates were pulled form UFC press credentials for being just doing their job as good journalists would and should do. Their press credential were being pulled has nothing to do with the source reliability and independent.
• ESPN does not only air sprots program, but they also provide content. If ESPN is considered reliable and they used Sherdog content, that would make Sherdog relieable.
• Do note, we are not talking about a page notability here, so passing mentioned has nothing to do with it. It has been mentioned by Sports Illustrated (independent from Sherdog ) that they are the largest, independent reliable MMA source.
• MMA infobox and fighter records have been set up many years ago, before I joined Wikipedia, in Wikipidia Project MMA and discussions of the parameters did take place and it was set up to use Sherdog for any info could be obtained of the fighter profile for Sherog has been confirmed as reliable by Wikipeida years ago. If the info of Sherdog has been alreadly outdated such as a fighter moves to new country or change team or any info can not be obtain in Sherog fighter page, then info/new info can be added/changed as long as it is supported by source.
• Editng warring/disruptive edits do not produce effective way to slove an issue. As you might know user Lordpermaximum or "Perm" has been blocked by 3 admins for many reasons - see here. Take good care Bastun and good night. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, you have absolutely nothing to apologise for! On the discussion, points, though:

• I accept Sherdog once was a partner of ESPN - in 2007 - but I see no evidence that Sherdog still is a partner of ESPN, as ESPN make no mention of them whatsoever on their current website, except in passing and in articles from several years ago, which is a point you're not addressing.
• Similarly unaddressed is the actual relevance of Sherdog being a partner of ESPN. ESPN don't "own" MMA, they're just a media outlet and content provider. One of thousands.
• I accept that some editors, years ago, on a Wikiproject, decided among themselves that Sherdog would be included in the infobox and would be used for citations. However, I contend that that agreement in no way precludes any editor from including relevant stats, if those stats are backed by reliable sources, even if those sources are not Sherdog. That is absolutely in accordance with standard Wikipedia policy and practice, and a Wikiproject does not get to overrule policy.
• Wikipedia has policies and procedures in place to deal with edit warring. Indeed, these policies and procedures work very effectively, as can be seen with the block yesterday of user Perm, and in the past in blocks for edit warring for two other prominent contributors to this section.
• We (you and I, at least) appear to be going in circles at this point. Perhaps @Drmies and Girth Summit: can bring this to a close at this point, with proper direction? Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bastun, I think we should leave this to Girth Summit. After all, they're much younger than I am, and they need to atone for having been a devil. FWIW, I agree with your comments about Sherdog in this last post of yours. And I'll add that "having a connection" really doesn't mean a thing--partnering or whatever doesn't make data more reliable, and Sherdog doesn't even have an editorial statement that I can see. So really, I put no stock in them, nor would I if their data came directly from the company that owns all these contests and contracts. You see, I have an opinion, so I shouldn't make the call. Girth Summit, I'm obviously INVOLVED, haha, so it's your turn. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel as if I should point out that the info re his height has been changed through consensus, so I'm not really sure what else there is to say here. Particularly given the recent and ongoing discussions regarding Sherdog elsewhere.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Drmies - not sure how much younger than you I can be, but I'll take that as a compliment!

So, my feeling is that the article is now presenting the right figure. I don't have a major problem with Sherdog being used in infoboxes, and I can understand why the MMA project decided to use it widely, but I can't see any way to square it with general content policies to use one source to the exclusion of others. When multiple, generally reliable sources all agree with each other but contradict Sherdog, they should be given precedence - I don't even see a reason to present both figures side by side, since Sherdog appears to be the outlier. As NEDOCHAN has said, this article has now been changed to reflect what I read as the consensus of this thread, even after discounting the views of the blocked editors, and since those blocks were imposed the edit warring has ceased - unless Cassiopeia feels differently, I don't think that anything further needs to be done here - an RfC feels unnecessary, but I'd be willing to draft and participate in one if Cass feels that would be necessary (or even beneficial).

(As an aside, this thread now fills fifteen screens of my laptop - roughly twice the height of the subject of the article, whichever value we go with!) GirthSummit _(blether) 07:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that when mma infobox was created and Sherdog was used because it was considered a reliable source so no multiple info is added to a as unification. To be partnered with ESPN is just one evidence to show Sherdog is reliable and independent and not the only reason and no editor could provide info if the partnership has ended but at least we know it has been started long time ago. Many editors, casual fans and even admins have never heard about Sherdog, does not make Sherdog not reliable, because Sherdog only cover MMA news and nothing else. Height is not the only info obtained by Sherdog, but also team, fighting out of, weight classes, fight records (very important one), fight method, style, nick name and etc. For those who is not regular mma editors would not know how often and massy mma fighters and event being vandalised or new editors being so distruptive. I would wish to have a discussion and I dont think this talk page is the right venue and it should be in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts as the this effect all mma fighter pages and other mma editor might want to have their opinons heard.Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, with respect, I don't understand what you want to discuss here - nobody in this discussion is suggesting the removal of the Sherdog EL from the MMA infobox, or indeed any other changes to this particular infobox. That EL is not presented as a reference to support the assertions in the infobox - it's presented as a source of 'Other information', so it's not contradictory to have some stuff in the box supported by other sources. The subject's height is the only thing this thread has been about - I don't see why bringing up other information supported by Sherdog is relevant. If you indicate that you accept that change, we can leave this here, and anyone who wants to can discuss other aspects of Sherdog elsewhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, The other information supported by Sherdog also is in the infobox which effect thousand of pages. Infoboxe creation started in WikiProject MMA and this is not only one of two pages issues but thousands of thousands pages and not only on height but "other info". Also MMA editors might not place this page in their watchlist and would not know this discussion is talking place. I would think the discussion should be in MMA Project page as it involves all MMA fighters page in Wikipedia. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I still don't understand your point here - we're talking about one piece of information, on one article - it doesn't affect other articles at all, unless it is your position that we cannot allow information in this infobox to be supported by sources other than Sherdog because Wikiproject MMA has decided that Sherdog is the only acceptable source to use in any MMA infobox - is that what you're saying, or have I misunderstood you? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Sherdog is the source for MMA fighter page infobox for those infobox parameters info can be obtain by Sherdog and do note Sherdog was considered to be reliable by Wikipedia in Reliable source discussion where admin did participated. The infobox creation also had admin involved. Any info can not be obtained by Sherdog can be added as long as they are sourced. If the info could be should sourced by to be replaced then it will effect all other MMA fighter pages and we are not talking about height here but many parameters. Editor would be adding different info as per the sources they added which means conflict of info and editing warring would happened, such as height, style, methods, nick name which would effect thousands of thousand pages. Info such as fighting out of could be changed /updated from Sherdog as long as it is sourced, that is same as team; However, height would be subjective to what source you place there, which means a fighter would have 2-4 height info with different sources which I have never since in any other sport person infobox in Wikipedia. That also means the the style can be in any combat sytle as long as the source mentioned the fighter train in xxx martial arts - the thing is as per WikiProject MMA 'MMA fighters requires training several fighting styles, which means that no mixed martial artist uses a single style when fighting. References that describe martial arts ranks (i.e. black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) and/or martial arts training (i.e. training boxing) are not evidence of fighting style and are not valid to justify a fighting style in an infobox. Do not add your own interpretation of a fighting style. The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports (i.e. boxing or kickboxing) and who are notable in said sports and deserve an article for their merits in these other sports (i.e. Antônio Rogério Nogueira, Alistair Overeem). It is suggested to MMA editors that they actively remove the style parameter in infoboxes of MMA fighters that do not meet these criteria." Admin Woody stated they never heard about Sherdog and set the precedent on Handerson page for the height to be changed, and lead this the McGregor. I dont particularly has issue if the problem only effect one or two articles since reliable source is provided but this would be spiral other parameters that is my concern. That is the reason I would suggest the discussion to be placed in MMA WikiProject since this would effect thousands of thousands articles which means all the thousands parmaters for such I think other mma editors shoudl involve the discussion. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, OK, thanks for setting out your position more fully. My concern is that this is not just an MMA issue, and is not entirely within WikiProject MMA's remit: this is first and foremost a BLP issue, and for any WikiProject to dictate that a particular source is the only acceptable one to use on a certain group of BLP infoboxes seems like overreach. I can understand why one might accept Sherdog as reliable enough to use where other RS don't contradict them; in a situation where multiple other generally reliable mainstream sources contradict it though, I can't see how mandating Sherdog in the face of them is compliant with our content policies and guidelines. I had a quick look at the MMA project's archive to see if I could find discussions where this position had been thrashed out, but searching for 'Sherdog' throws up too many results to trawl through.

My suggestion is this - the preponderance of RS say that he is 5'9", only Sherdog says that he's 5'8": project-wide content policies tell us that we should say he's 5'9". If you can live with that, we can draw a line under this - I'm not interested in making a fuss about other pages.

If you think that a wider discussion is necessary, we can have that, but WikiProject MMA is not the place - it would need to be somewhere more central (e.g. BLPN), because this goes beyond any particular WikiProject's remit. Such a discussion would not be 'Is Sherdog reliable?', it would need to be 'Is Sherdog so uniquely reliable that it is acceptable to mandate its exclusive use on a bunch of BLPs, so much so that we automatically reject reliable sources that contradict it?' MMA editors would be welcome to contribute to such a discussion, and their experience and insight would be valuable, but theirs should not be the only voices in a matter of content and sourcing on BLPs. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, partnering with an entertainment company means NOTHING for reliability, let alone "independence". I mean, "partnering" is kind of the opposite of "independence, is it not? Girth Summit, I think the whole "should we use Sherdog as the basis for the infobox" is a good candidate for a discussion on the project page, but the first question that needs to be answer, IMO, is for BLPN, and it's the basic discussion of reliability. I mean, participants at BLPN probably don't give a damn about some MMA infoboxes, so let's leave it to them--but I do agree that some basic questions about Sherdog need to be addressed by the wider community, not just by the MMA incrowd. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, there's a discussion on-going about Sherdog at RSN, if you want to take a peek. It looks to me at the moment like it's going to arrive at a level 2 'reliable in the absence of anything better' rating - which would kind of preclude the practice of enforcing its use on any infobox even where better sources exist. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and Girth Summit: Thank you for the message and thank you to take time to have a dioglog with me. Appologies that I have to keep on providing some mma history/background for it would be a little easy to understand where I come from. ESPN signed contract to used Sherdog content for their publishe article in 2007 (source provide on this message thread previously) , which mean the info they publishe was from Sherdog. ESPNis considered reliable source, and if they use Sherdog content that would make Sherdog reliable source. Also Sherdgo was voted a reliable source in Wikiipedia RSN years ago. ESPN signed a 7 year (5+2) with UFC in 2019 to have the to broacroast all their events/fights from 2020 -2026 and hired ex UFC fighters and reportors and MMA fighting reportor, Ariel Helwani, to set up their mma department to produce their own database and content. As such Sherdog has always been indepedent from UFC and considered reliable. We have already unusual increase of change fighter height without source in inbox this few days and I am not sure it has anything to do with this message being seen my some IP editors and McGregor page has a very high tranffic in Wikipedia, as he is one of the highest pay althetles in recent years, especially he just annouced he is planning to return to have a fight in Jan 2021 with Dustin Poirier. Anyone can check Sherdog web site to read their content and would see Sherdog meets in term of content/tone/NPOV, WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:SOURCEDEF. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, I realise all of that - it's been mentioned before, several times in this thread. I haven't seen you address the concerns people have about it. For me, these are:

• We know that ESPN signed a contract to use Sherdog's content in 2007 - that was a long time ago, we have no way of knowing whether or not it is still in effect. I do not say that it is not; I merely say that we have nothing recent to tell us that it is.
• Potentially more importantly, the fact that Source A (a reliable source) uses information drawn from Source B does not automatically mean that Source B is reliable - Source A might use the information selectively, or add a layer of fact checking, or aggregate multiple sources, or be more willing to correct errors when discovered, or be better in any of the other characteristics that we use to assess sources. To coin a phrase, reliability is not inherited.
• I've already said to you that the previous RSN discussion doesn't count for much. It was poorly attended (one person asked a question, there were only three responses, one of which was quite half-hearted in its support), there was no formal closure, and it took place when Sherdog was operated by a different publisher. All of the sources listed at WP:RSP as 'generally reliable' have had multiple discussions at RSN, demonstrating a much stronger consensus than this - I don't think we can say anything more from that single discussion than 'a couple of people thought it was OK back in 2011'.
• People making unsourced changes to biographical details is a perennial problem, but they can be reverted and warned about unsourced changes. What I'm concerned about is people coming along in good faith and making changes with sources that are generally reliable - it's not OK to revert and warn them without discussion, even if they're IPs or new accounts, that's classic WP:BITE, it goes against our principals of 'anyone can edit'. All of these articles are BLPs, and we have lots of tools at our disposal - including discretionary sanctions - to stop disruption. Do you really think that mandating a specific source to the exclusion of all others is proportionate to the threat? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, well, even we dont look at the case Sherdog was the partered content of ESPN, I believe Sherdog still meet the reliable source criteria. I dont think it is a bite when an editor add/changing a content without source as an unsouced message is placed on the talk page for to meet WP:V as it is a information and educational message. The issue is edit warring, just like this one and we see how many unplesant messages ened up in so many talk pages. Many new editors would go to extra lenght to change/add/argue about a fighter height, country of origin, ethincity, fighting style and etc just because the fighting is from their coutnry/same heritage/riding a hype train fo a particular prospects. It is difficult to make you nor anyone understand how bad the situation has been if they are not an mma editor editors. I have more than 1k mma related articles in my wathchlist, so I do have a some observation. I have written about 1000 times the same messages to new editors for the past 3 years and a small group are good faith editors and turn regular mma editors but majority are not. I have written more than 10 times to an editor of Wikipedia gudilines for a year, and yet they still do want they want and I am not the fancy to bring anyone to ANI for it is an emotional charge environment. My hope to that Sherdgo could vote as reliable source in RSD and would open a discussion to used Sherdog as the source in 5 of parmaters (there are over 20 parameters). Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I'm sorry, I'm not sure you read what I wrote. I explicitly said that reverting and warning someone who makes unsourced changes is not a problem; what I'm concerned about is reverting and warning a new good faith editor who makes a change supported by a reliable source - that's would be bitey, and having a rule to the effect that Sherdog is the only permissible source for these parameters would encourage that kind of behaviour.

If most of the disruption is coming from unsourced changes, then having a rule like that is unnecessary - Sherdog is probably reliable enough to justify reverting unsourced changes. The only reason to have such a rule would be to enforce Sherdog against reliably sourced changes, and that seems inherently problematic to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, My apologies, I have read you wrongly. My bad. Most of the changes are either unsourced or they use UFC/ESPN as source which is a primary/not indepent source. We do use UFC as source when we could not find any other source besides UFC such as the fighter stand or reach but we would remove UFC source once we could find a third party source for the same parameters. The thing is edit warring comes from editors using primary, non independent or utube source. It is not to say to use Sherdog to aganist other relaible source but to minimise edit warrings, if sherdog is to vote as reliable source (again), then to use one source is to standalised the source parameters. To measue a person height in different occassions even on the same machine or by the same person might not receive the same result everytime and the best of reliable source would at times make error as well. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, OK thanks. I agree that UFC, as a primary and non-independent source, would be better-avoided; I'm not sure about the relative merits of ESPN and Sherdog, but a good-faith newb who comes along and changes a value based on one or other of those shouldn't be bitten - they should be politely pointed towards an established consensus to use Sherdog in preference over those sources. You might also want to put an edit notice in the infobox template, making that point clear to newbs. That is definitely something that could be done at WikiProject MMA.

So - I don't mind if there there is some general agreement that Sherdog's stats be used in favour of UFC's and/or ESPN's. In this case though, where UFC and ESPN and BoxRec and the Guardian and NBC all say one thing, I can't see a rationale for using a different figure just because it's from Sherdog. Would you be content to draw a line under this particular case, and call it consensus to leave the figures as they are now? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, The RSD is still open, could we wait until when it is closed? As of now, I am not changing anything on the height of McGregor page. By the way, jus to let you know that there is another editing warring which link this this incident - see here, where the height info is per Fox - see here where Fox was the broacaster for UFC events for 5 years before ESPN took over, and I believe the info was collected during the time they have contract with ESPN so in a way is not independent source. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I'm happy to leave this thread open until the RfC at RSN is closed. I see that editor has been blocked for editing warring already - let me know if they cause any disruption after the block expires. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello , fellow editors we shall have Conor’s height at 5’8 . Reason being is simply that we as mma Wikipedia editors should follow Sherdog with its listing , we will continue to have Sherdog sources even tho some other sources might be more “accurate” but we shall have one source that links all mma pages to avoid edit warring . I know it’s not relevant to bring in other articles in Conor’s talk page but please understand this , one of the first pages we had a problem like this Rise was the Dan Henderson height war . It kept on going until someone had reached the consensus to add a note and explain the difference between those pesky 2 inches (5’11 or 6’1) . I did the exact same thing here . Had 5’8 as his height, but then added a very neat note I shall say on why we used 5’8 and furthermore, Made it clear that 5’9 is used by the ufc and linked the secondary sources past editors have got. I am doing everything I got not to start an edit war but some users without naming them , keep on reverting with not answers and not even a discussion , this goes against the core points to be a good Wikipedia editor.point is I am trying to convince you editors to keep 5’8 with note next to it for all readers to know why we listed him at 5’8 in Wikipedia. One point I should mention is that notes are an excellent way to avoid edit wars . In the end we as wiki editors have the same goal . To make articles more accurate and reliable thanks Wikiman122112 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreal controversies

Three events—Corsica arrest, Dublin sexual assault allegations, and Driving offences—should be removed from Controversy section. These three are non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a yard to dump every events related to the person, nor does it serves the purpose of a newspaper or gossip column.

Corsica arrest – Anyone can file case against anyone. Police questions them and either charge or release them, it's procedural. This case was bogus, most probably a publicity stunt. Some losers just want to see their name along with the celebrity's name to make their pathetic life meaningful. This happens to celebrities, and it gets reported in the media due to its sensational value. In the eyes of encyclopedia, it has zero value, because news/magazines and encyclopedia has different purpose.

Dublin sexual assault allegations – This reads like a newspaper report. No significance other than the news value. Again, anyone can allege anything against anyone. It can also be a defamation attempt. Is it encyclopedic enough to "report" it in an encyclopedia? WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM.

Driving offences – This happens to almost everyone, most of us have remitted traffic fines. It is run-of-the-mill. When did this became encyclopedic, because he's a celebrity? For a news agency, it is a "content", but an encyclopedia has a different definition for a content.

Excessive dumping of these kind of stuff effects the WP:NPOV of the article, can't blame if someone doubts if there is defamation attempt going on. I also strongly recommend changing the section heading, Controversies, as per WP:CRITS, and incorporate the content into respective sections.--2409:4073:18C:5EB7:BDDF:A40E:1638:DD24 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to log in. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

New height edit with note

The height is 5’8 since his Sherdog listing says it . Sherdog according to wiki editors is the most trusted reliable source , 5’9 in the notes anyways so why revert it . It’s in the notes and the sources that support it are there . Don’t see why would you feel the need to revert . It’s the same situation with Dan Henderson’s height . It’s better to have a note with all possible reliable sources and avoid an edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You previously argued against the use of Sherdog in the face of other more reliable sources (diff). You were blocked for edit warring to remove Sherdog, and now you're edit warring to include it. This seems very WP:POINTy.

Consensus was reached for Conor McGregor. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources list McGregor as 5'9. Your logic that the note is to avoid an edit war is quite ironic; the edit wars had stopped until you began to edit war it back lol – ².O.^Boxing 11:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

if Sherdog is not the reliable source as you people mention, then why have tony Ferguson’s height listed at 6’0 when his real height is 5’11 according to the ufc and other secondary sources you used , same thing with Dan Henderson. This confusion keeps running wild through wikis. You will list Conor at 5’9 and avoid his sherdog source listing and get Tony’s 6’0 Sherdog listing and ignore the efforts I made to have his real height of 5’11 reverted each time. Nothing personal but you should make your mind . Sherdog source or secondary sources . Really confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs)

I haven't done anything of the sort. I'm simply maintaining the agreed upon version of this article. Your comment above just confirms your edits are WP:POINTy and therefore disruptive. The consensus that was reached here has no effect on other articles. If you have an issue with content on other articles then you should raise those concerns at the relevant talk pages. – ².O.^Boxing 12:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(after EC) Thank you for engaging here. Please sign your contributions using four tildes ("~~~~"). Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS. There is a lenghty discussion just two sections above which arrived at the current consensus, i.e., list height as 5 ft 9, using CBS and the UK Independent as sources. Until consensus changes, that is what the page will use. You don't get to force through your preferred version while claiming "consensus can change", without having achieved that change. What other articles use as sources is irrelevant to this article and there is no onus on editors to only use one source - especially where that source is contradicted by other reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Why won’t you accept the new edit , it’s very neat , informative and Simple . It includes all three reliable sources that are eligible to make it for this article . Check it out and write back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And just realized that you call the edits distruptive . That is no such thing . I hate to break it to you but distruptive edits are edits with no sources and no info , usually really bad . Mine on the other hand as a whole note with all three reliable sources. If Sherdog is not the reliable source then please , feel free to revert Tony’s height and Dan Henderson’s height , as both use Sherdog sources ;) . Btw this edit is the same method that has been used in the Dan Henderson article .it seems to be the best option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You should revert your edit, which clearly goes against consensus and this (pointless) discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You did that after the warnings, and requests from editors above? I guess some people just won't accept advice. Self-inflicted block incoming... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am pushing in for you a new consensus, lol it won’t make sense if I had deleted or reverted my own edit . Nedochan you were the one who reverted my edits and note on the Tony article . You won’t take Sherdog as the reliable source here but there you will definitely take it , smh it doesn’t make sense , besides I was waiting for you to respond back on the talk page to reach a new consensus there too. But sadly you have engaged in a edit war instead , very smart move my fellow wiki editor. And remember consensus can always be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bastun that was not a revert, it’s a whole new edit with a new note , check it out before commenting . I know you love your fellow Irishman and want him to look tall , but a new consensus shall rise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello , fellow editors we shall have Conor’s height at 5’8 . Reason being is simply that we as mma Wikipedia editors should follow Sherdog with its listing , we will continue to have Sherdog sources even tho some other sources might be more “accurate” but we shall have one source that links all mma pages to avoid edit warring . I know it’s not relevant to bring in other articles in Conor’s talk page but please understand this , one of the first pages we had a problem like this Rise was the Dan Henderson height war . It kept on going until someone had reached the consensus to add a note and explain the difference between those pesky 2 inches (5’11 or 6’1) . I did the exact same thing here . Had 5’8 as his height, but then added a very neat note I shall say on why we used 5’8 and furthermore, Made it clear that 5’9 is used by the ufc and linked the secondary sources past editors have got. I am doing everything I got not to start an edit war but some users without naming them , keep on reverting with not answers and not even a discussion , this goes against the core points to be a good Wikipedia editor.point is I am trying to convince you editors to keep 5’8 with note next to it for all readers to know why we listed him at 5’8 in Wikipedia. One point I should mention is that notes are an excellent way to avoid edit wars . In the end we as wiki editors have the same goal . To make articles more accurate and reliable thanks Wikiman122112 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we shall not have his height as 5'8. What has happened on other articles is completely irrelevant. Consensus was reached to use 5'9, here, supported by the reliable sources provided. Consensus is not a case of "well I like it like this, so everybody needs to stop reverting me and establish a consensus against my edit". On the contrary, you need to establish a consensus to have your edit included. – ².O.^Boxing 14:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is more irrelevant than you repeating yourself and saying consensus “has been reached” , I hope you know that consensus can change ? And I suggest you Stop being too emotional and talk like a grown up , you should discuss with me like a good natured wiki editor. Or I will probably end up reporting you . Now let’s focus on the main points , I said time and time again , with this note his 5 ft 9 height that you seem to be dying about is included , you are acting a bit too uncooperative I shall say . And funny you mention that . Consensus is not a case of "well I like it like this, so everybody needs to stop reverting me and establish a consensus against my edit". Because that is exactly how you were acting before the 5’9 consensus was made lol . Anyways I included a note and it has just about everything in it Wikiman122112 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, mind the WP:Personal attacks. Secondly, nothing is more relevant than stating the current consensus. Consensus can indeed change, but until it does, you must adhere to the current consensus. Thirdly, I'm the editor who provided the sources that were used to change McGregor's height to 5'9. So, no, I was not acting in the same manner you currently are. Lastly, the only argument you've made for including this note is to prevent edit wars. The only edit wars that have occurred since the consensus to list 5'9 was achieved...have been initiated by you. So that argument died before you even made it lol I'm now disengaging from this attempt at "consensus" unless you provide some logical arguments in favour of your edit. – ².O.^Boxing 14:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m thankful That this discussion doesn’t just revolve around you XD , and I’m glad that you are the one that brought those 2 sources to the previous consensus, now that you know what I am going to do next you shouldn’t be surprised. I will add the 5’8 listing and also in a note add YOUR 2 sources . So in a way i am just doing my job as a wiki editor and getting all possible reliable sources in the article and putting Sherdog first as it’s the most reliable one according to wiki editors Wikiman122112 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you're not, you're edit warring against consensus - three editors in this section disagree with you and have reverted you. There is clear consensus in the section two sections above, with even more editors, including admins, involved. Stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

McGregor is now conducting a Q&A session in Twitter. Just ask himself, the tag is "#AskNotorious". Instead of directly asking 5'8 or 5'9, just tell him there's uncertainty on his height listed on various websites, so if you could reveal your height it would be a problem solver. 2409:4073:11F:43E8:9075:60BE:AD52:BE9C (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we use reliable third-party sources, per policy - WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS all apply. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ranking

Moved here from my talk page:
Good day, I am the one who updating the UFC ranking on fighters pages every week. As of October 26, McGregor already ranked as per "As of 26 October 2020, he is ranked number 11 in the UFC men's pound-for-pound rankings and number 4 in the UFC lightweight rankings." - see UFC ranking on Nov 2, 2020 there is no changes of McGregor ranking. Kindly self revert. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No. What? This request makes no sense. Revert to say "As of 26 October..." when the reference page has since been updated and is dated 2 November? So, you're reverting someone keeping a page up-to-date; and posting on an editor's talk page, telling me to self-revert to display incorrect information? No, why would I do that?! This is exactly the kind of ownership and gatekeeping that's been called out in discussions above and in other venues, and may well help explain why the MMA wikiproject is so moribund. Please cop on to yourself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Bastun Good day. I update all the changes of the UFC ranking every week as per info from UFC either on late Tuesday or early Wednesday when UFC update the ranking every Tuesday (US time). If there is a movement in the ranking (up or down) then, we change the "As of xxx date" and the ranking #. If not the date and the ranking stay the same. On October 26, 2020 there was a movement in McGregor ranking but not in November 2, 2020 - see here (Since to today is Monday and if you check on Tuesday, the ranking might be update), for such we dont change the date from October 26 to November 2 since there is no movement. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that explanation makes sense. The prior one didn't - at least, to me. There's still no need to self-revert, though, as the edit is still correct - as of 2nd November, McGregor was ranked as per the reference updated on 2nd November. I won't update rankings in future, though, unless there's an obvious error. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Bastun Good day and thank you for your understanding. The ranking started on October 26, 2020 as per source which it matters on two counts - the total days as per ranking at the moment is shorten by a week and second, the current "As of November 2, 2020 is not supported and verify by source which should be October 26, 2020 for there is not ranking movement (up or down) of the subject. Stay safe Bastun and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The "total days at ranking" is not recorded on the page, though; and the current wording is supported by the source, which showed 2 November until yesterday, when it was changed to 9 November, and not 26 October. If what I think you're trying to do is use that ranking page as a running total of days at those rankings, the prose text in both the article and the source would need to reflect that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bastun The point here is verifiability. As you as the new page reviewer would know November 2 version does not reflect/verify the "As of xxx date" of the ranking which in turn would let the reader know "since when which means how long it has been" the ranking stands. It is a simple core Wikipedia of WP:PROVEIT for Nov 2 doest not reflect that. Thank you.22:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

...I... I am at a loss here. Maybe it's a language thing? I genuinely no longer have any idea what it is you're trying to do now, or why. GirthSummit, could you have a look here? My understanding is as follows: https://www.ufc.com/rankings lists the rankings of top UFC athletes in various weight categories and an 'overall' pound-for-pound category. It gets updated regularly. The last three updates were October 26, November 2, and November 9. On (IIRC) November 5, I updated the text in the lede and the reference to read "November 2" instead of "October 26" as the ranking page had been updated on November 2 and no longer made mention anywhere of October 26. What I think is at issue is this was apparently a big no-no, because even though no such claim is made anywhere in this article and no such claim is made anywhere on that UFC rankings page, what we were supposed to infer from the sentence "As of 26 October 2020, he is ranked number 11 in the UFC men's pound-for-pound rankings and number 4 in the UFC lightweight rankings." is possibly that McGregor has been ranked number 4 and number 11 for X number of days? And my changing the text to match the reference somehow broke this? That's all I can get from the entry above at 09:17 today. If, on the other hand, the point here is verifiability, then October 26 was out of date per the reference and needed to be changed to November 2. WP:V. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bastun I understand you are on how the UFC.com ranking page works. The page as I mentioned would update on, usually Tuesday, if there was an event the weekend follow. UFC does not make a "new ranking web page" every week when they update the ranking, instead, UFC would update the page (reference date could be found on the bottom right corner - see here - which today it stated November 9, 2020. So whenever a reader click on the ranking page it will see the current page and the previous page no longer available as oppose to Sherdog ranking which they make each week ranking a different web bad (URL) That is the reason why the ranking movement is there for to indicate when/since when the ranking is set. As you have notice November 2, or November 9 there is not ranking movement on the subject. You could verify the URL (UFC ranking page) next week where the same URL will be used by UFC but the ranking of certain fighters would changed. I have update all the UFC fighters ranking every week for more around 2 years now that is the reason how I found out. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Father: Khabib Nurmagomedov

https://www.news18.com/news/sports/conor-mcgregor-mourns-the-death-of-rival-khabib-nurmagomedovs-father-abdulmanap-2700409.html Junnieboy178 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The source clearly states that this is the father of one of McGregor's rivals... Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Weight - January 22 2021

Hi all. Sherdog has yet to update CM's weight and it seems unusual to have a different weight from what's just been confirmed in an enormous week. The page will probably be viewed a lot so should clearly reflect today. I have given ESPN as the source. Happy to discuss any issues here but feel confident this is the appropriate course of action.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

no one agrees with you. the weight will stay 170 till they change it , follow sherdog and stop making your own rules Legendstreak0 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as for now it is 170 and it shall be that way till Sherdog turn it to 155, thanks Usr29810 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ESPN is a reliable source. If they've recently updated, and sherdog haven't, use ESPN. No brainer. The other commenters may want to check WP:RS and WP:IAR and read the discussions above... Wasn't there also a RFC on using sherdog only, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)