This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Mixed martial arts This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mixed martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Mixed martial artsmixed martial arts

Mark Coleman vs. Minowaman? Where on earth did whoever put it get that from!

It's fake (pinchet (talk)23:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think anybody noticed but the date for this event is on a Sunday and its supposed to be Saturday, so either the 20th or the 27th would be right.Trunks8719 (talk)18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice... Now a trolling editor has decided to make this France versus Japan.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.106.134.43 (talk)02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The troll is back. Its amazing how pathetic some people are. They actually amuse themselves by being total imbeciles and making fake edits.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.106.134.43 (talk)04:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go with more tiresome Silva vs. Bisping reverts from the IPs. Ok, as of this moment, the fight is only verbally agreed to, therefore it will not be added to the page.We;ve heard reports of Silva vs. Bisping or Akiyama. It could be either at this point. The Akiyama fight is rumoured to be off, but not definitely. Can the IPs stop changing the page. Thank you.Paralympiakos (talk)23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From www.MMAweekly.com : "Wanderlei Silva and Michael Bisping have verbally agreed to meet at UFC 110, MMAWeekly.com confirmed Tuesday evening with sources close to the fight.

The news was first reported Monday by Fighters Only."

[Source]http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=10091&zoneid=13

please update (new user, can't do it myself)—Precedingunsigned comment added byCedwa38 (talk •contribs)00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain to other users, I responded to this user explaining that verbal confirmation is not valid for wiki. The match actually needs to be signed for, not agreed to. Until we have more solid confirmation on the fight (not just new sources quoting the original source), Bisping will be removed each time as that fight is not valid.Paralympiakos (talk)00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was announced on ESPN's MMA live programme tonight that Wanderlei Silva will 100% fight Michael Bisping, confirmed by Spike TV—Precedingunsigned comment added by89.241.242.227 (talk)01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got an internet source? Your tv source is most likely based on the verbal agreement news, so until we see a reliable source that suggests the fight is signed for, it's not going up.Paralympiakos (talk)01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlei Silva himself has now confirmed Bisping as his new opponent, so I have added the bout.(Justinsane15 (talk)22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not going to remove because at least it is you, an anti-vandal, adding it and not an IP, but according to fighters only, Wandy says that he thinks Bisping has also agreed to the bout. It's still only a verbal agreement, not a fight contractual signing.Paralympiakos (talk)23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, although in this case where it seems that both Silva and Bisping are publically coming out and acknowleding the fight, I believe we can state that it has been finalized (just as Silva/Akiyama was finalized before the UFC decided to change plans). IMO the fight is more confirmed than Velasquez/Nogueira which is only being targeted for this card.(Justinsane15 (talk)05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I agree about Nog/Cain. There's a fair few fights across wikipedia, that I would remove, but it would just revert to a pointless edit war with multiple IPs who cannot read the background. The whole method of adding fights to wiki needs an overhaul, in my opinion.Paralympiakos (talk)14:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with that (Justinsane15 (talk)19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

source:http://www.mmaforreal.com/2009/11/26/1174951/nogueira-vs-velasquez-reportedly76.110.128.158 (talk)03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for further confirmation. The bout makes sense given the Silva/Belfort cancellation, but that could just be kneejerk newsreporting by rumour mongers.Paralympiakos (talk)03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightweight boutGeorge Sotiropoulos vs.Joe Stevenson^[1]

Please add this onto the page. Its a rumored bout between them.

Rumoured therefore shouldn't be on the page—Precedingunsigned comment added byParalympiakos (talk •contribs)17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given advice, yet you've chosen to delete it and add the fight regardless? Why?Paralympiakos (talk)22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering that is done with other UFC events when the plannning is preliminary yes. They usually say rumored match ups when the bout agreements have been sent but not signed. I have seen it many times .Then when bout agreements are signed they move it into the announced match ups category. It lets people know what likely matchups are on the card. I have sources from MMAweekly and fiveknuckles talking about the bout.

Well considering it's the vandals that add "Rumoured matchups" sections to UFC pages.....

That's not the "done practice" here.Paralympiakos (talk)22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it how is it vandalism to add that onto the page to let people know likely bouts that will take place? That's why it is good to have a seperate section that says rumored matchups so people know it is not finalized, but likely to occur. It is more convenient for fans so they can come here and know about the card, and then if they can visit the source to actually read the article if they prefer.Hendo92—Precedingundated comment added23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How about I add it into the body of the article like how they have rich franklin and keith jardine as a rumored matchup as well. That way it is still on the page.—Precedingunsigned comment added byHendo92 (talk •contribs)23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of that practice, but it's preferable to having it as a "rumoured" matchups section. The reason that I and some other users are so against it is that many of these "rumoured" matchups are subject to change frequently as is happening a lot in the UFC lately.Paralympiakos (talk)23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but remember this is an Encyclopedia =P (Justinsane15 (talk)18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't quite follow. What did you mean by that?Paralympiakos (talk)18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that rumours don't exactly meet the classic definition of an encyclopedia... (Justinsane15 (talk)18:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, I see. I got really confused and thought you were advocating rumours :SParalympiakos (talk)18:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all Upcoming MMA Events (especially the UFC ones) should have at minimum semi-protection to prevent all the IP vandalism. I have requested this page for semi-protection.(Justinsane15 (talk)19:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good; though I will say that this page has had protection twice and other pages have had protection lately.Paralympiakos (talk)20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page got 3 day protection this time, we will see what happens after that lol (Justinsane15 (talk)20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is a good argument.George Sotiropoulos did say after his fight atUFC 106 that he wanted to fight here, so why was it removed, i'll never know. (C.m1994 (talk) 6:43, 30 November 2009 (EST))

Just because George WANTS a fight in Australia doesn't mean it's going to happen. For now, it isn't signed for, so it shouldn't go up.Paralympiakos (talk)01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking about? (C.m1994 (talk) 4:19, 2 December 2009 (EST))

Why do you keep deleting the Shivers vs. Pudzianowski? It isn't listed a confirmed fight and a posted a source.—Precedingunsigned comment added byPull lead (talk •contribs)18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're the person who keeps re-adding the fight. Neither man is with UFC and the forum post was someone asking for the fight to happen, not that it is going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if the forum OP is you. Stop readding it.Paralympiakos (talk)18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Listen guys, the event takes place on Sunday the 21st Feb live in Sydney. It airs in the US on the 20th because of the time difference, but the actual live date of the event is Sunday the 21st, so stop changing it.—Precedingunsigned comment added by60.241.35.92 (talk)16:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event is on the 20th, Even the ufc website says the event is on the 20thhttp://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail.Home&eid=2628. I changed it to allign with the date that UFC says it's on.--219.90.217.250 (talk)18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL i also just noticed that the poster in the info box also says the 20th:).--219.90.217.250 (talk)18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correct date is Sunday the 21st as that's what the date will be in Sydney where the event is actually taking place. The poster and the UFC website says the 20th because that's when it airs in the US. If there's a soccer match in Australia on February the 2nd and it's shown live in the US, the air date in the US would be the 1st but for all intents and purposes the match actually took place on the 2nd because that's the date of the location where the match actually took place. Same thing here. Stop changing it to the 20th, because it's incorrect. Thanks.—Precedingunsigned comment added by60.241.35.92 (talk)18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me, check my IP, I AM from Australia, the 20th is on saturday. LOL you are wrong with everything you have said. I am going to get a mod to sort this out as you are too retarded to communicate with.--219.90.217.250 (talk)19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys ....so from what i see its on the 20th ...here at wiki we would prefer to see the date that is used to promote the event and best to use the date that the host country is using ..I mean its the 20th when it is being aired live right???...Buzzzsherman (talk)19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, its an event and so the date of the event will be the one included. As the event goes out in the afternoon of the 21st, that will be the date added here.Paralympiakos (talk)19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok so your saying its tape on the 20th and aired on the 21st???...Or its just all done on the 21 ??..what i am asking ..is to see it live ...you would see it when?? and then on TV when??Buzzzsherman (talk)19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, that was frustrating. I've had to type this out 4 times now. Stop making constant edits please; its frustrating to see "someone has already edited since you started"

The event takes place midday 21st in Australia. Because of timezone, that means it airs in US at 10pm on 20th Feb. However, the Aussies get it live too and that's on 21st. As this is where the event emanates, this will be the date for this page.Paralympiakos (talk)19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that sounds all ok to me...lets called this resolved...Buzzzsherman (talk)19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is going down hill I remember editing here a couple of years ago and references (sources) were paramount to making claims. Why can't wikipedia say something like 20th in the US and 21st in Australia I mean adding both dates to keep everyone happy.--219.90.217.250 (talk)20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well if thats the case, why cant we have uk air dates? pointlessness.Paralympiakos (talk)20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

guys make a section with all the air dates times etc....Buzzzsherman (talk)20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Paralympiakos, I only proposed that because the promotion date is that of the US (20th)--219.90.217.250 (talk)20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving this. Like I said, the event takes place in Sydney on Sunday the 21st and the event poster says the 20th because it'sAMERICAN and airs in the US on the 20th because of the time difference. I thought that was pretty self explanitory.—Precedingunsigned comment added by60.241.35.92 (talk)02:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this matter has been resolved, but IPs are still changing the date. As such, I've added a statement about this event taking place in the afternoon to satisfy the US timezone. I need someone to place the proper time in, because atm, I've had to place a^[when?] tag as I don't know the exact start time of the main card.Paralympiakos (talk)16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Soszynski's flag should be "CAN" because according to his wikipedia page, he's Polish Canadian and fighting out of Canada. (see discussion above about Bisping)—Precedingunsigned comment added by128.214.205.5 (talk)17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's called the "Polish Experiment"

Says enough to me.Paralympiakos (talk)18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says enough in what way? Why are you both reverting without proper discussion?NJA(t/c)08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this flag change happens all the time despite the fact that he's Polish-Canadian.

The guy was born in Poland, to Polish parents; lived in Poland for 10 years and then moved to Canada. He's only "Canadian" through living there, not through being born there or having Canadian parents. Also, as he's nicknamed himself "The Polish Experiment" that would tend to suggest to me that he's referring to himself as Polish, otherwise he'd call himself "The Canadian Experiment."Paralympiakos (talk)16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   * Heavyweight Bout: United States Joey Beltran vs. Australia Brad Morris   * Heavyweight Bout: United States Roy Nelson vs. England Neil Wain

Pretty sure these two didn't occur?202.20.0.29 (talk)02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are they necessary in all UFC events?†Bloodpack†04:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class mixed martial arts articles