User talk:Drumangelo

Welcome!

Hi Drumangelo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 21:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Leon Edwards, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 03:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have also fixed the Leon Edwards contribution with the citations from mmafighting.com Drumangelo (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Robbie Lawler, you may be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia talk 03:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I have fixed the Robbie Lawler contribution and added the Dana White Youtube citation. Drumangelo (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drumangelo, Good day. I have reverted your Robbie Lawler edits as 1. Utube (and all social media source) are considered not reliable, 2. Dana White is associate with the subject for such it is not an independent source and 3. not all info even it is supported by independent, reliable sources should be added to Wikipedia articles they have significant impact/important to the subject (such as the edits you made on Leon Edward article which I have also reverted), as Wikipedia is an enclyopedia. Cassiopeia talk 01:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

MMA related articles

Greetings. Since you have edited a number of pages of MMA related articles in Wikipedia, pls see the below info so you may understand how things work here.

MMA Info

1. Pls visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and read through the MMA Wikipedia guidelines.
2. When a bout is announced which stating "finalizing, in work, rumors, verbally agreed,  in the press, this means the bout is not official yet. Wait until it official before place it under the "Announced bouts" section of the event page.
3. When a bout is announced in the press, editors put the match up in the  "Announced bouts" section (inline citation is needed)
4. When UFC.com / its local web site (pls check the reference beneath the fight card table in the Wikipedia page), the editors would remove the bout in the "Announced bouts" and place it in the "fight card" section.
5. When a fighter pulls from a fight (due to injury/or by UFC/ visa issues and etc), we placed the info in the "Background section" (inline citation needed) and remove the injured fighter name and put "TBD".
6. When a injured fighter has been replaced, editor put the info in the background section (with inline citation). If the new match up has not been shown in the UFC.com fight card, then we will removed the match up from the fight card and place it back to "Announced section". If the match up already shown in the UFC.com then jut put the replacement fighter in the fight card section.
7. When the event named has been announced (such as UFC Fight Night: dos Santos vs. Tuivasa) then we place the info in the background section (with inline citation). If UFC.com has shown the event names (Fight Night events or UFC on ESPN) such as UFC Fight Night: Cowboy vs. Medeiros or UFC on ESPN: Reyes vs. Weidman, then editor would move the article and article talk page name accordingly and not before, except the flagship event such as UFC 187, UFC 242 and etc.
8. No colour box in the fighter's page infobox at event fight card page. No title eliminator in the fight card or body text in fighter page or event page. No (c) - champion on the event fight card unless the fighter is the current champion of the weight division.
9. "method" in the fight table is as per Sherdog.com as per WP:MMA guideline and please do not interpret the method yourself even if the method is incorrect as Wikipedia is all about WP:verification and not the true.

1. Info box as per Sherdog. No other nick names or else we would have many nicknames pop up every time there is a internet meme.
2. Reach as per UFC.com as Sherdog dont have the info. Pls provide inline citation.
3. Stand - need to provide inline citation. IF you can find source to support it, leave it blank
4. 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." Leave style for modern mma fighter as they have to train several combat disciplines.
5. No Flag icon on info box or fight table.
6. Info could be obtain from Sherdog on Info box - need to support by sources such as teachers, belts, notable relatives, university, occupation outside fighting career and etc.

General info

1. Pls read referencing to understand about referencing and how to provide inline citation.
2. Leave a brief edit summary before saving you edit, so other editors know the nature of your edit for Wikipedia is the collaboration work from many editors.
3. To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Ping|Cassiopeia}}. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).

If you have any assistance, pop by my talk page as I am here to help. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Graphic design, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Aoidh (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Could you please tell me why you don't think this blog post: https://sunlightmedia.org/graphic-design-trends/

is a good resource for the Graphic Design page in terms of the future of graphic design?

Do you feel its irrelevant, inappropriate, poorly written or something else?

FYI - Im very familiar with nofollow tags and my intention is not to alter search engine rankings. My intention is to provide a good resource on the topic that users can read if they wish.

I look forward to your feedback.

Angelo. Drumangelo (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, it is a blog post (WP:SPS) on a website that exists to sell a service. It is not acceptable as a reliable source, and is not a "good resource on the topic" in any way. Whether it is the intention or not, adding these types of links across various articles gives the appearance of promoting the website(s) and attempting to drive traffic to that website which, again, exists to sell a service. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Aoidh,

Thank you for your diligence and detailed feedback regarding my inclusion of the resource from sunlightmedia.org. I understand and respect your concerns about the integrity of Wikipedia content and the need to avoid any appearance of promoting commercial websites. However, I would like to bring to your attention a few points that might suggest a different perspective on the resource in question.

Sunlightmedia.org is a website that commands a fair degree of authority in the digital marketing realm, as indicated by its MOZ Domain Authority score of 36. It has over 17,000 backlinks, including those from reputable .gov and .edu domains, lending to its credibility. In terms of user traffic, the site receives roughly 10,000 unique visitors each month, primarily seeking information related to digital marketing. These metrics seem to suggest that the website is considered a reliable source of information by many.

I would also like to highlight the clear distinction on the website between their service offerings and their blog content. The blog is housed separately from the service pages, with no direct call-to-actions or inquiry forms linked to their services on the blog pages. The primary purpose of the blog appears to be sharing valuable information on topics related to digital marketing.

In comparing this with other resources listed, I noticed that links 47 and 43 in graphic design references are directing to dead pages, with the latter also associated with a site that sells learning/training services. This suggests that there may be room for a broader perspective on what constitutes a suitable reference, especially when the resource is providing value to our readers.

My intent is not to argue but rather to present a case for reconsideration based on the merits of the content in the context of the overall purpose of Wikipedia - providing reliable, useful information to the public. I fully acknowledge that final decisions on content rest with admins such as yourself, and I am grateful for your time and effort in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia content.

Humbly, I would appreciate it if you might reconsider the inclusion of the sunlightmedia.org resource in light of these points. I apologize if my previous actions caused any concern, and I assure you that my aim is only to enhance the quality and reliability of information on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your understanding and your work in maintaining the integrity of our shared knowledge base.

Sincerely,

Angelo Frisina. Drumangelo (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sunlightmedia.org is a website that commands a fair degree of authority in the digital marketing realm does not make it a reliable source. Backlinks and user traffic do not make a source reliable. Mentioning the MOZ domain authority ranking (which is fairly low) actually highlights how inappropriate adding this is; why would its ability to manipulate search engine rankings have anything to do with its appropriateness as a reliable source, if it wasn't being added solely to drive traffic to its website? The comment about the clear distinction on the website between their service offerings and their blog content is not borne out by a simple glance at the blog in question. The banner at the top of the page is very much about their services, and their very first link within the blog itself leads here. That's not separate, the blog is a thinly veiled advertisement for its services. Also, how do you know how many unique visitors the website has each month? Is there a publicly available website that provides those metrics? - Aoidh (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)