| Revision as of 05:15, 28 June 2009 editSea888 (talk | contribs)1,346 edits →ANI← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:15, 28 June 2009 edit undoSea888 (talk | contribs)1,346 edits →Strikeforce, againNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Strikeforce, again == | |||
| Why did you do a complete revert? You rationale "it is better to chronologize this way, all under history" does not make any sense. Everything ''is'' categorized under history. They was it is now is horrible since almost everything is copy-pasted. Strikeforce on NBC is basically introduced three times, and the rating comparison with Kimmel and Late Show is there twice. The "Strikeforce on Showtime" section is pretty much a copy-pasted press release (which marketing-speak is completly innapropriate for an encyclopedia), mentioning even-results out of the blue etc. The CBS deal is also mentioned ''three'' times? WTF? --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you talking about when it comes to chronology? My version had origin -> NBC deal -> Showtime/CBS -> Womens MMA, which seems pretty chronological to me. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And again, you ''can't'' copy-past material such as you did in . It does not matter if it's attributed, it's still copyright violation. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No you haven't "rewritten everything". You've changed a few words which isn't enough. There is still entire sentences verbatim from the sources. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I ''did'' help. I retold all the relevant material in my own words, removing all the unreleated ] in the original press-release. I don't know what to tell you. We're not here to tell everyone how awesome Shamrock-Lee and Shamrock-Baroni was, so everyone should check Strikeforce out not that they're on Showtime. We're here to report the facts. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| What's the point of ? "''Strikeforce started as a California based organization that grew to a United States based organization''"? WTF? Why are this written ''again''? The entire paragraph makes no sense. It tells you nothing new (it's origin is already in the article, ''in the proper place'') and that they had an event at the Playboy mantion can be seen in the "event"-section. The original paraghrah that I removed as copyvio told you they created a HW-title, which is relevant and should be mentioned in a history-section, but this serves no purpose. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Awesome, that's one step in the right direction at least. Now, let me ask you something; this is the section in the article now: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The first ever weekly mixed-martial-arts program on major U.S. network television aired on Saturday, April 12, 2008 with the debut of "Strikeforce on NBC". Strikeforce took the leap from the bay area in California to national television with the organization’s new weekly televised event late on NBC. It was the first ever weekly mixed martial arts cage fight program on one of the four major national television networks in the U.S and topped the average ratings of both ABC;s Jimmy Kimmel Live and CBS's Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, both of which air several hours earlier during weeknights, in the 18-34 year old male category of viewers during the week of May 5, 2008. The overall viewership of Strikeforce on NBC, which airs immediately following Poker After Dark on Saturday nights has increased by 197%, from 319,000 to 949,000, including a 58% spike from 602,000 to 949,000. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ... and this is the one in my revision of the article that you removed: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| In March 2008, Strikeforce announced it had partnered with NBC to broadcast a weekly highlight and fighter-profile series, Strikeforce on NBC, from Saturday April 12. The program was the first of its kind on a major broadcast network in the US. It's May 5 broadcast drew a .5 rating in the 18-34 year old male category, a rating topping that week's average ratings of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live in four out of five nights (while tieing in the fifth), beating CBS's The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson all five weeknights, and also tieing the Thursday and Friday night ratings of The Late Show With David Letterman in the same demographic group. Strikeforce also reported that the overall viewership of the program had increased by 197%, from 319,000 to 949,000, including a 58% spike from 602,000 to 949,000. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Which do you prefer? Which one do you think is written in the most objective, netural point of view? Do you have any major problem with my revision? I'm asking because you must have since you completly disregarded it. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Things to note: the sentence "''the first ever weekly mixed martial arts cage fight program on one of the four major national television networks in the U.S and topped the average ratings of both ABC;s Jimmy Kimmel Live and CBS's Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, both of which air several hours earlier during weeknights, in the 18-34 year old male category of viewers during the week of May 5, 2008''" is verbatim from . --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 04:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "''Great. But facts are facts too. This page needs to seriously be expanded even more.''", yes it does but that does mean it is OK to copy-paste from press releases and steal from other websites. Those are problems in themselves, but by doing so you ''also'' get problems with keeping to a neutral point of view (press releases are by definition promotional) and to keep a nice flow withing the page without duplicated info all over the place. In my opinion, I fixed all the issues the page had (with the info it had, there's naturally more info to be included) when I rewrote the info in a neutral and objective point of view while also avoing all the previously mentioned problems. And what do you do? You revert for no obvious reason (that the Showtime-deal should have its own paragraph is no reason to revert everything. That's a small fix from my revision, not something necessitating restoring a whole bunch of serious content-problems). Can you see why I have a problem with that? I want Strikeforce to have a proper article as well, but a proper article does not include copyrighted material and non-neutral/promotional-only material from press releases. --] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||