User talk:PicturePerfect666

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is PicturePerfect666's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, PicturePerfect666, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius (August 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PicturePerfect666! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius.webp[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius.webp. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at deletion[edit]

You seem to have attempted to create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius, but the attempt has failed. Instead you created a page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Notes, which I have deleted because it was botched. It appears that you were attempting to create a deletion discussion for Draft:Anthony Joshua vs Robert Helenius. Since you have also created Anthony Joshua vs. Robert Helenius, I have changed the draft page to a redirect instead, which should take care of things. If you have any questions, I can be contacted at User talk:RL0919. RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Not sure how that happened, must be the complexities and getting to grips with things, being new round these parts. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you want to delete it, you can tag it with WP:G6. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and in future I will definitely look in to using that tag. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsored venue names[edit]

Greetings. Could we discuss your rationale for changing these to remove sponsorship? It's not that the sponsors are special or anything (nothing falls foul of WP:PROMO with their inclusion), but those venues went by those names at the time of the events, and the redirects work just fine.

Per MOS:BOXING/RECORD: "If a venue's name has since changed, use the name by which it was known at the time of the fight. There is usually no need to pipe link the current name, as Wikipedia's own redirect will usually handle it, or one can be manually created."

By "name by which it was known", that is to say, how mainstream media would've referred to it. Therefore SSE Arena Wembley is perfectly valid for inclusion, even though it may not be its absolute original sponsor-free name. Hope that helps. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, names change over and over and over. The sponsored corporate big bucks names are not the common names and are just outright confusing, unless they are the only name known by, such as the home of Bolton Wanderers. I mean I have no idea what the Phone 4 U Arena is but I instantly know what the Manchester Arena is. I have no idea what the SSE Wembley is. Is that Wembley Arena? as that is now called the OVO arena. The G-Tech Community Stadium, no idea what or where that is, oh wait that is the Brentford Community Stadium. Sponsored names unless unavoidable are completely and 100% more confusing as they keep on changing unless they are ubiquitous and only known by the sponsored name. For example Arena Birmingham, I would have had no idea what or where that was when it was listed as Barclaycard Arena. I mean is that even in the UK?

I understand that people are lazy and don't want to go back and change the names in the first place, but don't bother using them in the first place, where you have a common name. Names change due to big money changing hands all the time, but that just confuses people. When tournament names of sporting events change when a sponsor name happens Wikipedia doesn't change the name of the tournament it where possible uses the unsponsored name as that is the common name and the lineage is retained. I mean the stadiums themself are usually compliant with Wikipedia:Article titles. So why are in-article links not linking directly to the article title and creating unnecessary [[|]] creations in pages for example? Also, there is horrific over-linking that can occur when the same venue has different sponsor names and is blue-linked three, four or even five or more times, with different corporate names.

Come on this is silly, confusing, and more work. Just be simple and keep with the common name and the policy of article titles.

The use of sponsor names is just confusing and creates a barrier to understanding and a barrier to new users taking part or interacting. I would also like to point out that other sports such as football, rugby, cricket etc, follow the common name, and not confusing corporate names.

The guide seems to follow the United States model and only works for the United States as venues do not have unsponsored names, whereas in the UK the venues do have unsponsored names. An example is the Staples Centre which is known now as Crypto.com arena.

TL;DR - The guidance clearly only applies where the Common name policy does not apply. Retaining UK confusing corporate names is just very very silly. The guide clearly applies to the US where everything is nigh only only known by a corporate name alone. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make valid points, whether or not I agree with them. Could we copy this discussion to WikiProject Boxing so that it can be seen by the wider community? There may be scope to change the aforementioned element of MOS:BOXING, or leave it as it is, pending consensus. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the style essay to incorporate the need to follow Wikipedia policy on common names. This avoids all confusion and avoids all need for long-winded discussions which generally take up too much time where the solution is simple, just add a line on the common name policy needing to be followed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hang about, please. This could affect many hundreds of articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could but the articles have been wrong to begin with. The articles have been wrong for a while and there is a lot of reasons not to continue doing the wrong thing just because it's been going on for a long time. Moving forward it's simple, stop using confusing names of buildings and venues where the common name is simple and easily known. Keeping sponsored names, simply makes the project and boxing articles US-centric as that is a US way of carrying on. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD, this is veering into content dispute territory so needs further discussion. What's the rush? Reluctance to participate in discussion, especially if civilly invited, as well as changing an established local MOS without any discussion, isn't the best of form. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument apart from "This could affect many hundreds of articles"?

Errors need to be nixed before they get worse and continue to cause the issues raised above. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names of venues in Boxing[edit]

There is currently a discussion on my talk page, where I set out the reasons for change being needed and the issues witht he current US-centric approach to the use of the names of venues being the corporate names. Please contribute there and trwead the extensive issues raised. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the discussion to the project talk page and discuss your changes. – ².O.^Boxing 21:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need, the change is minor and the policies and purpose of wikipeida must be followed, an essay cannot override those things. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles, not content. It has no relevance. Propose your changes on the talk page. – ².O.^Boxing 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no need to write what I have in the essay, it is a given that policies and the purpose of Wikipedia are followed, the essay does though creates intentional confusion and is therefore deficient and bad as a result. I mean encouraging the creation of confusion and the encouragement of bad practices is to be avoided at all costs. How is this controversial in any way? What are the arguments for keeping this bad practice?

America does things one way Europe does things another way. The way things are done cannot only focus on the way things are done in America and must incorporate how things are done worldwide as boxing is worldwide not just American.

You keep saying common name just titles, which is cool and everything, but misses that the article title and the names used throughout Wikipedia to avoid confusion must match up. Or what is the point? The way things are being done by this odd and strawman distinction is to just sow confusion and cause difficulty to people who are not familiar with the corporate names of venues. I mean why is the corporate name used, on Wikipedia when not even the broadcasters or promoters of an event are using the corporate name? I mean never when watching a boxing match from Wembley Arena on PPV have I ever heard this as the SSE arena Wembley, I mean it is just Wembley arena.

TL;DR - The current carryon is confusing, and US-centric, it does not help users understand venues and does not benefit the purposes of Wikipedia as it creates and sows confusion.

What is the argument for the current way of doing things, which is not 'that is how it is always done' or 'it is used in a lot of articles'? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with policy. I haven't even said I disagree. Make a proposal for your changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing and wait for input. – ².O.^Boxing 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making sense, this is so uncontroversial and so simple. Why, If you do not agree with the current way things are being done, are you defending them? Improving Wikipedia is the goal, not getting bogged down in long protracted discussions which will invariably go off topic and become detailed or worse have no responses or end in circularity.

If you don't agree with the current carry on why are you defending it and preventing Wikipedia's improvement? Also, your line of 'this has nothing to do with policy', is another strawman, as everything on Wikipedia is about policy in one way or another.

Be bold and embrace improvement. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also draw your attention to WP:OTHERNAMES which states the following

Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.

So yes the common name does support the points I am making and does apply to this. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the ping for this so wasn't aware (not saying that I would have engaged much if I had), but could you please make your proposal at the relevant talk page. If you want to change existing guidance, it should be discussed on said talk page. There will be (a few) more eyes there so you'll likely get more input than having personal discussions on user talk pages anyway. – ².O.^Boxing 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Utilita Arena Birmingham[edit]

Can you explain why the article for Utilita Arena Birmingham is now Arena Birmingham? 96.227.141.216 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, the removal of a highly confusing corporate name, and replacing it with the common easily understood name is common sense, easier to understand and inline with wikipedia policy WP:Commonname. This is a UK building not an American corporate advertising hoarding of a building. Companies can pay what they like to slap thier name on a building, doesn't mean Wikipedia follows suit or the public-at-large for the matter. Also it prevents pages being moved unnecessarily when a new moneybags rocks up and uses the building as their advertising hoarding. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 FC Bayern Munich (women) season[edit]

There was no need to "overhauled and updated" the article. I won't be editing it under it's current format. Kingjeff (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was, now it is easier for everyone not just those who know how to use the difficult tables. It is your choice if you keep on editing the article. Just now everyone can more easily edit the article. I will take it a statement of fact, instead of blackmail that you will stop editing the article unless it is your preferred way. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe the table are harder. In fact they are easier. You write like it's simply my "preferred way" which is obviously not the case. I have always found these templates harder to use. Kingjeff (talk)

I couldn't disagree more. The template is set out in a simpler and easier fashion than the table. The table syntax is very very confusing, especially to new editors. Having to work out what goes where and so on is a lot more difficult than what is effectively a WYSIWYG template. I mean take the colour as a prime example; why guess about the name or code when the letters W, L, D, P and V do that for you?

Can you please explain how the template is more challenging for you? Maybe I can help you overcome these difficulties by helping you with the difficulties you are encountering. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the tables for all the matches, all the colours were in the table to use. It explained which colour was for a win, a draw, or a loss. Each cell was either already filled or had an explanation of what goes in that cell. Kingjeff (talk)

The inline nature of the formatting and the use of the hidden wiki formatting to do that is unnecessarily complicated. It is also a pain to try and edit on a mobile device. Any way that is not what I was getting at. What do you find difficult about the template? I would like to see if I can help you with the difficulties you have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions and Edit Summaries[edit]

On 18 September, you wrote, in an edit summary:

This is not a battleground PeeJay Please refrain from being intentionally disruptive and attempting to intentionally inflame others Please refrain behaving as an enforcer or owner around here when dispute resolution is ongoing Please do not make false claims either the 2021 version is the version before the current issues arise STOP behaving in the manner you are it is territorial and obstructing the building of an encyclopaedia

. On 21 September, I wrote:

.Also, when I said to be civil, I also meant to be civil in edit summaries and to Assume Good Faith. One editor is casting aspersions in edit summaries.

. That is the edit summary to which I was referring, and that is the caution to which I was referring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the clarity that you have. I also note the editor (currently banned for one month for edit warring) I was responding to was responding in kind. I would also like to note that it has not been something which has been done as more than a one-off moment of exasperation. I know I use colourful language but I attempt very hard to remain commenting on the content and the actions of users and not on the users themself. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! See above explanation, in response to your question on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gadfium. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jill Ovens seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -gadfium 05:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the euphemisms is laughably slanted to minimise the sheer awfulness of the GC movement to basically want to eliminate trans people from society in general, particularly as the party is founded in support of Posie Parker. Neutral does not mean not telling the truth. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate source as you think[edit]

See at 2023 United States Grand Prix and previous sprint weekends. That source will not be a duplicate at all. It will show sprint result. The link is not the same. Island92 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On social norms[edit]

Closing as these have devolved into a pile-on of lecturing and condescension which is really insulting and unhelpful.

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.

I'd agree that the situation at the AfD for Jill Ovens is difficult, and I write overly long XfD rationales that nobody will read all the time, so it's probably at least a little hypocritical for me to discuss overly voluminous comments with people, but Drmies is correct in saying that a great volume of responses is likely to be seen negatively by any closer. It may be unfair, but first impressions do count, and responding to every comment is going to appear like bludgeoning even if you have a good point.

I agree with you that GNG isn't met (isn't even close, honestly, from what I can see), but please try to keep things to the most essential core on the actual AfD page. For example, if you could consolidate the fact that nobody really found anything that would meet GNG to your nominator's note comment (with a concise "nobody above has really foun any sutable sources" or something like that), that would probably be better than scattering it throughout the discussion. It might be a brusque, and I'd be willing to go through why in a bit more detail (maybe later though) but what Drmies wrote is good advice on what the social norms are, and your response is going to be seen as a refusal to get the point, because most closers are so familiar with those norms they'd just see it as common sense, and won't see any need to explain in more detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drimes did though show they lack objectivity in closing with their comments. You cannot be impartial and objective and personalise comments. It shows Drimes should not be closing AfDs as they have shown they are not objective and take personal sides. AfDs should and must be objective. You cannot come along and close an AfD one way or another when you have taken personal umbrage or personal favour to one side or another because of a personal liking or dislike or how someone has engaged on an AfD (as long as it is within the rules of civility of Wikipedia).

These things must be discussions and anyone going...{paraphrasing here} "how dare you respond more than I think you should to !vote statements", are clearly out of touch and clearly should not be closing these. These must be discussions or they are a waste of time and may as well just be ballots.

You may think Drimes is right, but that then shows how wrong both of you are on this. AfDs are discussions and are not a place for unchallenged assertions. By the logic you have put forward, there is no way of having a genuine back and forth, from me or anyone else. Note I am not the only user replying and there is a genuine back and forth with some of these replies. I think this boils down to a personal preference of you and Drimes. You appear to want AfDs to be stale ballot-style comments and unchallenged statements alone, without genuine discussions. I suggest you reflect on what an AfD is, and not what you would like it to be, or how your personal preferences wish it to be. These must be a discussion and bad arguments and arguments to avoid and wild assertions must be challenged. This is after all the whole point of a discussion. It is not a comment board.

To emphasise the above here is the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.

These are discussions and convenience for those closing is not a consideration to be taken into account as stifles contributions and reduces the purpose of AfDs. That is the ultimate in personal preference and personal convenience being begged for. AfDs must not fall into being cookie cutter blandness because it is simplest and easiest for those who close them. That is an absurdity and renders AfDs nothing more than comment boards, instead of discussions.

TL;DR

AfDs are discussions and they must be genuine discussions.
Those closing AfDs must do so objectively and inline with the discussions and policies applicable.
AfDs are not comment boards or ballots where there is no response given to what users assert.
Opinions can and do change on AfDs as a result of discussions.
Convenience for AfD closers is of no consideration and has no bearing on discussions or on AfDs

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s User:Drmies, not Drimes. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. PicturePerfect666, please, instead of filling another page with comments and policy, we all know the guidelines here. Again, a long comment is less likely to be read, and a series of responses to every single AfD opinion is going to be seen as bludgeoning. You're welcome to have a back and forth, but that's not really what I saw in that AfD. You don't like my advice? Don't take it. But don't go around claiming that because I mentioned that to you I'm somehow not neutral: that's just nonsense. If you want to claim I am somehow not able to neutrally close AfDs, you should take it to [{WP:AN]], but what you are demonstrating here, besides verbosity, is a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all that i am going to say and think no more needs to be said both positions; the wrong position of convenience and bad habits vs how things should actually work. Bludgeoning is just a weasle way of say I cannot be bothered to read the full discussion. I also did not say you wern't neutral I said you weren't objective they are two completely different tings. The fact you have come and used neutral to mean objective shows my points are substantiated. I would say don't give the 'advice' you did in the manner you did on an AfD you could have easily simply said look lets chat about this on here. You wanted to make a point and you wanted to make out you knew better and that you somehow had more weight to throw around because you have closed lots of AfDs. Never be afraid to take on board criticism and never be afraid to be wrong. Also never be afraid of responses you dislike and push back. I am happy to start this again if you come here without having come across the way you have as superior and an unchangeable authority who is waving around authority which is not there. Consider this closed, but I am happy to start a fresh discussion if you are.

TL;DR

I did not say you were not neutral I said you were not objective.
No one on this encyclopaedia is perfect and everyone can learn from discussion and feedback.
You must be able to take on board criticism and constructive counter narratives.
You should approach things in away which are not inflammatory.
You should be willing to see a different perspective other than how you expect it to be.
I am happy for this to be started again if you wish to be less inflammatory and have an actual conversation where you are open minded to positions other than your own.
This discussion is though closed

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to consider the consolidation I proposed? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

I saw the DRV you were commenting on, and it seems rather unlikely that you are going to get things to go your way. My personal advice would be to avoid making so many comments (particularly responding to almost everyone who opposes you, which is generally seen as WP:BADGERING and bad form), and to try to limit the length of the comments you do leave. Remember that almost everyone who's editing Wikipedia is doing so becauuse they are interested in multiple topics, processes, etc -- they have something to do beyond read one person's posts. While it's certainly permissible to go on at length from time to time (and we are all prone to do this about some things we care a lot about), it's a tradeoff; excessively long comments make the page longer for everyone who has to review or comment on discussions, and worse, a large volume of redundant commenting makes the page almost unreadable for the poor saps who eventually have to close it. You can do what you want with this, but this is my opinion on what would help you have a better time here. jp×g 🗯️ 06:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice...on a note on the topic I am finding it very telling that the closing Admin will not seemingly answer the question about the sources when asked directly. This is something which goes to the heart of my frustration here is that seemingly it is arbitrary that this was done in this way. Would dearly love the admin to answer and if they don't then in my opinion the whole close was wrong as they will seemingly not answer why they closed on the ground they did, but rapidly answer other points and throw bad faith colourful language at me. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire response above is filled with aspersions and bad faith. Your inability to drop the stick has not served you well in the past, and is doing you no favours here. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned, and as I’ve told you before, please back off. Not everyone is out to get you and not everyone who opposes you is a canvassed bad actor. I know you feel passionately about the issues at play, and so do I, but bludgeoning and getting an entirely needless banhammer is not the way. Best wishes Fermiboson (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above by either of you is true I just want an explanation as to why the closing Admin used the sources they did in the way they id to reach the conclusion they did. The closing admin has danced around that point and not answered that point. Please pair of you stop witht he coming here and having another go and making you personal opinions which are unwelcome known, we know you clearly see me as some kind of irritant to shut up. The above replies are clear on that, you simply want me to shut and fuck off. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just some advice. It is quite obvious here that you're assuming bad faith ("you simply want me to shut and fuck up"). In my experience, when people have assumed bad faith from me, they have misinterpreted my comments very far and inserted their own meanings. After a while, we came to the resolution that they were not interpreting me correctly. I suggest you do the same here as it looks like you are also generating these hidden meanings. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to everyone commenting, piling on and bandwagon jumping with claims of bad faith and colourful language to tell me to keep my mouth shut. I am closing this discussion as it is nothing more than wall of shaming now so please do not post more, you have made you collective points made and none more are need. Jeez talk about a pile on. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Arab-Israeli conflict articles[edit]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Blum (litigant)[edit]

I have reverted and modified many of your changes to this article last October. WP:NPOV is a basic principle and WP:BLP is also important. Changes such as introducing a link to Ambulance chasing and adding that Blum and his organizations have not been personally subject to / harmed by diversity mandates unbalanced the article toward criticism. I have pinged you in one of my edit summaries, but I considered I owed you a heads-up, especially since it was a thread at Wikipediocracy that led to my looking at the article, noting the ambulance chasing link, and using the edit history search tool to find where it had been added and subsequently again to find where a sentence concerning harm had been added. I have left some of your changes intact, such as clear characterization of the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, and have reinstated the mention of the three "Unfair" websites. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the ping but find it odd that you sought out me. Ironically like Blum does to seek out is manufactured lawsuits. Most people simply make edits and leave a note on that pages talk page. You do you I suppose. I also don't think his personal websites for soliciting litigants are needed anywhere on Wikipedia they are unreliable primary sources.

Finally what on earth is Wikipediocracy and to what thread are you referring. It feels like I am being trolled here though I accept what you are saying here in good faith. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPs are a contentious topic[edit]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have no idea who or what you are referring to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]