Hi Nir007H! I noticed your contributions to Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson 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:
Maintain WP:NEUTRALITY in the article. You have added a lot of trivial and tabloid style content as well as WP:FANPOV in the article. The quote box in the bottom of personal records section and the detailed explanation and POV in the boxing career section. Also avoid using YouTube as source, except when mentioning lifts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use quotes, write it verbatim as said by notable personalities (fellow strongman, notable reporters, etc), separately and use WP:Independent sources instead of YiTube videos. Do not write personal commentary. I've removed it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hafþór retired from strongman officially per these sources [1][2]. His own words in the interview, "I’m 32 years old, so I’m not getting any younger so I have to start thinking about my health and my future. That’s the main reason I retired from strongman. I wanted to be healthy, I wanted to be on Earth longer for my family.". Unless he comes back to the sport in future, do not change former professional strongman from the lead. That would be going against sourced content per WP:SYNTH. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fylindfotberserk, How come the Personal Records section of Hafthor is tagged overly detailed? It's a perfectly well researched and complete section in my eyes. All of those listed lifts are word class performances and all should be included. Nir007H (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through WP:NOT and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, only the most important things need to be put in a WP:BLP's section, doesn't matter whether sourced or not. We can't list each PR/WR in each event of all the years/championship. The details of all these lifts are/should be covered in the respective event articles, Similarly for gym lifts. Try by keeping only the best, for example in the case of 'Axle Deadlift', I'll only keep the Axle Deadlift (for reps) – 380 kg (838 lb) x 6 reps entry since it is from a more recent event and he used a greater amount of weight. If we try to get this article to 'Good Article' status, these things have to be taken into consideration. Editors who specialize in GA/FA articles would remove/severely truncate that section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fylindfotberserk, I'm working on improving Hafthor's article to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards as indicated by those template messages. Can you guide me on below points:
1. Personal records - shall I summarize about 5 or 10 best ones and then link the others to a separate article tiled 'Main article: List of Personal records by Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson?
2. What do you mean by 'This article contains paid contributions'? Can you please advise me how to rectify this problem?
Fancruft would mean trivial things as well as content written in a subjective manner. For example, the sub-section on his 'Tattoos' and the sentence: "Hafþór and his former girlfriend Andrea Sif Jónsdóttir have spoken about his occasional sleep troubles after a heavy meal due to his body weight" - looks trivial and fancruft to me. On the other hand, Bell's palsy part is important. The personal records section requires cleanup since it is too detailed making many of the things redundant and trivial, thus going into fancruft territory. As I've explained above with the Axel Deadlift example, you can keep the best lift from a specific event.
Fancruft (trivial and subjective manner of writing) can be observed in the Personal life section, sentences that I'd modify, severely truncate, or remove altogether include:
"In an online video interview by the Mulligan Brothers published on 21 December 2019, Hafþór lamented not having seen his daughter for three years"
"The two met when Hafþór was in Alberta, Canada for a strongman competition and visited the bar where Henson worked. The couple garnered attention for the difference in their respective heights, as Henson is 157 cm (5 ft 2 in)"
Other sentences that would require copyediting:
Hafþór met Icelandic strongman Magnús Ver Magnússon at his gym "Jakaból" in 2008, and Magnús said that Hafþór seemed a good prospect as a strongman ← This one requires rewording
but the troublesome ankle forced him to retire from basketball after the season, at the age of 20 ← Kind of tabloid style writing.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oleksiy Novikov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Good day, further references are now added to 2018 Arnold Strongman Classic + new qualifying criteria are also added. Awaiting your approval. Thank you very much! Nir007H (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 7
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Since the article was missing, I created it and linked it to the 'Lifting stone' and 'Strongman (strength athlete) pages'. Thanks again for the instructions and support. Nir007H (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
April 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Is it customary to have negative aspects also in Biographical articles? I think it's very discriminating to have sections: Steroids and domestic violations in Hafthor's page. There's not a single thing about hard work, training or nutrition but steroids and domestic violations.
See WP:NOTCENSORED. If there are reliable sources about this, then we cannot deny them in the article per the said policy. Also, if such things are not mentioned in other articles, it is simply because those things are either not covered in the press or are not added in the article, which you are free to add (with source). See articles like Hulk Hogan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Things about steroid use and other controversies are well covered. In the case of Hafthor it is covered by multiple source in which he admitted. Anyway you can seek consensus in the talk page of the article. Can't delete sourced 'longstanding' content based on personal judgement. You are welcome to expand other parts of the article. His acting career specifically which seem lacking. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Also use this syntax → {{ping|XYZ}} where 'XYZ' is the user's name. Write your comment. That way I, or any other user will get an alert on your comment (anywhere in Wikipedia). Signing is important after pinging, otherwise will not be notified. Also, if you publish your comment once and then again edit it to add your signature, ping will not work. Hope that helps with the communication part. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Michael Gill (Strongman), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PikavoomTalk13:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, encyclopedia articles must be neutral in tone and not use language that promotes or advocates for a subject, or tries to cast the subject in a favorable light. Please see User:Deepfriedokra/promo for examples of content to avoid. Sometimes creators of promotional/advocational content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write such content, or if one has spent some time writing such content, one may simply be blind to non-neutral phrases or styles.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Billy Nelson (Boxer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CUPIDICAE💕16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please reconsider? Because he is one of the best boxing Coaches in Europe who has trained many champions and I have provided sources written by boxing journalists also to back it up. It has no advertising either.
Thank you very much. Can you go to below video, specifically to points: 7min 2sec and 7 min 36sec onwards which clearly indicates Billy indeed is the coach of Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, and change the wording from "He has stated he was the trainer and coach" to "He was the trainer and coach"?
Ok, I've added two more sources (a general one and another for the music/composer) and also mentioned that the movie was also dubbed in German and French. Submitted for review. Nir007H (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
Additionally, I've reverted two of your images changes, as the images you added were not an improvement over the previous images. Please discuss image changes on talk pages. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and shall comply with the first two points. But the last one is not agreeable. Ronnie Coleman in 2009 is past his professional retirement. You should use pictures of his prime. Can I at-least change the one in his own Wikipedia article? Nir007H (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that this photo is your own work? That photo appears to have been taken by a particular professsional photographer. You're saying you are that photographer? If you were the original photographer, surely you have the original resolution photo with EXIF data? OhNoitsJamieTalk21:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to claim other's people's work as your own; that's a copyright violation, which is not taken lightly here. Please don't do that again. It's not my responsibility to secure rights to photographs. Don't upload images unless they were created by you personally, not just found somewhere on the web. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dege31 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Only routine coverage(results)
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:2018 Arnold Strongman Classic and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Nir007H!
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! Dege31 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission 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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Bobby Thompson (strongman) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://generationiron.com/strongman-series-bobby-thompson/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969TT me12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the knowledge. I created this page towards the beginning of my Wikipedia learning curve and now I know the importance of 'say it in your own words'. I will be more careful hereafter. My sincere apologies. Nir007H (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Hall
Hi, with regards to the Eddie Hall article, I am not sure why you keep removing aspects of the fight that are verified in the source, the fact Hall put Thor down twice is confirmed in the source that is tagged and these were notable highlights of the fight so there is no real reason to exclude this information, furthermore the term "bludgeoned" is a bizarre statement to make a for a Boxing match, certainly one that went the full length and didn't result in a knock out. If you want to modify the statement feel free too, but lets not remove verified information. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I rephrased. However I disagree with you on 2 points:
- Martin Domin, the Sports Editor of the Irish Mirror reported: "The Brit has put Thor on the canvas, but that knockdown wasn't scored". I added the source.
- The term 'bludgeoned': Britannica defines it "to hit (someone or something) very hard" and Merriam-Webster defines it "to hit with heavy impact". The fight was taglined the heaviest and the strongest boxing match in history and I don't see any reason why the word should not be used. Additionally, Eddie Hall was hit until he bled, hence I kept the word. Have a look. Thanks.
Additionally, the footnote is with refer to his Strongman career, so I moved it from the Boxing section to the Strongman section. Nir007H (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
An article you recently created, Arnold Pro Strongwoman, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969TT me14:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nir007H, you and I are engaged in a disagreement about how to properly write numbers on the Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson page. This is fine, disagreements can be worked out, but I'd like to point out that you have now launched an edit war with me by repeatedly imposing your version of how the article should appear. I can see that you are a new editor, so you may not be aware of this rule, but on Wikipedia, once you have been reverted, you are not to revert again; instead, you need to discuss the issue on the talk page. I encourage you to undo your latest change and to take up the issue on the Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, the dispute is only with refer to the introductory para. Not in subsections. Please check pages of Žydrūnas Savickas, Mariusz Pudzianowski, Brian Shaw (with Hafþór who are the 4 most decorated strongmen). See how their number of wins are depicted in numerals... Please check some other strongmen as well, the page 'Strongman' will give you a comprehensive list. In other sports also, the standard is the same. For instance please check how the numbers are depicted in the pages of Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Babe Ruth, Aleksandr Karelin, Donald Bradman etc. Do you spot 32,292, 23, 29, 887, 99.94 or thirty two thousand two hundred and ninety two, twenty three, twenty nine, eight hundred and eighty seven, ninety nine point nine four? Nir007H (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are under the impression that there is a standard method of writing numbers on sports-related pages, but to my knowledge, this is not the case. My guess as to why this has occurred so broadly is that people prefer writing numbers as digits rather than as words. I generally follow the Chicago Manual of Style, which recommends spelling out numbers from 1 to 100. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nir007H, in your latest edit on the Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson page, you made a casual accusation of vandalism, presumably towards the previous editor. This type of accusation is serious and shouldn't be made unless you are sure that an editor is in fact engaging in vandalism rather than simply being wrong, inexperienced, or even disruptive. Please try to always assume good faith before jumping to the worst possible conclusion.
By the way, I reverted the edits you made, as I didn't find them constructive. The language the previous editor removed was redundant, in my opinion, perhaps even confusing, as they suggested. If you disagree with my revert, please discuss the matter on the article talk page. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Let me ask a question. Who are those several ex-girlfriends? The sources name only his first wife and one more previous girlfriend. The current wording implies that he had been accused by several ex-girlfriends on domestic violence. It was only first wife Thelma Björk Steimann who feared for her life once during a vacation because of a single incident who has given statements about previous girlfriends. These are media gossip articles. The investigations have clearly found that there were no grounds for action. Hafþór has also charged her with slander. Nir007H (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nir007H, please do not ignore what I said about your accusation of vandalism.
One of the articles says (in translation) "Three of them describe physical and mental violence at the hands of Haftór". Which one of us is misreading the sources? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last para of source 116: "Hafthór's lawyer, Kjartan Ragnars, has repeatedly contacted the newspaper since Saturday. He says Hafthór is completely free of violence and neither men nor women are violent. He says it can be very expensive to slander Hafthór, as his image is very valuable. He says that possibly three women are out for revenge against Hafthór." Nir007H (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's two things happening here: the first one is that you continue to ignore the point I made about your accusation of vandalism. If you choose not to address the points I am making, it will be difficult for me to continue having this discussion with you.
The second thing is that you are quoting a lawyer.... do you know what lawyers are paid to do? Defend their clients. One of the news sources points out that three women have accused Hafthór of violence, and yet you would rather believe what Hafthór's lawyer says.
So does that mean anyone can make a random account and do alterations to articles which have been there for some time? I honestly think that is vandalism by maybe an enemy. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Also why can't I make the sequential correction? I put the current family first and the previous relationships next. The heading says family and relationships. Do you have a personal agenda to make his profile look negative rather than positive? Nir007H (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with what does and doesn't fall under the category of vandalism on Wikipedia.
To answer your question, yes, anyone can create an account and make edits to any Wikipedia page, regardless of how long the content that they are modifying has existed. If their edit is deemed inappropriate by other editors, it will either be reverted or changed.
The conclusion that someone who edits content that you prefer must be an enemy is not a rational one. Please think about this carefully.
I explained why I reverted your edit. You reversed chronological order.
Not only do you deem other editors to be "enemies", but now you're accusing me of having a personal agenda. If you continue along this tack, I will not engage with you further.
By the way, it is a good rule of thumb to tag the editor you are conversing with when this takes place elsewhere than on their talk page, where they are automatically notified. I will now unwatch your page, so if you wish to address me, please leave a tag. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I of course was planning to notifying the person who did the edit, but then realized it's his/ her first edit which made me assume it must be vandalism, because it's towards a negative aspect. What kind of a person would make your very first edit, a negative aspect of someones personal life? I have also noticed several derogatory remarks on this page before and all of them were from new editors with no previous editing background. So once I restored the previous wording with my remark (which was based on all above elements which I stated), you came to the equation defending the first time editor. I don't intend to address you in future (no problem) but please advise whether I can or can't move the family first and relationships next? What prevents me to bring the positive aspect to the top and negative one to the bottom of the subsection? Thanks for you support. Nir007H (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, I was checking the profiles of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lee Haney, Dorian Yates and Phil Heath. Will you delete their nicknames also since there are no references to any of them? Nir007H (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are unsourced they should be deleted as well. You also just changed Coleman's weight to a figure that doesn't match the cited source; please don't do that again. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the reference: [1] which is mentioned under the section Physical statistics. Please re-quote if for the 2nd time if required and update his peak weight. Nir007H (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read WP:Verifiability. Including a source (that clearly doesn't meet WP:RS guidelines) on your own talk page is not how you cite a source. If you change those figures again without citing a reliable source, you will be blocked from editing.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This is honestly unfair. Can you please explain how that source from Fitnessvolt.com doesn't meet guidelines? Fitness Volt is a comprehensive online resource dedicated to Strength Sports. For more than 12 years, they have worked hard to create and refine their curated library of comprehensive and trustworthy information. Their 30+ team of writers and editors are fitness experts, including registered dietitians, nutritionists, personal trainers, athletes and certified coaches, who write and continually update their 4000+ article library. Also, this source was not mentioned in my own page, but was there from March 30, 2022 until you deleted it from the info-box today after your last edit. More proof: it's still there under section Physical statistics. It's the 37th reference in the page of Ronnie Coleman. Here is the link to the article: https://fitnessvolt.com/ronnie-coleman-330lb-mass-monster/
The 330 figure mentioned in fitnessvolt apparently comes from Coleman's comment on his own video, which seems shaky to me. While we do allow self-reported data in some cases, it seems shaky to me that we'd use an offhand video comment in an infobox about atheletic stats. Nonetheless, you're clearly acting in good faith here, so I'm going to unblock and start a conversation in Talk:Ronnie Coleman. Please be more mindful of WP:V (nicknames, other things you've been warned about, etc). OhNoitsJamieTalk15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I edited because there was no reply from you to this message: Please advise. "I of course was planning to notifying the person who did the edit, but then realized it's his/ her first edit which made me assume it must be vandalism, because it's towards a negative aspect. What kind of a person would make your very first edit, a negative aspect of someones personal life? I have also noticed several derogatory remarks on this page before and all of them were from new editors with no previous editing background. So once I restored the previous wording with my remark (which was based on all above elements which I stated), you came to the equation defending the first time editor. I don't intend to address you in future (no problem) but please advise whether I can or can't move the family first and relationships next? What prevents me to bring the positive aspect to the top and negative one to the bottom of the subsection? Thanks for you support". Nir007H (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reply because you didn't tag me! I clearly explained to you that I am unwatching your page and that if you wish to continue communicating with me, you should leave a tag. You disregarded that, as you have disregarded various other things I have written here, and you proceeded to breach Wikipedia policy by edit warring.
Your perspective on the motive of other editors, including mine, is irrational and biased. Stop making insinuations and accusations of motivated behaviour and focus on improving Wikipedia and being a good Wikipedian.
I've also explained to you that the reason I reverted your reordering of the chronological order of events in the Family and relationships subsection of Hafþór's page is precisely for that reason: it is chronologically backward. It has nothing to do with positive or negative aspects of the content, nor should it. You are entirely focused on the wrong thing when it comes to presenting encyclopedic content.
So far, your edits on the page have been mostly disruptive. Please reassess your attitude and your biases before proceeding. Any further disruptive edits will be reported.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi Nir007H! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sinhala Cinema Database, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ChaotıċEnby(t · c)10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I've declined the G11 request specifically, as it's not the type of blatant advertising G11 is for, the article definitely should not be in mainspace at this time. To demonstrate notability, articles should use material which is reliable and independent. Currently, all the citations in the article are to the site itself. We don't care what it says about itself, we care about what reliable sources unaffiliated with it have to say about it. If there is not a substantial quantity of reliable and independent reference material available about this subject, it is not appropriate for there to be an article about it. If there is, the article should rely on what those sources say, not on what the site itself or those closely affiliated with it say about it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Traumnovelle, I have provided further sources including ResearchGate publication by Prof. Lyubov Bobchynets Ph.D of Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine. Could you kindly re-evaluate and remove the deletion request? Many thanks for your support. Nir007H (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nir007H, I normally don't wade into afd discussions, but having read the page on Canelo, I must say that, despite the publicity he received, the case just doesn't strike me as being very noteworthy. Sorry to disappoint. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, appreciate your intervention, and if you notice in List of individual dogs, they've listed 24 special dogs including Canelo under "Faithful dogs" category, and we need to carry forward their legacy in my opinion. The street is named after Canelo and his bronze plaque with his sculpture which reads "To Canelo, who for 12 years waited at the hospital gates for his deceased master" is not only a popular tourist attraction but also commemorates unconditional love. Like Dżok, Fido, Greyfriars Bobby, Hachikō, Kostya, Ruswarp, Seaman, Shep, Theo & Waghya we need to add Canelo to this elusive list. Nir007H (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for lists is lower than an independent article. The dogs you mentioned have better sources and more obvious notability with statues. One of them doesn't have it's own page for example. A street name can go to notability as many notable people have streets named after them but so do many unnotable people. If it's a popular tourist attraction there should be some sources talking about the attraction such as the tourism article about the Hachiko statue. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nir007H, your new article would benefit from being included in appropriate categories, such as Biography and Finland. Nice work!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi, it is regarding this edit by an IP. While the older 385 lbs is sourced, the new one isn't. But, it is possible it is true considering the date given by the IP, possibly from a YT video at Shaw's channel. It would be nice if you could find it. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for consulting me on this FC-Grandmaster @Fylindfotberserk. In fact the lightest bodyweight of Brian at international level is 340 lb at Strongman Super Series' Venice Beach Grand Prix in June, 2007. Here is proof for the weight: Timestamp 1 min 6 secs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuVpZqa6Y4I The lb to kg conversion is slightly off here but since this was in US, we can take the pound measurement as the actually measured value. Nir007H (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, I was just wondering if you could maybe start both 2024 European Strongest Man and 2024 Shaw Clasic articles. I know I should've done them but I've been massively pre-occupied with the olympics, World U20 athletics champs and now paralympics so I haven't been able to get round to doing them. If you're also too busy to do them it's fine but if you aren't I would appreciate it as I should've done them ages ago. Thanks! Brandon Downes (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Voorts, I got your reasoning. But my main aim was to develop the Lifting stone article (which I was doing over the past few days) and thought the info. I have under Lundstrom Stones is too much to be included in the main article - hence decided to open a separate page. Have to ensure more prominence to be given to the Husafell and Dinnies (tier 1) and then Dritvíks and McGlashens (tier 2) and then to all the others. I would like to request your permission to have it as a separate article and then to have only a 3 line basic description of it in the Lifting stone page. Thanks a lot for considering, and support on this. Nir007H (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nir. If the amount of information is what has already been merged to the Lifting stone article, then I don't think it's too much to be merged there. How much more were you planning to write about the Lundstrom Stones? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just not seeing enough sourcing about these stones to meet WP:GNG. Proceed how you see fit, but I can't guarantee that I won't later start a proposed merge discussion if you do restore the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts It says "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually". Could you please help? Nir007H (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question for you regarding an unofficial record mentioned in "Paul Anderson: The Mightiest Minister" by Dr. Randall Strossen:
At the Region 3 Power Lift Championships in 1965, Paul deadlifted 750 lbs (face value) and squatted 905 lbs (face value). He did not, to my knowledge, perform a bench press at this event.
The squat actually weighed out to 929 lbs (421.4 kg) due to the inclusion of 4 100 lb plates that weighed 106 lbs each. There's no mention of the deadlift being weighed but if the same plates were used it would have been ~774 lbs (351 kg).
As far as I know, no drug-tested lifter has done a higher squat+deadlift subtotal until Ray Williams in 2015, whether we're talking 929+750 or 929+774. Since Paul was a guest lifter this was only an unofficial record, but are you aware of anyone who exceeded this feat before Ray?
Additionally: earlier that same year at a powerlifting contest in Silver Spring, Anderson clean and pressed 420 lbs, squatted 900 lbs 'very easily,' and deadlited 710 lbs 'without much trouble' for a total of 2,030 lbs/921 kg with clean and press in lieu of bench. (Not sure if this is the same exhibition Marty Gallagher talked about wrt witnessing Paul squat 900 lbs for 5 reps.) Don't think this feat has ever been exceeded either, but it is admittedly very niche. Best, The Pittsburgher (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @The Pittsburgher how are you? Between 929+750 (1679)/ 929+774 (1703) and Ray in 2015, all I can think of is Mark Henry, specially the 948 squat and 904 deadlift (1852) on July 16, 1995 but the squat was done in wraps.
Thank you for your message; I'm doing well and hope you are too. Mark was all I could come up with as well, though as you mentioned he wore wraps for his squat. Still, given his grip strength in the deadlift I don't doubt he had it in him to exceed Paul's performance even without wraps. The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
