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.
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 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.
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
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. — Ирука1319:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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"?
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]
WP:COMMONNAME deals with article titles, not content. It has no relevance. Propose your changes on the talk page. – 2.O.Boxing21:13, 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.
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.
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.
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.Boxing23:09, 30 August 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]
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]
October 2023
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. -gadfium05:10, 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
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.
I couldn’t tell you as it is in America where everything has a sponsored name and I’m unfamiliar with unsponsored US venue names. Unlike UK venues which are typically unsponsored and have easily identified common unsponsored names which reduce or eliminate confusion.
US and UK names of venues are not comparable and cannot be used as precedent for either.
What kind of tone is that? I try to be civil, and you put words into my mouth. I had zero premise—I was just curious on garnering an opinion to resolve these going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you are getting hostility from. The premise I talk of is where you are trying to walk your example based on our previous discussions. If you have a different reason for bringing this up I am happy to hear it. Please though assume good faith and remember that comments are focused on the contribution and not contributor. Please withdraw the claims you have made contrary to the above. It’s not worth dying in this hill over. I would be very surprised if you did not know the answer to the question you were expecting and would be very surprised if you were not looking for a ‘gotcha’ to use to re-open the previous discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huyy... As I said, curiosity is what led me to ask a perfectly honest question. You are the only one bringing up past interactions, when I was merely looking for constructive solutions going forward—kinda the whole point of this place. I am aware that ownership of a venue is different to sponsorship, so I wanted to see what you made of the conundrum of US venues changing names often, whilst needing to adhere to COMMONMAME over on the UK side; something that will keep coming up. That you immediately assumed bad faith in me having a sinister motive by trying to put forth a "gotcha" tells me it was a mistake to try to engage in discussion with you. I'm all for collaborative editing, but you are simply too confrontational. That'll be my final interaction with you. Good evening. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a constructive conversation please consider this conversation closed. More appropriate venues for this are talk pages of the articles in question. Going to select individuals can be seen as soliciting opinions and potentially forum shopping.
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
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.
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]
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]
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.
.svg)
