I’m going to revert back to a stable version on Canelo Alvarez as I can’t be bothered to go through the entire page and individually fix every mistake that you’ve made, yet again. You have already been informed on the errors you make, if you repeat your disruptive editing then I will be forced to bring it up at the ANI, which it appears you’re familiar with. – 2. O. Boxing 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Boxing Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cruiserweight ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits...again. WBA (Super) does not need a piped link, the redirect does the job. As per MOS:DUPLINK, wikilinks are permissible on the first instance after the lead. As per the boxing manual of style, and clarified on the WikiProject Boxing talkpage, the European Boxing Union is to be shortened as just European, not EBU. If you continue to ignore the various manuals of style, after being informed on multiple occasions that your edits do not conform, then you will be reported at WP:ANV. – 2. O. Boxing 13:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles, you may be
blocked from editing. The actual champion of the tournament deserves to be at the top of the lead paragraph. Please stop reverting this.
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles. You don't seem to care about any warnings do you? Yet you keep reverting on the same issue without explanation.
CycloneYoris
talk! 02:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment @ CycloneYoris: @ Squared.Circle.Boxing: @ Moriori: This is the most edit warning in different occasions without the user getting prevented from proceeding with this disruption. This is like the 8th year from his first disruption edit. What is going on? Regice2020 ( talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here}}
.
Moriori (
talk) 21:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. {{
unblock|reason=
Your reason here ~~~~}}
. 29cwcst ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Look, at the end of the day, if every other editor here thinks that I'm just "vandalising" pages, I honestly shouldn't bother. The truth is and always has been this — I want to make this great resource we have as reliable, factual and consistent as possible. For the most part, the majority of you seem to do that quite well, except for when it comes to the 'consistent' part. The structure of certain pages pertaining to a particular subject are rarely formatted exactly the same way which, as a fellow editor and contributor, really annoys me. If you want to keep reverting all the changes I make to certain pages, fine. Just make sure your reasons and principles for doing so apply to other pages of the same topic. I'm more than happy to give you plenty of examples. My problem isn't necessarily the fact that I've been blocked, but rather why I've been blocked. I do most of my editing on an iPad, via the Wikipedia app, which means I can't access my talk page and therefore don't see these messages or warnings. I was completely unaware that I had been blocked until I tried to review some of my recent edits. Ultimately, all of the changes that I try and make/implement on pages I edit really are and have always been in the best interests of everyone. Most other users clearly don't agree with me on that. I'm appealing what's happened because I was unaware of these warnings on my talk page and had I known about them beforehand, I obviously would've stopped what I've been doing this entire time, which is attempting to make Wikipedia the best and most trustworthy online encyclopedia going around. I understand and have no problem in serving this suspension, though I personally don't think it's justified. If what I just explained to you has failed to at least change your way of thinking slightly, then I will discontinue editing Wikipedia pages altogether. — 29cwcst ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2020 (AEST)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as you are not blocked.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Part of being a Wikipedia editor is collaborating and communicating with other users about your edits. If using the app prevents you from doing that, you should use the desktop version in a browser instead, which many people do successfully on a phone or tablet(including me)- even if only to check your talk page every now and then. However you choose to do it, are you willing to make more of an effort to communicate with other users when your edits are questioned, and work to achieve a consensus? 331dot ( talk) 10:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the amount of time I have. Seeing as how my contributions here go unpaid and unappreciated, I imagine that my personal priorities differ significantly from most other users. It also depends on what the overall vision of that consensus is — if I don't agree with it, then I see no reason to remain part of it, especially if all of my hard work just keeps on getting reverted the whole time. Yes, I choose and prefer to do most of my editing on my iPad because it's far more convenient to do so in my spare time. However, the more I used the app, the more I discovered just how limited I was in terms of its features and what it allowed me to do. Just for the record, if the app needs to be improved so that it does everything that the desktop version in a browser does, then I suggest you (at Wikipedia) don't go advertising it until it's actually ready. For the sake of other editors, I can return to working on the desktop version in a browser. However, given the differences in time zones, I can't make any guarantees about checking my talk page more frequently. Although if I can see and access my talk page, I'm obviously more likely to communicate with other users like you mentioned. — 29cwcst ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2020 (AEST)
Hi 29cwcst, Again dont need to link country see - MOS:OL. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Have it your way CASSIOPEIA( talk), but make sure it applies to all UFC event pages from now on. Nobody had an issue with me linking countries on other such pages. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Please do not remove the location as Wikipedia is viewed by all editors around the world. Some viewers might not know the cities in United States. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Very well CASSIOPEIA( talk), but make sure the same also applies here. Regarding the United States and UFC event pages, nobody had an issue with me removing locations either. Besides, if those editors/viewers you mentioned could actually be bothered to click on the link(s) provided, it wouldn't take them long to find out what country that city is in. It's not like they couldn't just research it themselves, or are they really that lazy? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
[[Riverside, California]]
, which results in
Riverside, California), or "piped" ([[Riverside, California|Riverside]]
, which results in
Riverside in the text, but still links to the article "
Riverside, California"—although the
pipe trick is an easier way to create this particular link)."Hi 29cwcst, pls note that the Section headings should be in sentence case (see MOS:SECTIONS), you have changed the sentence case to all caps - see here. Kindly self revert. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 10:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read the above 2 guidelines. You are making a ton of edits that are extremely unhelpful and go against the recommended presentation. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
most other editors are too lazy to actually go back and do this stuff themselves in the future" In most instances once linked there is no need to go back in and change the link. If the link is [[WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] and then the title is renamed to WWE Championship, it is incorrect to do [[WWE Championship|WWE World Heavyweight Championship]]. The way it was shown before is still correct per WP:NOPIPE, its not about being lazy and not going back, its allowing the redirect to properly redirect it. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There’s no need to change your editing approach, the guideline isn’t over complicated, others aren’t being lazy and readers aren’t being "teased". [[WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] redirects to [[WWE Championship]]...meaning, [[WWE Championship|WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] is a completely pointless pipe as clicking the link takes you to the exact same place as it did before.
No pipelink: WWE World Heavyweight Championship
Pipelink: WWE World Heavyweight Championship
– 2. O. Boxing 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
...and also uploaded this file:
There should be no fair use or copyright issues here because I was the one who cropped the image, which was already being used on Wikipedia beforehand. I therefore presume that the presentation and use of this image here also meets the non-free content policy. Please notify me of any potential issues first before you take the image down this time. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The image I cropped was from Ricky Ponting's page itself so, I once again presume that it was from Commons and that I'm also free to crop or alter it in any way like you mentioned. Does this mean if I take a random file from somewhere and, let's say change the background colour for instance, it's still not really my "own work" despite the changes I have made? — 29cwcst ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Could anyone please tell me whether or not this is actually possible to do? — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
[ref] Cite web, url=1, url=2, url=3, title=same, work/website=1, work/website=2, work/website=3, accessdate=1, accessdate=2, accessdate=3 [/ref]
The same title for multiple citations. If all citations were accessed on the same date, then obviously you would just use one access date for all citations. Make sense? It's a shame that there doesn't appear to be a way to do this. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I still think it would run counter to the citation philosophy (which I can't find a good summary of - best I have is WP:Citation style). The relevant part is that each citation in an article should correspond to just one bibliographical target. The citation templates play along with Wikidata so that, theoretically, it would be possible to find all the different articles across Wikipedia projects that reference a particular item.
This sort of economy is also against the spirit of a system that prefers to list all the authors of a paper rather than use et al. Just repeat the title.
But if you are creating an article and want to introduce a reference style like this, I think the system says you're entitled to your choice. It's not required that you use the citation templates and many methods of providing references are allowed. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BackgroundThe event was initially planned to take place at Astana Arena in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan and would have been the first that the promotion had contested there. [1] [2] However, it was announced by UFC president Dana White on April 9 that starting with UFC 249, all future events were indefinitely postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] While not officially announced by the organization, the promotion was also targeting a bantamweight bout between former WSOF Bantamweight Champion and UFC Bantamweight Championship challenger Marlon Moraes and Petr Yan to serve as the original event headliner. [4]
Fight card
Announced bouts
References
|
The same should also be done eventually for the cancelled event on April 25, but we'll leave that until further notice and after the UFC provides us with a little more clarity. — 29cwcst ( talk) 02:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, as mentioned a few times no targeted, rumous, verbally agreed bout to be recorded. Kindly do not do it again for warning message will be placed in your talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi 29cwcst! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hi G29cwcst, Just to let you know that we just found out User:Regice2020 is a sock. Cassiopeia( talk) 05:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: If you still want to use the following citations, I've kept a copy of them here:
References
Now then, can we finally get these pages deleted and move on? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I noticed you agreed with me on the talk page of another user. Do you think we could facilitate a merge between UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira and Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020 ourselves, deleting the latter once we're done? All of its citations are on a previous version of the former, which was reverted by the aforementioned user. We could also look to a hold a discussion and gain consensus about this proposal if you're still not satisfied. — 29cwcst ( talk) 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, I have reverted your edits. If the UFC Fight Island is an arena and you have source to back it up then pls add the source. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Either way, please CHECK the articles and then revert if necessary. You create more work for editors like myself by failing to do so. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Cassiopeia(
talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Understood, but revert the initial edit made on the UFC 251 page because that's why I made my edits. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 ICC Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Clarke ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Good day. (1) Please note that we add the wikilink for the very first appearance in the body text - see MOS:LINK, so pls do not remove them. (2) For number 0-9 we spell out the numbers - see MOS:SPELL09. Thank you. Stay safe and enjoy UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 tmrw. Cheers. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 - those reported payouts you posted are not official payouts. they are estimated by the site you linked to. Havent made an edit but i think it should be clear that those are purely media estimated payouts and not actual salaries. cheers Dimspace ( talk) 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Again NO targeted/verbally/rumous/in work bout on the Announced bout section.Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: The fight has been agreed to, just not signed or officially announced yet. Regardless though, finding out that this still wasn't enough for you is important. — 29cwcst ( talk) 02:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, good day. This is your talk page where message from other editors and your replies are placed here. As for your to do list, you can place you to do list on your user page User:29cwcst or you can place To Do List script and the "View ToDo" will appear on your to right corner of your Wikipedia screen. Hope this help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia( talk) 09:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Thanks very much. I just thought it was time to get my talk page cleaned up. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is my testing page, pls do not change the content of submit for review. Thank you.
User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage name
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User29cwcst/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
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. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, good day, p;ls do not remove Nevada State Athletic Commission and it is APEX and not Apex. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 11:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 11:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I'm getting so sick and tired of this. What is the Manual of Style these pages have to follow? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Is it possible to archive certain pages separately? This is actually for the sake of storage, not archiving as such. Every archive template seems to regurgitate archives of previous discussions instead of displaying my subpages, which isn't what I want. — 29cwcst ( talk) 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I know you would like me to elaborate more on my edit summaries, but they're supposed to be exactly that – summaries. If you have a problem with any changes I make, the onus is on you to check my edits or contact me about them before you simply go ahead and revert. However, instead of making matters even more frustrating, I'll now take the liberty of clarifying my edit summaries:
Let me know if I still need to make things clearer for you. I'm more than happy to explain myself at any time, but shouldn't have my hard work reverted without/before being given a chance. — 29cwcst ( talk) 07:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed at a couple articles you changed No. to no. That is incorrect as No. should always be capitalized. It is world No. 17. Also you changed three sets to 3 sets. Numbers up to ten should always be spelled out except in giving scores or rankings. I hope that helps. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Fyunck(click): Thanks very much for letting me know. I did that because all the other numbers on the page weren't spelled out. If you reverted my most recent edits, then I would suggest reverting some of my others as well. Regarding the capitalization of No., why isn't that the case when it comes to linking the ATP or WTA no.1 ranked tennis players? Take a look here:
I apologize for any inconvenience that I might have caused. Please let me know if/when you spot what I'm referring to. — 29cwcst ( talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m going to revert back to a stable version on Canelo Alvarez as I can’t be bothered to go through the entire page and individually fix every mistake that you’ve made, yet again. You have already been informed on the errors you make, if you repeat your disruptive editing then I will be forced to bring it up at the ANI, which it appears you’re familiar with. – 2. O. Boxing 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Boxing Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cruiserweight ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits...again. WBA (Super) does not need a piped link, the redirect does the job. As per MOS:DUPLINK, wikilinks are permissible on the first instance after the lead. As per the boxing manual of style, and clarified on the WikiProject Boxing talkpage, the European Boxing Union is to be shortened as just European, not EBU. If you continue to ignore the various manuals of style, after being informed on multiple occasions that your edits do not conform, then you will be reported at WP:ANV. – 2. O. Boxing 13:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles, you may be
blocked from editing. The actual champion of the tournament deserves to be at the top of the lead paragraph. Please stop reverting this.
CycloneYoris
talk! 00:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
2020 Australian Open – Women's Singles. You don't seem to care about any warnings do you? Yet you keep reverting on the same issue without explanation.
CycloneYoris
talk! 02:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment @ CycloneYoris: @ Squared.Circle.Boxing: @ Moriori: This is the most edit warning in different occasions without the user getting prevented from proceeding with this disruption. This is like the 8th year from his first disruption edit. What is going on? Regice2020 ( talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here}}
.
Moriori (
talk) 21:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. {{
unblock|reason=
Your reason here ~~~~}}
. 29cwcst ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Look, at the end of the day, if every other editor here thinks that I'm just "vandalising" pages, I honestly shouldn't bother. The truth is and always has been this — I want to make this great resource we have as reliable, factual and consistent as possible. For the most part, the majority of you seem to do that quite well, except for when it comes to the 'consistent' part. The structure of certain pages pertaining to a particular subject are rarely formatted exactly the same way which, as a fellow editor and contributor, really annoys me. If you want to keep reverting all the changes I make to certain pages, fine. Just make sure your reasons and principles for doing so apply to other pages of the same topic. I'm more than happy to give you plenty of examples. My problem isn't necessarily the fact that I've been blocked, but rather why I've been blocked. I do most of my editing on an iPad, via the Wikipedia app, which means I can't access my talk page and therefore don't see these messages or warnings. I was completely unaware that I had been blocked until I tried to review some of my recent edits. Ultimately, all of the changes that I try and make/implement on pages I edit really are and have always been in the best interests of everyone. Most other users clearly don't agree with me on that. I'm appealing what's happened because I was unaware of these warnings on my talk page and had I known about them beforehand, I obviously would've stopped what I've been doing this entire time, which is attempting to make Wikipedia the best and most trustworthy online encyclopedia going around. I understand and have no problem in serving this suspension, though I personally don't think it's justified. If what I just explained to you has failed to at least change your way of thinking slightly, then I will discontinue editing Wikipedia pages altogether. — 29cwcst ( talk) 12:35, 11 February 2020 (AEST)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline as you are not blocked.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Part of being a Wikipedia editor is collaborating and communicating with other users about your edits. If using the app prevents you from doing that, you should use the desktop version in a browser instead, which many people do successfully on a phone or tablet(including me)- even if only to check your talk page every now and then. However you choose to do it, are you willing to make more of an effort to communicate with other users when your edits are questioned, and work to achieve a consensus? 331dot ( talk) 10:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the amount of time I have. Seeing as how my contributions here go unpaid and unappreciated, I imagine that my personal priorities differ significantly from most other users. It also depends on what the overall vision of that consensus is — if I don't agree with it, then I see no reason to remain part of it, especially if all of my hard work just keeps on getting reverted the whole time. Yes, I choose and prefer to do most of my editing on my iPad because it's far more convenient to do so in my spare time. However, the more I used the app, the more I discovered just how limited I was in terms of its features and what it allowed me to do. Just for the record, if the app needs to be improved so that it does everything that the desktop version in a browser does, then I suggest you (at Wikipedia) don't go advertising it until it's actually ready. For the sake of other editors, I can return to working on the desktop version in a browser. However, given the differences in time zones, I can't make any guarantees about checking my talk page more frequently. Although if I can see and access my talk page, I'm obviously more likely to communicate with other users like you mentioned. — 29cwcst ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2020 (AEST)
Hi 29cwcst, Again dont need to link country see - MOS:OL. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Have it your way CASSIOPEIA( talk), but make sure it applies to all UFC event pages from now on. Nobody had an issue with me linking countries on other such pages. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Please do not remove the location as Wikipedia is viewed by all editors around the world. Some viewers might not know the cities in United States. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Very well CASSIOPEIA( talk), but make sure the same also applies here. Regarding the United States and UFC event pages, nobody had an issue with me removing locations either. Besides, if those editors/viewers you mentioned could actually be bothered to click on the link(s) provided, it wouldn't take them long to find out what country that city is in. It's not like they couldn't just research it themselves, or are they really that lazy? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
[[Riverside, California]]
, which results in
Riverside, California), or "piped" ([[Riverside, California|Riverside]]
, which results in
Riverside in the text, but still links to the article "
Riverside, California"—although the
pipe trick is an easier way to create this particular link)."Hi 29cwcst, pls note that the Section headings should be in sentence case (see MOS:SECTIONS), you have changed the sentence case to all caps - see here. Kindly self revert. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 10:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read the above 2 guidelines. You are making a ton of edits that are extremely unhelpful and go against the recommended presentation. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 18:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
most other editors are too lazy to actually go back and do this stuff themselves in the future" In most instances once linked there is no need to go back in and change the link. If the link is [[WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] and then the title is renamed to WWE Championship, it is incorrect to do [[WWE Championship|WWE World Heavyweight Championship]]. The way it was shown before is still correct per WP:NOPIPE, its not about being lazy and not going back, its allowing the redirect to properly redirect it. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There’s no need to change your editing approach, the guideline isn’t over complicated, others aren’t being lazy and readers aren’t being "teased". [[WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] redirects to [[WWE Championship]]...meaning, [[WWE Championship|WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] is a completely pointless pipe as clicking the link takes you to the exact same place as it did before.
No pipelink: WWE World Heavyweight Championship
Pipelink: WWE World Heavyweight Championship
– 2. O. Boxing 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
...and also uploaded this file:
There should be no fair use or copyright issues here because I was the one who cropped the image, which was already being used on Wikipedia beforehand. I therefore presume that the presentation and use of this image here also meets the non-free content policy. Please notify me of any potential issues first before you take the image down this time. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The image I cropped was from Ricky Ponting's page itself so, I once again presume that it was from Commons and that I'm also free to crop or alter it in any way like you mentioned. Does this mean if I take a random file from somewhere and, let's say change the background colour for instance, it's still not really my "own work" despite the changes I have made? — 29cwcst ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Could anyone please tell me whether or not this is actually possible to do? — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
[ref] Cite web, url=1, url=2, url=3, title=same, work/website=1, work/website=2, work/website=3, accessdate=1, accessdate=2, accessdate=3 [/ref]
The same title for multiple citations. If all citations were accessed on the same date, then obviously you would just use one access date for all citations. Make sense? It's a shame that there doesn't appear to be a way to do this. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I still think it would run counter to the citation philosophy (which I can't find a good summary of - best I have is WP:Citation style). The relevant part is that each citation in an article should correspond to just one bibliographical target. The citation templates play along with Wikidata so that, theoretically, it would be possible to find all the different articles across Wikipedia projects that reference a particular item.
This sort of economy is also against the spirit of a system that prefers to list all the authors of a paper rather than use et al. Just repeat the title.
But if you are creating an article and want to introduce a reference style like this, I think the system says you're entitled to your choice. It's not required that you use the citation templates and many methods of providing references are allowed. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BackgroundThe event was initially planned to take place at Astana Arena in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan and would have been the first that the promotion had contested there. [1] [2] However, it was announced by UFC president Dana White on April 9 that starting with UFC 249, all future events were indefinitely postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] While not officially announced by the organization, the promotion was also targeting a bantamweight bout between former WSOF Bantamweight Champion and UFC Bantamweight Championship challenger Marlon Moraes and Petr Yan to serve as the original event headliner. [4]
Fight card
Announced bouts
References
|
The same should also be done eventually for the cancelled event on April 25, but we'll leave that until further notice and after the UFC provides us with a little more clarity. — 29cwcst ( talk) 02:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, as mentioned a few times no targeted, rumous, verbally agreed bout to be recorded. Kindly do not do it again for warning message will be placed in your talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi 29cwcst! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hi G29cwcst, Just to let you know that we just found out User:Regice2020 is a sock. Cassiopeia( talk) 05:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: If you still want to use the following citations, I've kept a copy of them here:
References
Now then, can we finally get these pages deleted and move on? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I noticed you agreed with me on the talk page of another user. Do you think we could facilitate a merge between UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira and Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020 ourselves, deleting the latter once we're done? All of its citations are on a previous version of the former, which was reverted by the aforementioned user. We could also look to a hold a discussion and gain consensus about this proposal if you're still not satisfied. — 29cwcst ( talk) 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, I have reverted your edits. If the UFC Fight Island is an arena and you have source to back it up then pls add the source. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Either way, please CHECK the articles and then revert if necessary. You create more work for editors like myself by failing to do so. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Cassiopeia(
talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Understood, but revert the initial edit made on the UFC 251 page because that's why I made my edits. — 29cwcst ( talk) 04:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 ICC Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Clarke ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Good day. (1) Please note that we add the wikilink for the very first appearance in the body text - see MOS:LINK, so pls do not remove them. (2) For number 0-9 we spell out the numbers - see MOS:SPELL09. Thank you. Stay safe and enjoy UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 tmrw. Cheers. Cassiopeia( talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 - those reported payouts you posted are not official payouts. they are estimated by the site you linked to. Havent made an edit but i think it should be clear that those are purely media estimated payouts and not actual salaries. cheers Dimspace ( talk) 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, Again NO targeted/verbally/rumous/in work bout on the Announced bout section.Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: The fight has been agreed to, just not signed or officially announced yet. Regardless though, finding out that this still wasn't enough for you is important. — 29cwcst ( talk) 02:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, good day. This is your talk page where message from other editors and your replies are placed here. As for your to do list, you can place you to do list on your user page User:29cwcst or you can place To Do List script and the "View ToDo" will appear on your to right corner of your Wikipedia screen. Hope this help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia( talk) 09:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: Thanks very much. I just thought it was time to get my talk page cleaned up. — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is my testing page, pls do not change the content of submit for review. Thank you.
User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage name
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User29cwcst/sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
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. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi 29cwcst, good day, p;ls do not remove Nevada State Athletic Commission and it is APEX and not Apex. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 11:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cassiopeia( talk) 11:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I'm getting so sick and tired of this. What is the Manual of Style these pages have to follow? — 29cwcst ( talk) 00:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Is it possible to archive certain pages separately? This is actually for the sake of storage, not archiving as such. Every archive template seems to regurgitate archives of previous discussions instead of displaying my subpages, which isn't what I want. — 29cwcst ( talk) 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Cassiopeia: I know you would like me to elaborate more on my edit summaries, but they're supposed to be exactly that – summaries. If you have a problem with any changes I make, the onus is on you to check my edits or contact me about them before you simply go ahead and revert. However, instead of making matters even more frustrating, I'll now take the liberty of clarifying my edit summaries:
Let me know if I still need to make things clearer for you. I'm more than happy to explain myself at any time, but shouldn't have my hard work reverted without/before being given a chance. — 29cwcst ( talk) 07:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed at a couple articles you changed No. to no. That is incorrect as No. should always be capitalized. It is world No. 17. Also you changed three sets to 3 sets. Numbers up to ten should always be spelled out except in giving scores or rankings. I hope that helps. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Fyunck(click): Thanks very much for letting me know. I did that because all the other numbers on the page weren't spelled out. If you reverted my most recent edits, then I would suggest reverting some of my others as well. Regarding the capitalization of No., why isn't that the case when it comes to linking the ATP or WTA no.1 ranked tennis players? Take a look here:
I apologize for any inconvenience that I might have caused. Please let me know if/when you spot what I'm referring to. — 29cwcst ( talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)