User talk:PicturePerfect666

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

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

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

Welcome![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempt at deletion[edit]

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Sponsored venue names[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names of venues in Boxing[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utilita Arena Birmingham[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 2023[edit]

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

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

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

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a duplicate source as you think[edit]

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

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

Some advice[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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

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

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

Note about Arab-Israeli conflict articles[edit]

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

Edward Blum (litigant)[edit]

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

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

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

WP:BLPs are a contentious topic[edit]

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

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

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation![edit]

WikiProject Eurovision invitation for PicturePerfect666!

Hello, I've noticed that you contributed to an article within our project's scope, and would like to formally invite you to join our team of editors at WikiProject Eurovision, a WikiProject dedicated to the Eurovision family of events. If you would like to join, then please add your name to this list and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
You may also wish to receive our Project's newsletter; if so then please add your name to the mailing list.

Expand this box to view a list of contests this project covers.

Thanks and have a nice day! Grk1011 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PicturePerfect666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The report to the 3RR noticeboard is procedurally defective as no notice of a discussion having been opened was made to this talk page by the reporting user, and none was made before administrative action was taken. There must be notice given by the reporting user to the reported user. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for personal attacks, so the lack of notice is not relevant. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this I probably need the cooling off period. I would though strongly suggest the other use be blocked site wide for the same period as I as they have brazenly engaging in personal attacks as well. They have made accusations of agendas at users, claimed I have a pro Israel white washing bent and am engaged in bad faith editing. I would provide diffs but that’s not simple when you’re blocked. PicturePerfect666(talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I’d characterise their continued moving of where I was placing comments as harassment. They are as bad if not worse than me in their behaviour. They are not just some 1rr violator. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to disengage, but I judged your conduct right there at AN3 to be of greater concern, and more aggressive. Please stop personalizing disputes, you're still doing it, and it's not helpful to this encyclopedia project.I'm giving you both some benefit of doubt, since Eurovision Song Contest 2024 seems like an unlikely venue for a dispute about Israel and Palestine, but the notice is and has been there at the top of the talkpage. You both breached 1RR, and when your blocks expire I expect you both to confine yourselves to polite discussion on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but look more widely at the other person they have been going after multiple users directly accusing them of agendas and bias towards Israel. I thank you for your input. While I disagree with the asymmetry of the block. But I don’t think just judging based on the selective diffs of a reporter trying to push a user they are reporting to be moved out of their way. I just want them to be looked at as they do not have clean hands. Maybe I got caught up but look at them and you will find they ignore policies guidelines, editing principles and engage in person attacks. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the report is procedurally defective to the notice board as I was not notified on my talk page expressly that the report had been made. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators get the "but what about them" argument all the time from AN3 actions, it comes with the territory. AN3 is about what's happening right now - it's there to stop disruption that's happening right now, not to address longer-term issues or patterns of behavior. As for the procedural lapse in not notifying you, you're right, but having commented at AN3 you rendered the non-notification moot. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no negation by the other person commenting. The page is strict the user must notify the person they are reporting. There is nothing saying responding negates that. I’m not going but what about them I’m simply going they are an unpleasant individual and should be looked into, personally I’d like an interaction ban between the two of us as I know this individual will not stop their poor behaviour towards me. Plus everything I stated at the rice board I can easily back up with diffs but being blocked makes that a challenge. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to ensure that you are aware of the report. Obviously you were, so that means you're not summarily exonerated, and that judgment is well within administrator discretion. Don't try to wikilawyer, AN3 is not a courthouse. And neither of you were distinguishing yourselves. As I said, I'm giving you both both the benefit of the doubt. Don't make me regret doing that. And the primary block reason is for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside is encouraging a third party to continue an edit war and violate the 1RR against the rules of Wikipedia? Such as this request? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for warring with you, not because the content I was readding was not in accordance with Wikipedia rules. You still removed content which has a place in the article and judging on the discussions on the talk page, other editors agree — IмSтevan ^talk 09:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah people who can’t edit the page. Plus you are trying to further perpetuate the reasons you were page locked. I am not sure you understand why you were page blocked. You violated the 1RR rule and are encouraging others to do so to restore your preferred version which is continuing trying to war. I’m not sure you get it.You can’t further an edit war with behaviour that encourages others to violate the 1RR rule no matter how ‘right’ or how much you believe ‘other support your preferred version’. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discarding an opinion just because the editor is unable to edit the page because the edit count (specific to wiki:en) is too small is ridiculous. I'm a mainly wiki:fr contributor and I frequently read the talks on the anglophone project because they are way more active than the fr one. My wiki:en edit count shouldn't make my opinion less valid. Yoyo360 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note to all: please don't bother PP666 with things that don't directly pertain to them, and don't use this user's talkpage as a forum for continuation of content discussions or complaints about the editing restrictions that are imposed on the Eurovision article and talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference an involved editor in Kingsif has continued the edit war and violated the 1RR rule with this reversion after the warnings clearly placed on the page. They have not restored to the last uncontested version but rather their preferred version. This is an edit to further their preferred version and continue the edit war. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I had not previously edited at all in relation to this whole content debate here, it is very safe to say that I could not have possibly violated 1RR. Your characterisation of “my preferred revision” and the idea that I would want an edit war, when I have encouraged discussion and understanding, are nothing but ad hominem attacks. The kind of uncivil conduct you appear to have been blocked for. @Acroterion: Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for any of this please can everyone stop using this page as a repository for washing laundry.

In relation to the incorrect claims of immunity from getting in hot water.

Weather or not you’ve edited the page before the fact you have continued the edit war is a violation. Feigning ‘being the new person to the editing’ is not an escape from the facts of perpetuating and continuing to edit war. You do not have to be a person called out to allow you to perpetuate especially when jumping in m knowing the situation in to continue an edit war and violate the revert rules. It’s not actually a way to circumvent the rules and it is attempting to game the system.

Simply going I didn’t do first but go ‘I like a preferred version still carry on then and I’m gonna carry on where they left off as I like their version and I’ll get away with it because I’m immune because as I’m new to doing the warring’, doesn’t actually work. It’s a blatant attempt to game the system.

You do not get a free pass with your reasoning. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full policy on gaming the system can be found at the link provided. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]