User talk:29cwcst/Archive 9

Canelo Alvarez...again

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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)

Canelo Alvarez

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)

February 2020

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)

You have had enough chances. Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for You have been disrupting Wikipedia for many years now, despite numerous warnings as this talk page shows. I have blocked you from editing for a month. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on this page: {{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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This 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).

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)

Differences in time zones have no effect on when and how you check your talk page. You are not expected to check it 24/7 or on any regular basis but you should look in every now and then. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

They do when I see all of my hard work and contributions undone by someone the next day. Do you have any idea how annoying that is? Obviously not, considering you at Wikipedia blocked me last month. You can keep referring me to the Wikipedia editing guidelines as the reason behind that, but those things seriously need to change. I'm sick and tired of checking my talk page to try and find out why my edits are constantly being reverted. I'll comply because I actually care about this great resource, yet I'm still the one at fault for not adhering to the editing guidelines. Honestly, my fellow editors really ought to start recognizing the difference between making something better and being a disruptive user, especially when it prevents somebody like yours truly from improving more articles. All the best 331dot, I will not be addressing this matter any further now. — 29cwcst (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2020 (AEST)

UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards

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)

29cwcst, Good day. You need to WP:PING the editor when you send a message to the editor on "your talk page" so they could receive a notification. I didnt know you write to me because you dint ping me. You can ping a person by adding double open "curly bracket" , then type "ping" then add a "pipe" then type "the editor user name", then add double closed curly bracket before you start writing.

It is not my way, dont add link for country is Wikipedia guidelines. - see MOS:OL. If any editor wish to edit Wikipedia, then they should follow the guidelines. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: My apologies about not pinging you, here at Wikipedia you don't actually get told about most of this stuff yourself. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for ping me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira

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)

29cwcst, Greetings. Many readers are from different countries and they might not family with the cities where the event held, besides many countries do have the same names so we should always be clear which country and/or state the city are we talking about. Take example of "Lafayette" - and you will see how many Lafayette in just United Sates alone - see here. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I know where you're coming from, but I don't think you see where I'm coming from. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, do you mind to explain to me again " what is your concern /where are you coming from"? Btw thank you for pinging me. Now I got you message. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No worries, see if you can follow along here:

For instance, take Hollywood and Hollywood, Florida as an example. If the UFC were to hold an upcoming event in Hollywood, Florida, then that's the link I would provide the page with. On the other hand, if the promotion was holding an upcoming event in Hollywood (California), then would I provide the page with two separate links instead - Hollywood, California. This is because the first link, Hollywood, takes them straight to the article by that title. The other link, California, is included because unlike the article about Hollywood, Florida, the state isn't included in the title of the page, so I include a direct link to the article about the state as a substitute. The guidelines may have a problem with it, by I figure why not? Readers can choose to actually read about the state if they want to, seeing as how it's not included in the title. Regarding the Hollywood, Florida link, this isn't required because the article title takes you straight to that page about that specific location. From there, readers should be able to access a direct link to the state of Florida if they so choose. I do this for all location links, so it is actually consistent. The articles I link readers to will let them know exactly where the event is taking place, they just have to find out for themselves like everyone does, including me. UFC events that take place in the United States do not list the country on those respective pages, at least when it comes to the location. I've just tried to keep the formatting and structure of these articles consistent as a result of noticing and identifying this. Make sense? I personally think more so than the guidelines. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, "link the name of the page", so if the name of the page is Chicago and no state is listed after that, then just link Chicago. If the page name comes with the state name such as Annapolis, Maryland then you can put a "pipe" after Maryland and put Annapolis - like this Annapolis (pls see in source editing mode). To me, the country should be listed in the WP:LEAD section (introduction in article page) as Wikipedia is not only meant for Americans nor UFC events are held only in US - Wikipedia and UFC event are meant for the whole world and readers come from every part of the world. I have tried to add the countries many times and hope all Wikipedia MMA editors will do the same. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I will from now on, for what it's worth. Rather than reverting all my edits though, I suggest that you take this matter up with other Wikipedia MMA editors first because I don't want your good work getting undone either. In regards to achieving a consensus, it's so annoying. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia MMA editors are not very working together. I have tried and still trying to get them work together without edit warring or report each other to WP:ANI. I have proposed Bellator to be first tier promoter where under the guidelines when I proposed Bellator met the Wikipedia MMA guidelines. Only 1 editor respond to the proposal. To many of us, the mma editors, this is a very important proposal and yet the respond was so disappointing. So to have mma editors on consensus on whether a country should be added on UFC event, would yeild hardly any respond. Secondly, to add a country is not a issue as it is being clear where the city is located and once again, UFC event and Wikipedia is meant for the whole world and not only United States alone. There is only one editor consistently keep on deleting the country and the same editor will delete a huge sourced content even there is no reason to remove a chunk of reliable, independent sourced content as they are not WP:Disruptive/WP:Vandalism/WP:COPYVIO/WP:PROMO/ and the content is adhered to WP:NPOV. If the editor thinks the content is a mess (according to him), then he could just tidy it up instead of removing the source content which is Wikipedia:Relevance. Thought Wikipedia recognizes the creator of the article but nobody own any articles in Wikipedia even you are the creator. A number of us, including me, have informed you regrading some of your edits you made which you didnt adhere to the guidelines, and but you didnt check your talk page nor read the guidelines, for such you found yourself blocked by admin. Please help us to help yourself, adhere to the guidelines and communicate with each other and support/help each other. I am here to help as always and you can always pop by my talk page or ping me on your talk page. I am happy we have these discussion and hope all things could be settled here on. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking

Greeting, As per

(1) MOS:LINKSTYLE -"*As explained in more detail at Help:Link § Wikilinks, linking can be "direct" ([[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)."

and

(2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts guidelines and ] on location - "In the column Location, try to include, whenever possible, city and country according to how they are names in their respective articles in Wikipedia. For example, "Las Vegas, Nevada, United States" or "Tokyo, Japan". In some countries, like the U.S., the name of the cities may be the same in different local regions, such as Hollywood, Florida and Hollywood, Alabama, so, in order to avoid confusion, include the full city name as it is titled in its Wikipedia article. To maintain a similar format for all cities in the location column, try to include the similar existing redirects for cities that do not include the local region after the city name in their Wikipedia articles. For example, use the redirect Osaka, Osaka instead of Osaka."

So pls dont separate the city and the state in linking. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine. But why is that a problem? Why does that bother you? My links direct users directly to the articles mentioned! For pages on cities that include a state in the title, users can just search the state instead. Also, what is this format for all cities in the location column you mentioned? If users click on the article link, any article link, it should link them directly to that article. What's the point in redirecting if the title's not accurate? Seriously, page formatting here is confusing and messed up. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, As mentioned to you, it is the Wikipedia guidelines and editors should following if the edit Wikipedia for Wikipedia is the collobration of many editors. If everyone does what they like or think what they way is the best, then it would be a mess. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: To be fair, Wikipedia is such a mess even with those guidelines. I actually think that the current editing guidelines make it worse, especially in terms of trying to achieve a consensus. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, first of all, do add additional colon (to more one space to the right) from the previous message before starting to edit to seperate the message thread for this is the communication protocol of Wikipedia - see more on Help:Wikitext. 29cwcst, I do understand that you are trying to contribute and do care about the project. However, the guidelines are what we worked with. Many editors do not know the guidelines especially those are new and we learn them by either reading them ourselves for have been informed by other more experienced editors. All we have to do is learn and adhere accordingly. I understand it is a steep learning curve, but once you understand them, it will be easier. Remember, I am here to help and ping me if you need some support.Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: All noted and understood. However, please try and consult me first before you change my edits back or delete them. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I can send you a message and check you talk page for you would receive a notification when someone send you a message. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: If you could at least do that first, I would greatly appreciate it. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

UFC 244

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)

Hi, Why did you remove the link see here no good reason? kindly self revert. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, as none of the section headings are entirely in capital letters. 'Early Preliminary card' and 'Main Card' have had capital letters inserted to match how they're displayed in the fight card section. I'm also not aware of deleting any links either. The only link I recall altering is the one to UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar, which is the official title of that page on Wikipedia and the reason why I changed it. I personally believe the official title should've remained UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar but, as I've mentioned before, the current editing guidelines and whole consensus thing here is complete rubbish. However, you should be pleased to know that from this event (UFC 244) onwards, I have added the country to every following page regarding UFC events that have taken place in the United States. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: My bad, I removed the Fight of the Night bonus award link because it's the same as the Performance of the Night bonus award link mentioned earlier in the article. If a user were to click on that, it would take them directly to that page correctly listed as such. Unless you really want that reverted, I personally don't see or can't think of any reason why I should. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, The different is that the section heading should be sentence case - see MOS:SECTIONS as per Wikipedia guidelines. As for the the fight table, I have yet to find any guidelines states it should be sentence or not, unless it is a proper nonce that it should be in sentence case. If anyone disagree, then go to the talk page and seek consensus agreement. So kindly self revert. For the FOTN and POTN, even they both link to the same page, it is a diff award so pls self revert and keep the link. thank you.

For UFC Fight Night: Lee vs. Oliveira, pls do not remove the link as you have done - see here. It was reverted by other mma editor. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I did that because if the fight is taking place in the same division as the one mentioned in that redirect link, therefore one would assume that they mean the weight class mentioned. However, if Lee had been an interim title challenger or normally competed in a different division, then that's when I would include the redirect link. For instance – a featherweight or welterweight bout between former Interim UFC Lightweight Championship challenger Kevin Lee and Charles Oliveira served as the event headliner. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Also, you might actually want to consider addressing the whole "add country/United States" thing with other editors now. This is because I noticed that the country had since been removed on those pages I mentioned previously. If other MMA editors simply won't listen, then I think you'll have to start letting it slide from now on as I am not prepared to keep re-adding the country on all UFC event articles over and over again. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, UFC 244

(1) Other might remove the country since it states city (I dont have problem to put country in the infobox after the city); Hoewever, pls do not link country as mentioned before - see MOS:LINKS - this is your edit here Pls self revert.

(2) Why did you remove the link see here no good reason? kindly self revert.

If you not going to self revert, then I will revert it and will not inform you further as we agree to let you know about your edits which might not helpful or disruptive. Kindly do the needed.

(3) To add country on the WP:LEAD section, would not be a problem but for WP:Infobox, that would be face some resistance since the infobox states only city but not country.

@Cassiopeia: That's not even remotely the case. Almost every UFC event that takes place outside of the United States has the country stated and linked inside the infobox. I'm trying to help you out here – outside of reading the guidelines and what I mentioned in the previous sentence, what else do you want me to do going forward? — 29cwcst (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night: Lee vs. Oliveira

(4) as for this "A lightweight bout between former interim UFC Lightweight Championship challenger Kevin Lee and Charles Oliveira served as the event headliner.", we keep the link even the bout was a catchweight.

(5) What you would do is to observe how the event and fighter articles are written and follow the same fashion then it could cause minum disruption. The thing is that you are very helpful but you need to know the guidelines and norm. Read the guidelines which provided to you. I use to read the guidlines for hours for some month every other days to familiar myself of Wikipedia guidelines. I know there are a lot to read, we just learn them in time. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I get it, I understand what it's going to take but man, way to take the fun and enjoyment out of being an editor. Whose great idea was it to make this all so complicated? — 29cwcst (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

, Hi 29cwcst, I know it takes some effort of reading to know the guidelines, but once you know them and have a hang of it, you will find it is not only easy but fun as well to edit the pages. Also I suggest you to read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts guidelines. Best and stay safe 29cwcst Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Likewise, although I highly doubt reading to know and understand the guidelines will make what I do here any more satisfying, especially when editors like yourself will most likely revert my edits and/or take me up on them regardless. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

, Hi 29cwcst, Most editors new to mma/Wikipedia do encounter the same (edits being reverted or receiving warning-message / receipting guidelines messages). Once they observe the norm and understand/read the guidelines then all the edits stay. I have guides many mma editors and seen the changes they made after understand the norm and guidelines and since have no issues on editing and become one of the regular mma editor. (note: most of the pass UFC events are well-sourced and well-edited). I am here to help always. Please do not feel frustrated, as in time you will find your edits stay as they are in the page after you understand and adhere to the guidelines and norm. Stay safe 20wcst. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks very much. With all do respect though, do NOT tell me to not feel frustrated. I recognize that you're here to help, but when I'm working my backside off and contributing what nobody else can be bothered to contribute, you have no right to tell me how to feel. If my fellow editors frustrate me, then I'm going to feel frustrated by them. Plain and simple. Keep well during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT

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)

@Galatz: Isn't that our job as editors though, to point users in the right direction regarding all Wikipedia articles? I guess not, seeing as how most other editors are too lazy to actually go back and do this stuff themselves in the future. Instead, they would rather just confuse editors by creating these overcomplicated 'piping' guidelines. Come on, lay the others on me while you're at it. The sooner I'm familiar with all this stuff the better. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galatz: Is this more to your liking? See here. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galatz: You know, by not giving me feedback all your doing is proving my point further. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by your comments. I am busy working and playing teacher so I am not on Wikipedia everyday, so I cannot respond right away. What do you mean by "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)

@Galatz: Neither am/can I, which is why I would greatly appreciate it if you could reply whenever possible. Prior to reading the guidelines, I liked to link editors directly to page mentioned because, as an editor, I found that certain pages couldn't be edited from a redirect. Also, users would get a better understanding of the resource this way because they could familiarize themselves with what the actual names of certain articles are. It was and has never been my intention to 'tease' readers, quite the opposite in fact. By linking readers directly to a certain page or section of/on a certain page, they go straight there without having to potentially search for it themselves. What you mentioned about allowing the redirect to properly redirect just doesn't work as well, which is why I referred to other editors as being lazy – if you know this is the case, be prepared to go back and tweak it at a later time. Rather than providing users with the most direct and accurate resource available, we create 'guidelines' to do that for us instead, seemingly because a lot of editors aren't really prepared to make sure that all articles meet the same, consistent standard. Regardless though, keep well during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. Who is being helped by changing [[WWE World Heavyweight Championship]] to [[WWE Championship|WWE World Heavyweight Championship]]? It makes it a lot more confusing to do that than helpful. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galatz: Editors like myself are, because they can just go straight to any page and commence their work without 'teasing' readers in the aftermath. However, if the Wikipedia guidelines aren't allowing you to understand this then simply I can't help you. Don't feel bad though, you aren't the first user to have an issue with me and I highly doubt you'll be the last either. Even still, I recognize that I ultimately have to find alternate ways of working and editing to achieve a consensus here, that way these things can eventually avoid happening altogether. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:45, 15 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)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Except it's less convenient because you can't always start editing from a redirect so, yeah, I do have to change my editing approach. If I didn't have to worry about adhering to those awful Wikipedia guidelines, I would continue to add 'pipes' because most other editors can't seemingly be bothered. Don't worry about it though, I can't be bothered going forward now because I know that all of my future edits regarding these 'pipelinks' will just be reverted and removed. Nevertheless, take care during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused, "it's less convenient because you can't always start editing from a redirect“? If you want to edit an article, the way you get there has literally no impact on your ability to edit it (or, at least, it never has with me nor can I see why it would). It doesn’t matter if you’ve clicked on a redirect, pipedlink or typed in the article’s title in the search bar, they all lead to the exact same page, and none of the avenues taken should affect how you edit the article you land on. This is why most other editors don’t “bother” to add pipelinks in these situations, because there is literally no need whatsoever. Piping a redirect is a waste of space, it serves no benefit at all. The only approach you need to change regarding your editing is click a link before you edit it; if that link goes to the correct page without a pipedlink, then the link quite clearly does not need to be piped. I know some of the guidelines on Wikipedia can be confusing and not all of them fully explain things, but the guidelines around pipelinks are straightforward; you either need a pipelink to get you to the correct article, or you don’t lol – ².O.^Boxing 08:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I know because it's happened to me trying to previously edit pages from a redirect on my iPad via the Wikipedia app. As far as you're concerned, I'm clearly still in the wrong so I will not be addressing this matter any further now. At this point, any lingering confusion is on your end to deal with. Unless pages here have some sort of space or character limit, I don't get how 'piping' a redirect is an issue. Regardless though, all the best during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the guidelines you were pointed to? It explains in plain and simple English how things are done. YOU are the one doing it incorrectly. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galatz: That doesn't mean I have to agree with them though, because I definitely don't. I accept/have accepted how things are done here and am now editing accordingly, something you're obviously not aware of. As mentioned to Squared.Circle.Boxing, I will not be addressing this matter any further. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg

⚠

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)

@B-bot: It is useful because it depicts Ricky Ponting, the 2006 ICC Cricketer of the Year. If you would like to upload another file to the page instead then, by all means, be my guest. Make sure it's not the same image as the one used on the 2007 ICC Awards page though, because that would entirely defeat the purpose of me uploading the other image to begin with. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ricky Ponting, 2019-07.jpg

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:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{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.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe 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)

@Marchjuly: I have cropped the following file...

...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)

If the orginal file was from Commons, then you're free to crop or alter it in anyway. You should, howver. add something to the description of the cropped file which indicates where it came from such as c:Template:Extracted from. Also, the file is not really your "own work" so you probably shouldn't claim it as such. It would be best to just use the same information given in the original file. If you want an example on how to do that, see File:George-W-Bush (cropped).jpeg and File:George-W-Bush.jpeg. You should also try and use the same license as the original. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 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)

The file you cropped is from Commons and I think you should indicate that somewhere within the description of the cropped version so that others are aware of its provenance. It's possible to take someone else's copyrighted work at alter it in such a way that creates a new copyrightable work as explained in WP:DERIVATIVE and c:COM:DW, but that doesn't might the original copyrighted work is no longer under copyright protection. At the same time, it's also possible to alter another person's copyright work in such a way that is basically considered a slavish reproduction as explained in c:COM:2D copying. Ultimately whether something is considered to be a slavish reproduction or a derivative work might sometimes be hard to sort out even for a court, but if all you doing is taking someone's photo and added it to essentially a different colored background or adding some elements (such as text) which are generally considered to be not eligible for copyright protection for the most part, it wouldn't make it your "own work" in the sense that you "own the copyright on it". Even in the case of a derivative work, when it comes to Wikipedia and Commons, a file isn't going to be accepted unless it's 100% free. This means that not only the derivative, but also the original work itself has been released under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. Finally, one thing that easy to misunderstand is that a file uploaded to Commons under a "free license" like Creative Commons is still protected by copyright and owned by someone in most cases. The Commons license just means that the uploader is making a version of the content available under licensing terms that make it easier for others to use without having to directly contact the copyright holder each and every time they want to use it. It doesn't mean that the copyright holder has transferred their copyright ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else, or has otherwise relinquished their copyright ownership. That's another reason why it's probably a good idea for you to indicate where the cropped file came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I added some information regarding the origins of the image I cropped. However, I still can't edit how the file uploaded is not actually my "own work" as you mentioned previously. I just wanted to know how I could do that? Also, expect more questions like this one to come your way going forward xD! — 29cwcst (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about the "own work" in the file history. I'm not sure if it can be edited, but it's probably not a big deal. FWIW, lots of people upload files as their "own work" and the fact that you did is not going to cause the earth to stop rotating. You uploaded the file in good faith and have done you best to clarify things; so, I'm pretty sure that nobody's going to throw the Commons' rule book at you. I apologize if some of my prior comments caused you to fret a bit. If you have any more questions about images (particularly licensing questions), you'll probably always find someone to help you out at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC, or even at WP:THQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I just wanted to make sure I'm doing this the right way, so that future files of mine don't get taken down. Could I fix the problem by the uploading the file again? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, but if you want to try to do such a thing, then you will need to do so on Commons since that's where you uploaded the file. You can try adding c:Template:SD per Commons speedy deletion criterion G7 or you can try c:COM:DR, but before you do either you might want to ask for help at c:COM:AN because a Commons administrator might be able to suggest something better or clarify whether this is something you need to be concerned about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: They took my file down, after lodging a request at the link you provided me with. If I provided them with certain links/websites, do you think they could also help me in asking certain copyright holders about using their images? The problem has always been trying to contact and get in touch with these people. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who are the "they" you're refering to, but pretty much all editors (including administrators) on Wikipedia and Commons are WP:VOLUNTEERs; in other words, there are no official Wikipedia or Commons staff. If you're interested in asking someone for permission to use their copyrighted content, you might find Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, Wikipedia:Example requests for permission or even c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change, but basically you or anyone who helps you will be doing such a thing as private individuals, not representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation,. There are some people who don't mind doing such things, but there are just as many who aren't really into it simply because it's sort of a cold calling type of thing whose outcome they pretty much have no control over. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, the Commons editors/administrators are who I'm referring to. I guess I could always ask for their help in trying to get certain images uploaded on here, not that they strike me as being particularly helpful. Regardless though, I greatly appreciate all your help. Keep well during this pandemic. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Placing a set of different references all under the same title

Could anyone please tell me whether or not this is actually possible to do? — 29cwcst (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How so? Could you elaborate on what you'd like to do? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Is there a way to list various references, coincidentally under the same title, all under one singular reference with the same title? — 29cwcst (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, If I'm understanding you right, yes, and easily. Using visual editor its super simple, you just click on an existing reference and copy it, and visual editor automatically tracks that it is the same thing. Using source editing its a little more complicated, you can name a reference, such as <refname=whatever> {{insert ref template here}} </ref> , and then you can later call the exact same reference using <nowiki> <refname=whatever /> <no wiki>. Does that help? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

CaptainEek is describing named references, which allow you to use a reference in multiple places in the text. If they've successfully answered your question, then you can ignore the rest of mine.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the answer is 'no'. Or at least not without completely messing up the referencing system.

You can have a single ref containing multiple citations. See WP:BUNDLING. But each citation would still retain its own individual title.

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could write out an example of how you think you would want this 'one-title, many citations' to look. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I'm aware of what CaptainEek explained, but I think you understand where I'm coming from. I'll try and show you what I mean now:

[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)

I thought I had replied already to this....

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)

I had one other thought, given that this hypothetical is somewhat vague:

In looking at drafts, I often run across a situation where there are multiple citations with the same title; different URLs, different publications, different attributions as to authorship, but when you examine the targets, you find they are all exactly the same source and the contributor has engaged in either CITEBOMBING or is simply unable or unwilling to recognize that they are not in any sense different sources. You've been around long enough that I don't think this is the sort of situation you'd be asking about, but if it is...well you already know what my answer would be. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: So, the answer's no ultimately? Well, thanks very much nonetheless. Would you mind if I tried taking this up with other users/editors though, in regards to a new citation style? The reason I'm suggesting this is because it can provide additional verification to both references and a particular source of information. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course you can take it up with other editors. I have no particular authority here, any more than you have. I suggest you work out some cases with more real-world examples of what you are trying to do, though, since - as you've seen - without examples people may not understand what (or why) you are trying to do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving UFN 176 to UFC Fight Night 176

Cassiopeia – could somebody please facilitate this? I don't know why it hasn't been done already. I'm keeping some of the information below here to add once it has been:

Extended content

UFC Fight Night 176 Promotion Ultimate Fighting Championship Date June 13, 2020 (2020-06-13) Venue TBD City TBD Event chronology UFC 250: Nunes vs. Spencer UFC Fight Night 176 UFC Fight Night 177 UFC Fight Night 176 is an upcoming mixed martial arts event produced by the Ultimate Fighting Championship that will take place on June 13, 2020 at a TBD location. Background The 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. 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. 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. Fight card Announced bouts Light Heavyweight bout: Khadis Ibragimov vs. Roman Dolidze Flyweight bout: Zhalgas Zhumagulov vs. Jordan Espinosa Light Heavyweight bout: Gadzhimurad Antigulov vs. Klidson Abreu 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, Good day. The closing of moved request was a premature one even thought I understand you good intention to get thing in place which is also most of the mma editors here. We can change UFN 178 to UFC Fight Night 176 until UFC Fight Night 176 name change request close and rename to other name or a round robin name change if no object. There is a discussion UFC Fight Night articles if you want to join. Another ways is that we wait until UFN has a official headliner then we could change the article name. All this happen is that editor does not know Wikipedia guidelines, MMA Wikipedia background, how UFC pages are named and refused to listen to experience editors advice continually which created so many unnecessary discussions, proposals and wasting many editors time and effort in the discussions instead of improving the articles. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Well then, could you please hurry up and finish your discussion? With all due respect, the solution is a pretty obvious one here. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, I have place my views on the talk page, and if you want to join in on Talk:UFC Fight Night 176 page name move then you could. Once a tag of such (merge/move) then it will take a little time for editor to comments prior a closing can be done and involved editors (editors who placed them comments on the page) can NOT close the discussion. For Talk:UFC Fight Night 176 is a 2 step process (1) page name move need to be closed first then (2) either rename the page or (2) merge discussion resolved or UFN 176 can move to new name prior Talk:UFC Fight Night 176 issues are settled. As we have talk many times, and I guess you would understand by now why it is important to understand the Wikipedia guidelines, WikiPorject MMA guidelines, general background on how to edit the mma pages and seeking and listening to the experienced editors' advice for it takes only editors to weight down the entire naming and wasting for many editors time on unnecessary discussion instead improving editing. user Cepiolot's point is correct and please be gentle with your words, for we the editors need to help each other and collaborate working to improving a page that is the spirit of Wikipedia and not fighting. We all know that your intention was good but the your actions was not according to the guidelines. As for now, we need to be a little patient until all this mess is sorted. Have fun watching Wooly vs Burns fight tmrw. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Will do and thanks very much. Just for the record though, my reasoning behind moving UFC Fight Night 176 was approved. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, the move has yet to be closed so no discussion is made but I understand your good will of doing so but it was not the right way for it didnt following the guidelines. stay safe during this time of c-19 and riots (if you are resided in US). Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks so much again, I'm very fortunate not to be residing in the States right now. Alternatively, I have now added content to the UFC Fight Night 172, 173 and 174 pages. They are no longer redirects, but rather the appropriate titles for the upcoming UFC Fight Night event articles. They are admittedly duplicates, but please do not delete them until all of your discussions have finished. They probably will be though, knowing what other editors are like. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

UFC 251

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)

@Cassiopeia: I didn't place those bouts there, somebody else did and I just formatted them correctly. However, the Jéssica Andrade–Rose Namajunas rematch did actually have a citation, so I don't get why that particular bout was removed from the page. Until other editors like yourself figure out what's going on with UFN 176 and all, I simply won't attempt to edit those articles. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst - This was the edit you made and the source stated "in the works" which means it is not yet official. You can edit any "sourced" official bout for UFN 176 as long as the sourced stated the bout is held on June 13, 2020. Stay safe 29cwcst and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi 29cwcst! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Placing a set of different references all under the same title, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

SP

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: Well, that obviously explains all the troublemaking. Thanks for letting me know anyway, even though I honestly couldn't care less xD! — 29cwcst (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

He was SOCK for 4 accounts and I believe he will appear again in another account in the future. You take care and enjoy UFC 250 tmr. best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Will do, kind regards and take care of business like I know you can :) — 29cwcst (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

UFC sources/citations

@Cassiopeia: If you still want to use the following citations, I've kept a copy of them here:

• Khadis Ibragimov meets Roman Dolidze during UFC in Nur-Sultan

• UFC targets Kazakhstan for a card on June 13

• Upcoming events postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with Dana White promising 'Fight Island' will proceed

• Marlon Moraes and Petr Yan agree to main event UFC Kazakhstan

References

Now then, can we finally get these pages deleted and move on? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, g'day. The AfD will run for 7 days if no major disagreement on the vote/discussion. The closing admin will decide if the article should be deleted based on the page and the discussion. Which ever the the decision I am happy to accept. Btw thank you for pinging me. Appreciate. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Likewise, keep well and please let me know what the outcome is here (on my talk page). — 29cwcst | 02:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposition

@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)

29cwcst, you can propose a merge in the article talk page - see WP:Merge for instruction and see Merge proposal|Talk:UFC 249 for example. Do note we can not pursuit any editor on their talk page to sway their view for it violate the Wikipedia guidelines for each editor voice their opinions based on source and Wikipedia guidelines whichever their take on the proposal. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:  Done. I hope that this will ultimately allow us to rightfully combine both of these articles now. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

UFC Fight Island Arena

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)

June 2020

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)

Ok got you. Thank you. I hope it is an arena but so far we just know it is call UFC Fight Island as per to date. I have to say you have made many good edits and contribution to MMA related pages recently and I thank you for that! Stay safe 29cwcst and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No worries, that's what I'm here to do! All the same to you as well. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

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)

Wiki links and numberings

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)

@Cassiopeia: Gotcha. Thanks very much for letting me know. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fight Night reported payouts

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)

@Dimspace: Hence the reason they're called reported payouts, not official payouts. If you can find citations that actually pertain to the official, undisclosed figures, then feel free to replace the figures I posted. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if they arent actually official from the commission I dont think they should be there at all. They are basically made up by a journalist, they may be accurate, they may be completely innacurate. im not sure for encyclopedia purposes we should be listing figures that arent accurate. just my opinion Dimspace (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dimspace: Well then, I guess this means that you plan on advocating for their removal. Obviously, there isn't much I can do if you're not satisfied with the figures provided, even if they appear to be reasonably accurate. How do you know that figures posted on other UFC event pages are accurate, because they cite sources that are supposedly more accurate and trustworthy? It was never my choice to start adding payout figures to these articles, but why should we add them if they can't be recorded for every future event? This place really does confuse me at times. — 29cwcst (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it varies. In some areas the actual amounts are reported by the commission as what officially was declared. So they are official declared salaries. In areas where commissions do not release the numbers then the media just guess based on previous payouts. So theres two things in play 1) Official actual salaries 2) salaries that are guessed at by the media. Its probably something for discussion on the actual MMA talk page. Official salaries are about to go out of the window anyway as Nevada have announced they are no longer publishing salaries. so going forward everything is going to be estimated and there would really be questions over accuracy. Dimspace (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dimspace: Granted, but they still don't reflect all the money that fighters actually make because promotional and/or pay-per-view bonuses aren't included, nor is sponsor money. The total amount of money a fighter actually makes is never truly disclosed, fully or publicly. As you previously mentioned though, we obviously don't have to worry about this if Nevada stops publishing salaries. Keep well, take care and please consider starting a similar discussion on the actual MMA talk page next time. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

UFC 253

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)

29cwcst, As mentioned several times for many months, verbally agreed, humorous, targeted, in work they are NOT official. We only record offically announce as we all know fighters and even promoter agreed, call out fighters, or to hype a fighter all the time, and they negotiation process sometimes take longer to sign the dotted line. So again we just record the official announced bout supported by source. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: With all due respect Cassiopeia, please mention this to whoever added the Tyron Woodley–Colby Covington bout. I'm just citing sources that support the work of others, as opposed to just reverting their edits because they're contributions aren't considered satisfactory. There's been ongoing talk about a fight between Woodley and Covington for weeks now. If reportedly set for September 19, why can't we just keep it there for the time being? Assuming the bout doesn't eventuate or materialize, we can still refer to it within the background section. What websites, publications or information sources do you recommend? — 29cwcst (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, I have tried many times to explain to you regarding that verbally agreed, humorous, targeted, in work they are NOT official. Precisely you are the one who cite the source and should have read the article (source) as Wikipedia is not news/newspaper but it is an online encyclopedia. Many editors add info which they should not because they are new to Wikepedia and do not know how Wikipedia works and the guidelines and we the regular editors keep on remove the content and warn/educate the new editors. However, you have been around for a while and have received many warning, advice and communication to understand the basic editing especially in Wikipedia. I have advised you many times to read Wikipedia guidelines but not edit as per what you think is right or should be. You can do what you want if you have your own blog or website. Since this is Wikipedia we adhere to the guidelines If you dont like the guidelines then go to propose new one and get consensus. Stay safe and enjoy UFC 252. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Likewise, but that still doesn't answer my question. If the source provided doesn't satisfy you, just remove the bout and mention it in your edit summary because there's really no need to keep bringing this to my attention. A bout between Woodley and Covington appears imminent, with the latter having signed already. According to what Dana White has said, the UFC is now just waiting on the former. Either way though, I'm simply not wasting any more time here. Keep well, take care and all the best. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, The source does not indicate the bout is set. I read the news as well but it is still NOT officially yet (as of this second). So please do not add it in on the "announced bout" section. Kindly wait and you are welcome to add it in when it is set. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To Do List

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)

Hi 29cwcst, do you see "View ToDo" icon on the top right corner of any Wikipedia page? Your ToDoLister is your js is a little diff from mine. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Yes, along with an "Add to ToDo" icon as well. I think I'll move my "View ToDo" so that I also have spare pages for other things too. Thanks very much once again. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi 29cwcst, I suggest you not to move the page as there are other ways to have spare pages as viewToDo and Add Todo link with each other. This is your sandbox (Every editor has a sandbox). You can use this page for anything you like (dont add categories) and place the text below, so if any editors happen to come to your page, they will leave your sandbox alone. Also you can have Sandbox 2 and other sub pages if needed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is my testing page, pls do not change the content of submit for review. Thank you.

@Cassiopeia: Alright then, I'll do this your way instead. Keep well, take care and all the best. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, Your sandbox suppose to be testing on editing. Btw you can see your sandbox on to of the Wikipedia page. Click on it and you can start writing (like trying to write an article) If you want to record the links then do it in your user page here. If not it will be deleted. See my user page for example here-2. When you add tasks to "Add to ToDo" then you can view and remove them on "View ToDo" (that is what I meant they are linked). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Testing on editing? You mean I'm not allowed to actually save stuff? Then my sandbox completely defeats its own purpose. Anyway, the issue has been resolved so hopefully they'll leave these pages alone from now on. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, Pls read Wikipedia:Sandbox. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have, but it's still my sandbox. Why should other users feel the need to delete it if I'm abiding by the guidelines? In regards to testing certain edits, I could just do so here without having them deleted. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, First of all, none of the pages (even you are the only editor edited/created the page) is belong to you as this is Wikipedia, everyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly, I dont think G2 apply to your sandbox. G2 usually applies to newpage where editor use it instead of the "Draft" space to create (testing) if they could write anything/article. However, it would be better to place all the links from your sandbox to your userspace as that is where it should be and not in your sanbox (sanbox is not designed for the purpose). You also can create your own sub pages for other things as well. Example This is the my sub page where I place all the images I have uploaded into WikiCommons. Let me know if anything else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Is it possible to create subpages without creating an actual user page? — 29cwcst (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, Yes. You can do that. (Not sure why you dont want to create a user page as it content can be very simple/short). Either way, all editors still can find any edits/pages you created. To create a sub page, click on the "manifiying glass icon" on the top right corner then type

User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage name

on the filed and press enter. You will see a "red text" of the name/texts you had just entered.link. Click on the red text link and start writing and safe. Here you go, that is your subpage.

Hope this help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I'm fine just using subpages, presuming other editors don't feel inclined to delete them. Also, please know that your help is greatly appreciated. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, They wouldn't get deleted unless the content meets the deletion criteria (such as vandalism-profanity/attack page/promotion/violation of copyvio etc) so, don worry. I am here to help. Let me know if anything I can do for you. Stay safe and have a wonderful weekend. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Would or wouldn't get deleted? I'm assuming you meant the latter. Either way though, have a wonderful weekend yourself. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, wouldn't :) - corrected. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Cheers. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User29cwcst/sandbox

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)

UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns

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)

29cwcst, pls self revert your edits. If I revert you edits, I have my reason. We need to provide the full name of NSAC as not every reader know about the abbreviation. Secondly it is APEX and NOT Apex. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Then why is the UFC APEX article no longer spelled the same way? Rather than moving that article first, you just couldn't resist reverting my edits instead. If both the Nevada State Athletic Commission and its abbreviation are mentioned more than once, then editors should always use the abbreviation after spelling out the full name. You essentially render it useless by failing to do so. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If it has been mentioned prior then do reply me on this talk page instead of reverting and provide no info.203.219.178.81 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@203.219.178.81: Alright then, take a look right here:

UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns: Revision history

Previous versions of this article should outline what I tried to do, because the full name and link was already spelled out in an earlier section of the page, as well as the abbreviation. Just so you're aware, I for one am not reverting edits here. I aim to actually improve the quality of articles, rather than simply reverting vandalism or changes that appear disruptive. Assuming your message isn't directed at me, you can obviously disregard mine in return. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

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.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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)

29cwcst, We link the first mention of any subjects which has a page in a article, with some exceptions, but the subsequent of the same subject mentioned would not need to be linked. For Manual of Style (MOS) pls read WP:MOS and the links in the page and there few MOS in [WP:MMA]] section. There are some standard/normal/commanly how it is written for MMA event/fighter page which we follow. When you removed a link because it was mentioned in the page before, state "specifically" that in the edit summary why you do so. If I revert your edit wrongly, then revert it and tell me exactly why, instead just state "dont revert my edit" on the edit summary, or use your talk page to ping and let me know. I and other editors have tried to inform you for more than 2 years on the about your nonconstructive editing, and you ignored it until you were blocked. Now you have edit constructively and I applause you for that.

Btw on other topics, if you dont want other editors to change your content prior you submit for review in the main space, then use your sand box to do the editing and citing, then paste it on "NotePad" (not Microsoft) and save it. When you have done the entire article then submit for review. However, once it is in Wikipedia, any one can edit the content, and even you are the creator, you or anyone own the article. Many, with a small number of editors, edit a page just to improve them and not harm the article or Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a "collaborative work" of many editors which we try to support and help each other. For some editors do know the Wikipedia guidelines and where to find the sources better and other editors are good in copy editing (which you have done frequently). Thus working together is to get the article in mains pace quicker and better content quality. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Very well, I'll do that from now on. However, what you just mentioned is the problem I've had with you reverting the whole time. Before you revert, CHECK the article first and see what changes have been made. If you had looked through the page, you probably would've seen or identified what I was doing. I will also run any additional changes to UFC event articles by you from now on, because I really can't be bothered wasting any more of my time on this. Just for the record, I never deliberately "ignored" those warnings on my talk page and only investigated them until after I was blocked. Prior to that though, I honestly had no idea about what was going on. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I do apologies for not checking at first; however, you have been editing for 9 year now, instead of just stating "rm a link or improve a link" do state " rm link as it has been linked in previous section". I dont know if you have deliberately ignored those warning or messages but there were a lots of messages sent to your talk pag and you only edit constructively after you were blocked. Anyway, the past is the past, I am happy working with you as since your block you are a member of collaborative editor who contribute constructive regularly. I truly appreciate it. Stay safe 29cwcst and enjoy UFN 178 this weekend. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Will do and likewise. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving/storing separately

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)

Normally, archiving is a way of moving content "out of the way" so it does not clutter up a page with old material and aims at organizing the saved material in such a way that it can be conveniently searched.

You also have the ability to create as many user space subpages as you need, but accessing them is not particularly structured or necessarily convenient. And it is possible to run afoul of user page usage guidelines if your stored pages are deemed too inconsistent with a purpose of helping you with editing Wikipedia.

You can download the raw content of any Wikipedia page, or the rendered HTML, and store it on your own devices without any limitations save for observing the attribution requirements of the Wikipedia license.

But if you want to get help storing pages in a way that better suits your tastes, you'll need to explain what you are trying to achieve. All of the archiving templates are expressly aimed at discussion pages, so there's little surprise that that's what they do best. Perhaps they can be roped into doing what you want, perhaps not, but it's hard to advise you without a better idea of what it is that you want. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I'll try and give you an example:

*Talk page – Archive template 1 – Archives 1-10

*Talk page – Archive template 2 – Archives 1-10

Archive template 2 just displays the archives like Archive template 1 does, regardless of whether or not they're actually the same template. I want to know if I can archive different pages of mine separately, so that I can access them faster and easier. — 29cwcst (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that you're already using the feature of the archive template that lets you change the name displayed for each archive. Are these archives the result of your archiving by hand? Or did you formerly use a bot to create archives? If you're archiving by hand, you are not as restricted about following a bot's naming conventions.

I'm still not clear on what you want to do. Are the additional archives not discussion pages like your talk page? You want to split the archives for your talk page into more than one box? Try to show how your idea would look if it were to magically work.

If you have a set of subpages that you want easier access to, you can create a box referring to those subpages (whether by their actual or by alternative names) and put it on your talk page (or, not even a box, just a list at the top of the page). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So, there isn't a template for archiving subpages easier? The main problem I'm facing here is that links to Archives 1-10 automatically remain present within the template, even though I'm archiving manually and just linking to my subpages within the template. I've tried experimenting with archiving these subpages on one specific subpage, but would ideally prefer archiving them on my talk page instead. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we are getting somewhere. I see your sandbox4 as an example of the sort of item you wish to archive – it is not a discussion page. (It may perhaps have been copied without attribution from ATP Tour 250 – please see the instructions for copying pages within Wikipedia at COPYWITHIN.)

One thing you are not being clear on is whether you need to save a copy of the page in question or whether it would be sufficient to keep a link to a particular revision of the page from the edit history. Although we don't usually worry very much about disk space these days, it would make sense to keep links to particular revisions of a developing page rather than keep extra copies of particular stages of its development.

Your sandbox2 is an example of keeping a number of links to pages organized for easier access. You can do the same sort of thing with your subpages or with lists of revisions to your subpages or revisions of standard article pages.

Also, you should know that you can name your user space subpages any way you like. If you name them following the standard archive convention, of course the archive templates are going to find them. If you name them in some other way, the archive template will ignore them.

I encourage you to give a broader description of what you are trying to do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

But is there a potential archive template that I could use to do this instead? That's what I want to know, before I go doing anything else. As you mentioned though, sandbox4 is indeed a copy of the ATP Tour 250 article. My plan is to gradually improve the page without having other editors revert all my hard work because I simply don't have the time to finish editing it all at once. I'll try and give you another example at the top of my talk page:

Do you understand where I'm coming from now? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed your second Archives template to use {{sidebar}} instead. There are a fair number of different navbar/user box templates; this is just the first one that came to mind as possibly doing what you wanted. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also look at {{Navbox vertical}} for a possibly simpler alternative. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Will do and thanks very much. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

List of redirects

• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night
• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night 1
• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night 2
• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night 3
• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night 4
• UFC Fight Night: Ultimate Fight Night 5

Edit summary summaries

@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:

• Minor page improvements – used whenever I've made a range of changes (fixed grammar, added links, improved the structure of a sentence etc.)
• I added a link – used whenever I've done exactly that
• I improved the structure of a sentence – used whenever I've changed how a sentence is worded
• I removed an unnecessary link – used whenever a link has previously been featured within a page

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)

29cwcst Brief but be a little bit more specific - as improve can mean so many things. I know you come a long way after years of unconstructive edits even so many warning messages until you got block and become a constructive editors. If you wan to revert back your own edit, then explain a little specific or clearer and communicate in talk page. Btw, this is MMA WikiProject is about the project, so anything other then that do ping me in your talk page for this is not the right venue. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: This is primarily about changes that I'll make or have made to UFC event articles, hence I decided to initiate a discussion here. Regarding future edit summaries, what particular edits would you like me to elucidate on going forward? — 29cwcst (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst, Just to be a little specific if anyone revert/remove your edit when you add back the info. Should your edit is revert the second time, then to to talk page to have a discussion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Very well, but you moving this discussion to my talk page without consulting me is exactly why I'm getting sick and tired of being an editor here. You do the same thing when I contribute to articles, so I think I'm just better off informing you about certain edits before actually making them myself because that would ultimately save the both of us valuable time. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I had informed you that the message should be in talk page and not in WikiProject, and you continue to edit there. Same as I have informed many times that this (your talk page) is for messages and not for your record of things your want to do/Wip and I have also inform and provide you the links where you can jot down your to do work/info in your user page, sub page or to do log. You didnt listen just as you didnt listen to all the warning messages for a few years and continuing unconstructive edits/do what you wanted until you got block. To move the message to your talk page is not harm as the Project page is for discussions relating to the project and not messages to another editor - it is a wrong venue. If you feel tired and think you wasting your time, think about how other editors felt when they kept on correcting your edits, educating you, sending warning messages and the linked guidelines for years yet you continued to edit unconstructive until you got block. As long as you edit constructively and listen to advice, no editors would have any issues with you. Enjoy UFC 253 this weekend for many good and exciting matchups. Do stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Will do and likewise. I still have so many things to message you about regarding this matter, but shall leave at that nevertheless. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling corrections

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)