Jump to content

User talk:SinisterUnion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, SinisterUnion, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 20:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 20:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it @GiantSnowman, thank you very much for the welcome.
I'm focused on improve Wikipedia articles, content, etc., especially about football.

Help request about 2025 FIFA Club World Cup

Actually, while browsing through some Wikipedia articles with the aim of helping to improve them, I came across an article (2025 FIFA Club World Cup) that is not in accordance with FIFA. There was already a debate about the issue on the article's talk page, but new facts have emerged in recent months that have practically ended the debate, as I have argued extensively there (Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#c-SinisterUnion-20240829180800-Danoniinho-20240319115200), but without any response. In addition, I tried to discuss the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, but without success, as only 1 person spoke out. I would like to know what procedure I should adopt, since an important article is clearly in disagreement with the highest football authority. I saw there was an edit war before in relation to the topic, so I don't want to just go there and edit to correct it, but also such important article cannot stay wrong. SinisterUnion (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about trying to gain consensus. Sometimes you have to make the change you are proposing before other editors actually speak out about their opposing views. If that's what it takes to get a discussion going, that's still normal Wikipedia behavior. If there's opposition, you and the opposer(s) need to discuss. Sometimes it takes a while. But if nobody opposes your changes, you are done, right? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thank you very much @Jmcgnh. SinisterUnion (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other help request about 2025 FIFA Club World Cup

I'm an old Wikipedia user, but never created an account before. In July I decided create an account and more recently I decided to engage myself trying help Wikipedia getting better, help update and improve articles, mainly on sports topics.

Unfortunately, in this attempt to make improvements to sports articles, I came across a situation where an important article, 2025 FIFA Club World Cup is outdated (not to say wrong) and in total disagreement with the highest football authority, FIFA, as well as with important non-primary sources.[1] However, only a couple of users engaged in the debate and we can see that the arguments, unfortunately, are in the sense of avoiding work, such as "...wait for a while. I'll bet that FIFA says something different when the 2024 Copa Libertadores is completed...", doing futurology exercises to avoid making a change (which yes, will require work) that is necessary to adapt/update the article to make it correct.

I don't want to take up too much time from anyone reading this, asking you to read all discussion there, but this reply here explains almost everything: [2]

So, basically we already have the football governing body saying 2025 will be the 1st edition of a new tournament and very important non-primary sources, but a couple of users who are not open to making changes to adapt the article to reality (laziness from what I see in the comments), avoiding the aforementioned correction to be made and this important article keeps incorrect and out of date.

My question is, how to procede in this situation: edit and correct the article according to the international governing body of association football and a lot of important non-primary sources, or wait consensus of 2 people that are preventing the article from being accurately updated and corrected?

Thank you very much for your time, appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Your use of the help templates is verging on inappropriate in that they are not to be used to ask for help about content. Consensus is a definite standard for Wikipedia and it sometimes takes a while for a consensus to emerge.
On this topic, you seem to be wanting to give extra weight to what 'official' sources say; that's contrary to how Wikipedia generally looks to put independent reporting up front. If you can't find secondary coverage, it could mean that - in a certain sense - the fact is not truly 'noteworthy' and can just as well be left out of the article.
As I said before, as long has you are not engaged in an edit war, you can be bold and make the changes that you think need to be made. There is no requirement to wait forever. But slow-motion edit wars can also be a problem, so make sure you keep the discussion going and perhaps make smaller incremental changes rather than big ones if other editors have expressed disagreement. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I gave the weight FIFA deserves as football governing body, also I gave many important secondary coverage examples, from important media, to prove the fact is truly "noteworthy" as everybody can see there.
But thank you very much, that's what I'm going to do so, appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posting the same message here. SinisterUnion you need simply to wait. There were other two users in the past convinced about the same thing, insisting on editing the article because it needed to be like that. See history page. As a result, they were blocked from editing. You appear to back up the same evidence because of those sources. Please wait and see for the time being. You edited again the article, soon reverted because wait is needed now, despite those sources. Island92 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your comment here on my talk page, I was busy with more important things. As I said before, I'm here to revolutionize, to make our Wikipedia grow and I'm doing so. For everyone who follows me here, look at all my arguments (and also those from other users who have already accepted the current situation of these FIFA tournaments) and you guys will certainly understand what is happening. Now everything is obvious, we just need to define how we will proceed with regard to the articles. Join the talk guys and let's make Wikipedia better and more accurate than ever. SinisterUnion (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello, SinisterUnion,

A recent AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940–41 Primera Fuerza season, closed with a Redirect closure but you ignored that decision and tried to recreate the article. This is disruptive editing and now you have been warned. If you do this again, you will likely be blocked. Please honor the closure of an AFD discussion and do not edit in violation of the decision.

As it happens though, several editors have come to my User talk page and challenged the closure so I have reverted the decision and the article is back, at least for one more week. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz,
I didn't tried to recreate the article, I recreated the article. This is not disturbing at all and your warning was ignored, since the article has come back into existence. So I come to the conclusion that your text is a threat and an attempt to silence a new user, but one who is tough and has arrived to revolutionize.
Let's clarify, I did not participate in any discussion and was not aware of the situation. Second, even if I had been aware, I would have edited it anyway, since I made improvements and added references. So, if an article is deleted, no one can create it again? Come on, especially since I added new information and new sources to it. SinisterUnion (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave this message to any misguided editor who ignored the outcome of an AFD closure. Recreating the article when the AFD was closed as a Redirect was disruptive editing and if you do this again (or any editor did this), a block would be the result. That's not a threat, it's an explanation. Looking at your User talk page, I can see that I'm not the only editor who has suggested that your editing style, ignoring Wikipedia policies, could lead to a block. You have received other warnings. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever goes to the battlefield trying to revolutionize, making improvements and fighting to make Wikipedia better, will always end up receiving warnings.
As I said, I didn't just recreated the article, I made improvements and added references. So, this situation doesn't apply, nor the warning. Misguided admins that just restores without take a look if improvements were made should receive warning. Let's focus on improve Wikipedia and not waste time trying to demonstrate power. SinisterUnion (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You blame someone else for not seeing if there any edits? But at same time, you reverted the redirect, someone not seeing the pointer to the AFD in both the header of the restored article which you deleted before posting. And also not in the edit summary next to where you pressed undo? Assuming good faith, I'd think you just didn't know what it meant or something. But at the same time, you also need to assume good faith. Just move on ... Nfitz (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's move forward, make this thing bigger and better every day. I've already forgiven Liz and everything is fine. Keep going, my friend. SinisterUnion (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing that needed to be forgiven. I give this kind of advice to all new editors I see making serious mistakes. Wikipedia is not about power and is not a battlefield. Learn our policies so you better understand why we do what we do here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any Help?

Do you need any help? If you need any help in editing or support, you can ask me. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask for help? If I need any help in editing or support, I will ask you. Appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Group

Hello, I'm creating a group of editors with the same goal as me, to make Wikipedia bigger, better and more accurate every day. To bring together people who identify with this cause and then create goals and start crowdfunding. I've already created the group today, but I would like to know about the viability of this idea, so that we can start the work of publicizing, coordinating and editing. Appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SinisterUnion, I've closed this help request because it doesn't actually appear to be a request for help. I'm not actually sure what you're even asking about - everyone on the encyclopedia shares this goal. That's why we're here! If you have more general questions, you may want to ask them at WP:TEA instead of using the help template. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a request for help that's why I opened a help request. Also, it is a very specific question about a very specific situation that I delved deep into, but if you don't know the answer, that's okay. I will start the jobs. Improve @Asilvering. Appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try rephrasing your specific question about this specific situation for me? -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a group where I wanna bring together editors with the same goal as me, which is make Wikipedia bigger, better and more accurate every day. I wanna bring together people identified with this cause and then create goals and start crowdfunding (probably through my talk page). I'd like to know about the viability of this idea, to disseminate this group, then coordinate the areas and articles to be edited and, finally, get to work.
You say "That's why we're here!". Yes, should be. However, unfortunately, over the years I have observed users who are settled here, supported by a curriculum that could once have been considered enviable, but who have stopped in time and now do not want renewal, on the contrary, they fight for the same to be established, prevent progress so they don't have too much job and keep Wikipedia (some articles, not all) outdated.
Appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SirMemeGod  01:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, terrible place to start a discussion, since I am involved and cannot comment. So you don’t deserve my attention.
Also, everything is explained here in my user and talk page. Appreciate you exposed yourself. SinisterUnion (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Dissolve your faction immediately or everyone involved with this faction will get blocked. The relevant policy language can be found at WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, I cannot accept you to treat me, an user like me that just want to make Wikipedia bigger, better and more accurate every day. You can see all my recent contribs when I really started engage here about 1 month ago. Also, let me show you something, above I opened up a help request to know the viability of the idea of create The Faction, but the user who answered me didn’t say I couldn’t.
So, with you bringing the link showing where the policy is, now I can follow it. Appreciate it. SinisterUnion (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but when I told you your request for help wasn't a real request for help, explained that we're all here to improve the encyclopedia, and suggested you rephrase your question if you wanted it answered, and you copy-pasted the exact same statement back at me, I concluded that further communication would be ineffective. I assume you will try to appeal this block at some point. My advice would be to wait to do so for quite some time. -- asilvering (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You were told to dissolve your faction immediately and I provided a link to the relevant policy. Since you did not dissolve your faction, you have been blocked for one week for disruptive editing, including factionalism and battleground behavior. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you crazy?
I said “with you bringing the link showing where the policy is, now I can follow it. Appreciate it.” SinisterUnion (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear for everybody, @Cullen328 acted like a little dictactor, giving me less than 10 minutes to read that link he provided and blocked me. I still didn’t finish reading it after 30 minutes, how could I do it in 9 minutes? It’s impossible for me to take an action according to the link he provided, without reading everything. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope SinisterUnion will be able to edit again after the block has ended. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, it doesn't seem they are into collaborative editing and working towards consensus and now they have begun to sock so it's looking doubtful. Given how often they cast aspersions towards other editors who simply disagreed with them, I don't think they were a postive presence here on our project. They had big ambitions but little knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and history. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Ok, but after the block, Users can change maybe. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep that positive attitude, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet. Maybe you could work on mentoring them to respect the consensus that comes out of content discussions, even when they disagree with it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Ok, I will. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Star Mississippi 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SinisterUnion&oldid=1249447288"