Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

How should I say about this if the disciplines in this group changes categories from one edition to another? Or should I leave the list alone. So far of all the sporting events, I only see such trend in the Asian Games.--Hongqilim (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a concern? How it categorise, will not affect the sports or events status. --Aleenf1 11:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a concern. A clear note describing the grouping of sports is necessary as they are all run by different International Federations. DO NOT remove without explaining why this is not necessary. I agree with @Hongqilim here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the concern? You never mention it. It never change the status quo of the sport. --Aleenf1 23:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is grouping sports that are not related as one. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping sport not related as one, so even not related and to different IF, would it affect anything? Anything?! --Aleenf1 11:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because we are presenting the information as one sport, even though they are not and are run by separate IF's. You don't have consensus here, and along with @Hongqilim we both agree this should be here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just want to highlight your point, without logically and ridicule yourself. --Aleenf1 11:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not my point. Again @Hongqilim also has the same POV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your lie, how you know the other person not agree with removal. I'm already said, you just don't want to lose yourself. --Aleenf1 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Hongqilim introduced the edit to the article (which I think should be there), and you reverted it. Only you are not agreeing with this edit and have no consensus for its removal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So i need consensus to remove it, so ridiculous, you always right, man. --Aleenf1 15:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, someone added it, the edit was reverted. Now the discussion happened here where two editors questioned your revert. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having consensus too to revert back? So much ridiculous to yourself. --Aleenf1 15:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculous, are you a person failed BRD? Comeon @Sportsfan 1234, read properly the BRD, i'm the one who question the addition, and BRD doesn't mention how many editors who are "questioned", you only want to established your own point. ...And don't be revert 3RR warning, doesn't help yourself too. --Aleenf1 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying. If you are questioning BRD, please re-read the policy again. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, you are the one who need to look through or re-read the policy of BRD, look through the flow, you are the one who doesn't understand, blatantly raise up own point. --Aleenf1 22:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hongqilim was bold, you reverted and there is a discussion here on if it should be included. Two editors agree it should be included (ie the discussion). I am going to end this conversation here because you seem to be throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. My recommendation is perhaps starting a RFC if you feel that strongly about the removal of this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, still failed yourself on this, BRD not working on you, it also not get to your way too. Soon or later it will be eradicated too due to pointless. --Aleenf1 23:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it's your job as a reviewer, so do it. No one's going to stop you. You've won, ok?--Hongqilim (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2022 Asian Games shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 1988 Winter Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: ). Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bombshell of inconsistency and letting more inconsistency. God bless you. --Aleenf1 11:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator which do not honour the Wikipedia guidelines and Manual of Styles. --Aleenf1 12:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About this reversion of my edit, I'm writing you this because I don't want to be involved in a senseless edit warring. The edit summary you gave (MOS:flags/icons) does not apply for the changes made.

In the case of MOS:flags, there is no problem to show flags on lists/tables and they are discouraged on infoboxes (this is not the case). About MOS:icons, they are not allowed in prose format (this isn't the case, either). If you can be more specific about your point, it would help a lot. Otherwise, your reversions are not appropriate and pretty disruptive.

For the reasons above, I'm going to go back the reversions you made. If you continue this behaviour, I'll be forced to report you. Thinks should not be that way. Please be reasonable, I see you have been blocked recently and guess you don't want to be in that situation again. Fma12 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]