User talk:Oluwasegu

Welcome Oluwasegu! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 42,035,714 registered editors!

Hello Oluwasegu. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Your recent editing history at American football 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm Sahaib3005. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to AnEsonGib have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Sahaib3005 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AnEsonGib. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at KSI, you may be blocked from editing. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Vandalism?? What are you smoking?? Me including what KSI's favorite football (or soccer) club (since that sport jumpstarted his YouTube career through FIFA and football skill challenges w/ his mates) as well as the end result of his professional boxing fight is constitutes vandalism? If anything, I made constructive edits. Oluwasegu (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at France national football team. David Biddulph (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

OSU
Not trying to argue with you, but please don't just ignore the NCAA and team recognized titles won in 1961 and 1970. You want to mention '54, '57, and '68 were wire service titles, OK I can live with that, but don't make like the other two don't exist. We can both get a little of what we want - doesn't have to be all or nothing, Vjmlhds (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)



1) My edits were reflective of WP:RS I derived from ESPN (which reads: "...turned Ohio State into a perennial powerhouse, winning three national championships"), Ohio State University Library (which reads: "...and national championships in 1954, 1957 and 1968."), and CFB Hall of Fame (which reads: "...won 13 Big Ten Championships and added three National Championships"). Additionally, Encyclopædia Britannica's article on Woody Hayes reads: "his Ohio State University teams (1951–78) won 3 national championships (1954, 1957, and 1968)."

2) More importantly, this is a consistency edit with other FBS articles on WP. It is commonplace to mention "school claims "x" championships, including "x" from AP, Coaches' Polls" - For example, see the following articles which reflect this ~ Alabama Crimson Tide football, Tennessee Volunteers football, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, Pittsburgh Panthers football, USC Trojans football, etc. Oluwasegu (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * All well and good, which is why I came up with the compromise version. This way it lists the titles the NCAA and OSU recognize (which I made sure to include a reliable source for...being the NCAA itself), while also pointing out the ones the wire services recognize.  Prior to recent years with the College Football Playoff, there was no "voice of God" authority to determine a true undisputed national champion, which would have made things a lot easier, and which is why we have split titles and schools making claims.  At the end of the day, my compromise version should gives us both what we want, and hopefully puts this to bed Vjmlhds (talk)  14:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please indulge me for a minute. Off the top I want to make it clear this isn't a you thing...you're fine.  This is (I guess you can call it a rant) about college football in general, where - especially early on - everyone and their uncle got to be a selector for the national championship, and that caused all kinds of chaos and confusion.  Post 1950, they narrowed it down somewhat to the 4 "consensus" selectors, and even with that some (especially in the media) don't want to acknowledge anything from the FWAA or NFF, and only recognize AP and Coaches Poll Champions.  The whole way college football did things - especially way back in the day - was just screwy, which is why we have the conundrums we have today. Vjmlhds (talk)  14:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the history of college football, the reason I’m highlighting the AP and Coaches Polls selections in OSU’s article (which is being consistent w/ other FBS articles on WP, in the examples I mentioned above) is because those carried more weight than other selectors
 * This article on the Official Sugar Bowl website about Ole Miss Rebels football reads ---> "since 1951, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, and Alabama had all won consensus national championships. Ole Miss had only been presented the Grantland Rice Award by the Football Writers of America (FWAA) as the country’s No. 1 team after its 1961 Sugar Bowl victory, though that did not carry the weight of the wire service voting."
 * This mini documentary on YouTube (albeit a bit outdated) as part of a series called "Buckeye Classics" which explores the History of Ohio State Buckeyes football (and hosted by Archie Griffin), talks about the Buckeyes' national championships, but they ONLY highlight 1942, 1954, 1957, 1968, and 2002.
 * Oluwasegu (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The NCAA recognizes 8 titles for OSU as does the team.. When you get down to it, they are the only ones who matter, because the NCAA runs the whole pop stand, and the team is the ones who won the titles. Everything else - especially regarding which titles "carried more weight" or "meant more" - is in the eyes of the beholder. Vjmlhds (talk)  17:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1960 United States presidential election into John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential campaign. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John F. Kennedy into John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential campaign. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

JFK article
Hello: I know you have been working hard to improve the John F. Kennedy article over the last few months, which is a good thing. I have never had the time to work on the article as much as I would have liked to, in order to help bring it up to Good Article status. Because the article is tagged as being too long, my suggestion is to move some details as to events and events themselves to sub-articles, such as his presidency article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Harry S. Truman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2nd Infantry Division. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits</b>) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)