User talk:Sxg169

Use of euphamisms
I undid your edit because I don't see a reason for the change of wording. There are any number of ways to say an individual moves from a state of physical human existence to a state of non-physical human existence, depending on one's cultural background. I also do not wish to engage in an edit war. This particular edit seems to have been made on the basis of personal bias instead of correction of factual information, thus, unnecessary. I mean no disrepsect and hope this explanation is sufficient to prevent further re-editing. However, if you can provide a reason based on Wikipedia policy as to why this change is required, I am amenable to learning about it and would abide by an official notice regarding terminology regarding death. Ouranista (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your reference to the Manual of Style has not adequately justified your change and, in fact, appears to misuse Wikipedia policy to bully another user. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe you have proven your case. Please do not re-edit or you will be in danger of starting an edit war, in which I do not wish to engage. Your recent editing history 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Ouranista (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In no way at all did I intend to (as you say) bully another user. The Manual of Style I refer to is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch and says "The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away".  This represents consensus.  I did not intend to imply that this is the only way to say an individual moves from a state of physical human existence to a state of non-physical existence.  Nor to I view this as a an edit war.  I am aware of the three revert rule and have not come close to violating it as I have reverted only one edit on the page in question.  If you wish to discuss the use of the term "passed away" and other euphemisms, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is open for modifications following discussion and I would suggest that there would be the appropriate place to discuss updating the Manual of Style. Sxg169 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Dorian Collaku
I have noticed that you reverted again my editing. This is the second time that your sentence appears into the article. To avoid edit warring against each other, you may create a table of results instead of placing them in a paragraph form. That's my suggestion. Take a look at one of my articles that I created, before you add something. Someone added the results/achievements table, but I gradually accepted them. Here's an example. Sergey Pakura (contains achievements and results). Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:49 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please help me with dealing with the above posting on my talk page by user Raymarcbadz. It feels to me like a mild form of wikibullying by a user who takes very seriously and very personally a set of wikipedia articles. In my (possibly naive) opinion: 1. My insert was a good faith edit and consistent with Wikipedia policies: neutral point of view; verifiability and no original research. It was also relevant to the article and added information that would have been of interest to anyone looking for information on Dorian Collaku. 2. The revert by Raymarcbadz was without explanation; the re-insert was with a citation in the belief that the original edit may have been reverted due to a lack of reliable source. 3. Page creation does not imply page ownership; the tone of Raymarcbadz's comments feels to me that he is insisting on a certain layout of an article he created. 4. An easier, more efficient and friendlier way for Raymarcbadz to do what he wishes would have been to create the table himself. 5. The article in question is a very seldom viewed article (39 views in the last 90 days according to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Dorian_Collaku) with little information and it is unlikely that Dorian Collaku will perform in a manner to warrant a more complete article. 6. Consistency of layout between articles is desired but in no way does either method have a consensus.

I would appreciate any opinions on how to effectively respond to Raymarcbadz (or whether to respond at all). I have no particular interest in the article in question but would like to know how best to deal with comments like this in the future.

Thanks Sxg169 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the content and provided my rationale at the article's talk page. In such cases I'd suggest to explain your reasoning, and if that doesn't work (because you are ignored or because the two of you cannot agree on the best course of action) to seek wider community input, either via WP:3O or by leaving a message on a relevant, active WikiProject's talk page. I'd also like to point to WP:AGF; while I certainly don't agree with Raymarcbadz on the issue, it's better not to start out with accusations of bullying for what is ultimately a suggestion, not a command. If it turns out to actually be an attempt at bullying or page ownership, seeking wider community input becomes all the more important. Huon (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Huon. I appreciate your prompt reply and assistance.Sxg169 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Scrabble Logo United States 2012.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Scrabble Logo United States 2012.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for helping out with the Harvard list. EEng 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tennis rankings
Hello. Please note that there is no 13 February ranking on the ATP, as you are suggesting in your edits today. The ATP rankings are only updated on Monday. That is, the current ranking in from 12 February, as you can see on the official ATP Rankings page. The next update will happen on 19 February. You have to use the correct ranking date in the infoboxes, that is, only the Mondays. Thanks.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited November 12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ane ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/November_12 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/November_12?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

2019 WJC
As soon as you have two teams, with two losses, who have not played each other, the maximum points for last place is less than six points. If KAZ losses to the USA today than both USA and SWE will be clinched as well.18abruce (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Scrabble Logo United States 2012.png


The file File:Scrabble Logo United States 2012.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Soi Dog Foundation edit
Hi there, I noticed you did an edit on the Soi Dog Foundation page today, replacing a couple of euphemisms. I'm curious, why did you feel the need to do this? werewolf (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a "Manual of Style" which contains guidelines on many things, including euphemisms. Specifically, "The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away". The Manual of Style -- words to watch page is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch Sxg169 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, I'll look into it. werewolf (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Karl Ivanovich May listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Karl Ivanovich May. Since you had some involvement with the Karl Ivanovich May redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zocky | picture popups 13:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Assistance editing Mark Lanier page
Hello,. I see that you have edited the Mark Lanier Wikipedia page in the past. Mark is a client of mine and I'd like to improve his article according to the suggestions in the banner at the top of his page. I've left a more detailed message explaining what I'd like to do on his talk page. Can you assist me? Thanks in advance for any help.

List of NHL goaltenders with 300 wins
All the changes that I made on List of NHL goaltenders with 300 wins were indeed correct as Patrick Roy obtained his 300th win with the Colorado Avalanche, Chris Osgood obtained his 300th win with the St. Louis Blues, Mike Vernon obtained his 300th win with the Detroit Red Wings, Rogie Vachon obtained his 300th win with the Detroit Red Wings, and Evgeni Nabokov obtained his 300th win with the New York Islanders! You need to do your research before reversing entries that were indeed correct. Signed, SillieGander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.43.214 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2020 (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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

COP16
Hello, can you check the wording of the article 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference there are spelling mistakes --57ntaledane90 (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No longer living, but effectively still a BLP
Not arguing with this edit, but only because he just died. Under BDP, BLP still applies to the article for about six months. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)