User talk:Solipsism 101

Solipsism 101, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Solipsism 101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Solipsism 101! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ferguson, Kelvin Gastelum, Marlon Vera (fighter), Alan Jouban, Anthony Birchak and Conor McGregor

Hi, pls note that your edits have been reverted. No colour box in the MMA infobox. Pls do not add them back. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: Hi, thanks for your informing me. Is this based on any particular policy for MMA fighters' infoboxes? I did check WP:MMA beforehand and found no mention of the colour box in the rank section, whereas it does mention a prohibition of flags in the infobox, in agreement with WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I suppose WP:DECOR might apply; is there any consensus on the WP:MMA project that belt rank icons are not visual cues/navigational aids? Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi solipsism 101 , Pls see example of Template:Infobox martial artist where "rank" is just state the "black belt in XXX" and no colour box. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cassiopeia: I did see the template infobox which does not expressly say icons should not be used; nor is it on the template's talk page. There appears to be no consensus on the WP:MMA talk or archives. The template serves a basic example which we do routinely include addiitonal information. The template provides the example of "White belt karate" whereas we include the instructor who granted it, e.g. "brown belt under John Kavanagh". Unless there is clear policy against including the rank colour, I don't quite understand the reversions nor this kind of instruction on my talk page not to include them. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi solipsism 101 , That is the norm and all (1.2K article) MMA fighter infobox has no colour box on them. I read somewhere in a discussion, but I dont remember where the discussion talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cassiopeia: Rather than no MMA fighters' infoboxes having the colour box, I added it to articles because they were used on fighters' pages, but used inconsistently. Like this edit on Beneil Dariush where the icon was used for one belt but not the other. From there, I added it to a few others. The use of icons is most common in the BJJ articles, under the same Template:Infobox martial artist which the MMA project uses. Several of these are part of WP:MMA use the icon: Royler Gracie (who did MMA), Carlos "Caique" Elias, Jean Jacques Machado, Keenan Cornelius, Braulio Estima (briefly an MMA fighter), André Galvão (did MMA, fought Woodley), and Marcelo Garcia. In the absence of clear consensus, it comes down to individual preferences; I don't mind if they're included or not, just that they're not used inconsistently. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi solipsism 101 , I am one of the regular, active MMA editors in Wikipedia, and most of the mma figher article infox do not have colour box, and they will be removed by other mma editors if they come across them. I will send you a list of info about editing mma event and fighter pages so you wont receive messages in the future is you intend to edit mma event/fighter pages. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: Thanks. I see your list does include the colour box comment in a different context (and has for some time); maybe this could be added to the WP:MMA page, as I did check beforehand for any relevant rules? Thanks again. Solipsism 101 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi solipsism 101 , MMA community in Wikipedia usually do not respond to the discussion unless it is a important one and even that the turn out is not huge. There has been proposal to add more guidelines by other editor, and I think only 1/2 other editor respond and it went silent. The reason that the turn out is not great usually is because, many new mma editor started to edit the pages and do not know the guidelines, and instead of discussion of seek to understanding the guidelines and norm, the fight uncivilly and name callings, for such many editors do not like to involve in such discussion even in fighter talk pages. And more of the new editors come and go or get themselves banned from editing after stirring up many bad faith editing. I am trying to get most the mma editors who seriously who with good faith and edit constructively to work together, after all the content of Wikipedia is the collaboration work of many editors contribution. The situation is a little better than a few years ago and I hope it will be continuing improving. Do observe the norm of the editing of event and fighter pages for a while by the regular editors (look at the history page of the article), then you would know what to do. If not, pop by my talk page and ask me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia: I guess my point is that it's difficult to attract new editors when you have unwritten rules that they're meant to follow, because then it becomes an issue of being socialised in and an old-timer vs newbies. Most people are not going to study other users' edits to infer principles; they're going to read articles and see what's common. And it is quite common to see the colour box used, so people like me are not going to get it. Beyond the ones I already mentioned, current versions from Bellator fighters include the colour box: Maiquel Falcão, Brent Weedman, Brent Primus, Attila Végh, Denise Kielholtz, Alessio Sakara. From ONE Championship, Alain Ngalani, Tom DeBlass, Marcus Almeida, Reinier De Ridder, Leandro Ataides, Cosmo Alexandre, Shannon Wiratchai, Michelle Nicolini, Stamp Fairtex. Solipsism 101 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

My edits - using a script to add DMY or MDY tag as appropriate, which then also automatically updates the formatting throughout the article - come from a WP:DATEVAR background. Don't view your style as being 'wrong', it's not. Giant Snowman 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Miles Routledge at RfPP

Hey. Do you know if any revdels are needed? I'm too lazy to check. As for Cow Man, he has run over the ref, as is custom. El_C 01:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for quickly sorting that. From what I recall, only this edit summary was anything more than disruptive. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, Solipsism 101, but no hard R is a bit of a meh. Regards, El_C 16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Mercy Muroki, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Using social media sources that waste time removing. Don't add them back again. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Scope creep. As I explained in this edit (diff), WP:ABOUTSELF applies as long as it's not exceptional or unduly self-serving. In particular that policy says This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook. I completely understand that you might think social media ain't the best, but there were no better sources. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Shane Warne

On 4 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shane Warne, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ian Brownlie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharron D

FWIW, sixonline has been asked to clarify their position (as at 31/3) with regard to COI and also not to edit the article until this has been done and also to make requests and explain themselves at the article TP. However... oh well... Eagleash (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that and them undertaking to make edits which are only consistent with policy. Not sure that is being met! Btw, thanks for dealing with the comments made in the edit summaries. I was oblivious to the drama until I realised my user page had been vandalised. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have reported them then as it goes; having not done so I guess the next point of call might be WP:COIN (which *could* lead to a block if the reviewing Admin delves into). In any event I have left another message at their TP. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagleash I have now responded to your request and answered the question and therefore COI does not apply. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, but I need to take action regarding user Solipsism 101 who think they can just delete content without explaining logically. Sixonline (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be pretty new to editing at Wikipedia, and am learning the processes which are required to follow here thanks to Eagleash, but to be clear Solipsism 101 your revisions appear to be less than constructive. Defacing pages such as the Sharron Davies one, will not be tolerated and am considering next point of call might be WP:COIN Sixonline (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. But I can confirm I have no conflict of interest and I'm only motivated by improving the article and Wikipedia as a whole. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now clarified this and to be clear I do NOT know this person and therefore COI does not apply. Sixonline (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixonline: Thank you for responding. You should probably be careful when accusing other editors of improper actions, such as 'defacing' a page. I believe that Solipsism's edits are in GF and their edit summaries have provided a reasonable explanantion. I also do not feel that they have any sort of COI. I could not really recommend taking a complaint to any of that Admin boards at this juncture (or possibly not at all). Apologies, Solipsism that this has now cluttered up your TP. Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your request

Is done. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

Hello Solipsism 101, looking at this contribution, I was wondering why it is not on Wikidata] Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lotje, I don't really use/contribute to Wikidata, so I am unfamiliar with the requirements or process. Is it normally expected that the page creator will also create or link to the article on Wikidata? Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I don't have a clue, but as I can see on the introduction page, ...Data is entered and maintained by Wikidata editors, who decide on the rules of content creation and management, Automated bots also enter data into Wikidata... so I will keep an eye on it and see what happens next.

Lotje (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Trudeau

The text itself was problematic and non-neutral, and not accurately reflective of the actual situation even with your edits. The charity didn't make the payments, for example: the for profit corporation that funds the charity made the payments, precisely as it's allowed to do, and it's non-neutral and ideological for the IP to pretend there isn't a massive difference there — so any content about WE in Margaret's article would have to be written much more neutrally than what the IP tried to insert, and your edits (while fine for what they were) didn't actually catch the problem. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes sense. Apologies for not spotting the issue! Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Garnham

Thanks for adding more cites to the article. I tagged it only because it is now becoming standard, at least among a certain type of editor, to dismiss "Who's Who" as an unreliable source on the grounds that the individual entries are submitted by the biographical subjects themselves, so it's in effect self-published and can't be considered independent. Pointless to argue... but if you are using "Who's Who" it's probably sensible, as a pre-emptive measure, to include a few other sources as well. Ingratis (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will ensure to do that in the future! Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colour boxes talk

@Solipsism 101 I just noticed your past conversation about colour box in martial artists infobox, you might be interested to read our ongoing discussion here. All my best Lewolka (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson confirmation

https://twitter.com/arielhelwani/status/1591899307074285569 Source is legit for mma you can check him out 2603:7000:BE00:4B:4412:FF7:ECB5:4BBE (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a reliable source now. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Hussey Legal Issues

Hello. I noticed you removed part of my recent edit to the section of Olivia Hussey's page marked "Legal Issues", where I listed an interview she made with Fox News in 2018. One of the reasons you gave was the use of the word "However" in beginning the article, due to legal issues. I have since changed it to "Previously in an interview in 2018." Another was the lack of linked sources for the interview, for which I have since added two different sources. My only query is why the interview quote I took care to add in full was removed? It makes no sense to remove the quote when it can be found in both links I have added to the page, and serves to add in depth contribution to the subject. Can the interview quote I added be reinstated? Thank you. Fluff81 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluff81: we tend to use quotes minimally and prefer paraphrasing per MOS:QUOTE. The "however" thing is one of original research. It is better to wait for a secondary source to connect the dots of previous quotes vs law suit rather than we as editors looking at primary sources and determining that those quotes are significant. But I am not involved in the Hussey page - just gave quick read and found it problematic. Best, Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for replying and for your clarification. Much appreciated. Fluff81 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on draft

Hi! I see you are a member of WikiProject Law. I am seeking feedback on a draft I created about the well-known trial attorney Bill Carmody: User:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody. Thanks! Backyard116 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]