User talk:Meganinja202

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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

World Cup Songs

Do you want to delete unofficial songs and anthems who which have don't have notabiltilty and reliable source? If deleted, I'm OK. I don't care. Administrators and users who are not interested in World Cup Songs like List of UEFA European Championship songs and anthems will delete them. Just sleep on it.Footwiks (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Files v Twitter suspensions

I think the difference you are seeing in treatment between the two articles may be the result of "learning" how to manage a highly motivated inflow of outside participation into a "highly complex and narrow Wikipedia process" The process and criteria is something I have/am studying in depth.

Because of the complexity of the process and rules, I made the point in the Twitter Files AFD discussion that limiting participation might be advantageous. In my opinion, you are correctly observing a change in the way things are being managed which is not in my opinion a loss of neutrality.

A strong case, even though I disagree with the rational, is being made on "Twitter Suspensions" to keep.

In my studies of the process, it is clear to me that an AFD administrator has the latitude to make a judgement on a discussion regardless of the up or down votes within the discussion. In my opinion, the "Twitter Files" had to be closed (not on the merits of the article, or finding consensus) but to address the process-rules-problem being avoided in Twitter Suspensions.

Anyway, I figured I would try to address your concern with my perspective. Best Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that Wiki should make that accounts made after a day before AfDs should not count for debate, but besides that, anything is allowed for debate as long it is civil and respectful from both parties

I also think that debate should have the widest number of people possible and engage in a civil discussion to get a common ground, this why in also in favor of consensus culture (WP:CON) in wiki. Meganinja202 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Bud Selig and misattribution as "founder"

Hello there. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I would like to explain my revert to your edit. Please note, I have no problem with the edits you made, only in particular to attributing Bud as the "founder" of WBC. So for example, on Bud Selig's page, you said that he was instrumental to organizing the 2006 WBC - I have no problem with that.

However, your edit to say he's the founder of the entire competition, this is problematic since: There is no source pointing to Bud as the "founder", which is a very bold statement and most editors will not agree with this. A simple google search does not point to any particular person as "founder of WBC". Bud, while instrumental in organizing the inaugural WBC, doesn't make him the sole important figure in making this possible. To hold the WBC, MLB, WBSC, and the participating countries, the hosts, the players...etc, are all equally important. In fact, without the WBSC yielding the hosting rights to MLB, there would never be WBC and the Baseball World Cup or intercontinental cup would have continued.

Here are some sources: [1] -> note Bud even said himself "he was happy with the international event he had helped create" - he did not say he created it. He merely "helped".

[2] -> this is a comprehensive article by Washington Post on Bud's contributions to baseball, it doesn't even mention his contribution to WBC.

[3] -> even MLB's own website, did not credit him as "founder", in fact, they simply said it was a venture he explored.

Also, aside from the new user's edit saying Bud Selig was the founder, no one has ever made this edit except for yourself. I am quite surprised you reverted my edit without prior discussions with me since you are no longer a new user. I would also mention, on Bud's page, aside from a sentence that says he was instrumental in organizing 2006 WBC, nowhere else points to him as founder of any sort, once again proving my point that most editors has never thought of him as a WBC founder. In fact, the lack of detail on his page on how he contributes to WBC is a lack of notability too. I hope this makes sense and if you would like to discuss, please reply here. Kazuha1029 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I was doing long edits and checking stuffs paragraph by paragraph, at same time i am checking for sources for any info i am finding about

I am sorry for any problems caused and thank you for clarification, you can remove him and add him as colaborator or source of inspiration if you wanyt Meganinja202 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:The Trophy of World Baseball Classic, updated in 2023.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:The Trophy of World Baseball Classic, updated in 2023.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

DSports moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to DSports. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

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; read about 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. Aleenf1 09:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Please note that I saw your report at WP:AIV and wanted to let you know that AIV is not the correct venue for this content dispute. The edits made by the editor you reported are not vandalism; per WP:Vandalism: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. However, in reviewing the article's history both you and Aleenf1 have made more than 4 reverts within 24 hours, which is a brightline rule called WP:3RR. From what I see you made at least 4 reverts on the article, but I have not blocked you because you did not make any more reverts after receiving the above notice; I am assuming you were unaware of 3RR when you made the reverts and it would be unfair to block someone for violating a rule they did not know about. Moving forward however, please take note of WP:3RR and utilize dispute resolutions such as WP:3O and WP:DRN, or WP:AN3 or WP:ANI if necessary. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I really was unaware indeed of WP:3RR indeed and will follow this rule more closer from now on

  About Resolutuions, i want to note that, as you can see on historic, i had used WP:3O, and it inftially lead to somesort of consensus by me and other editors, the only one that keept insisting is the another user that kept undoing the edits, (in fact, after the report, he continued to do so with other users) this why i resorted to report as last measure, since he was acting in bad faith with me and other users.

  About the original article itself, do am allowed to keep editing and/or reviewing it following user consensus? or should wait a certain time? Meganinja202 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given that you technically did violate 3RR, I would not make any reverts of any kind on the article for at least a few days, especially without a more solid consensus. By all means edit the article but don't reinstate any contentious material that was challenged or that was part of the back-and-forth edit warring, and wait until the RfC has concluded before acting on any of that content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Undestood, thanks for everything Meganinja202 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DSports (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DSports and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Meganinja202! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palworld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UOL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please help me

I need people to help me to reach consensus about the way North American Soccer/Football rights are listed in broadcast lists, this issue is happening a lot, but i am seeking for a definite consensus about it so dont it happens again and again

It is happening now in Talk:UEFA Euro 2024 broadcasting rights#Why Language Spit for USA/Canada is needed , but also happened in Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights as well in past but had reached consensus about this theme.

I am trying to avoid it happens a third time beacuse its about time for it have a permament consensus about it, a consensus that be informative and dont confuses the reader. Meganinja202 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The help tag is absolutely not for canvassing. You may however, wish to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for help, i am not looking to bend for a side or another, I just want finsh it once and all, will transfer the debate to there Meganinja202 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)