User talk:Spirit Fox99

Welcome. Let's discuss.

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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vlade Divac, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The text which you removed was supported by references, and there is no sign of any discussion on the article talk page to explain its removal. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Vlade Divac, you may be blocked from editing. You again removed referenced text. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It was explained quite clearly. I will revert it back to the origina stable version which has stood for years. You will be reported for misuse of administrative powers if you try to block me for a justified edit. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Nikola Jokić 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. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I would like help with an issue. 'The Joker' nickname should be bolded the same as in other NBA articles. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Generally in these situations, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You left an earlier question on my talk page, which you since reverted, but in the interest of equity, the other party's history suggests that they should already be aware of the edit warring policy. In good faith, I gave you a courtesy notification, in the event you did not know. It's good that both of you are discussing this. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your response. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's own rules and MOS

We use MOS:PRONPLACEMENT for anything other than a simple pronunciation. We can also use a note for simple pronunciations. Please follow the rules that Wikpedia has given us. Examples:

• NGreenwich Village (/ˈɡrɛnɪtʃ/ GREN-itch, /ˈɡrɛnɪdʒ/ GREN-ij, /ˈɡrɪnɪtʃ/ GRIN-itch, /ˈɡrɪnɪdʒ/ GRIN-ij), in New York often simply called "the Village"...

• YGreenwich Village, in New York often simply called "the Village"...

• NFranklin Delano Roosevelt (/ˈroʊzəvɛlt/ ROH-zə-velt or /ˈroʊzəvəlt/ ROH-zə-vəlt; January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), also known by his initials, FDR, was the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945).

• YFranklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), also known by his initials, FDR, was the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945).

Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, just read the rules. It is not a clear cut rule, only an alternative option. I believe that we should follow the consensus, which has been longstanding and helpful. Please stop. Cheers. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty clear and most articles do not even have a pronunciation beside their names. But sports editors seem to relish it as soon as a player gets popular. Once it starts to bog down the lead it should be move to a footnote. Stop reverting wikipedia MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't bog down the lead. As well, most sports articles of foreign players do actually add the native name and IPA to the lead. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is really hard to read the leads, especially on iphones which many use these days. The leads should be the most bared down amalgam of the body... the very most important facts that are already contained in the body. There should be no refs, and a bare minimum of pronunciation. They are much better left to a mouseover note that is easy to see, or in a separate section on a player's many foreign names. There has always been overbloat on this but lately every foreign name version has been piling on in the lead. It's getting ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As well, that MOS page you linked only speaks to multiple pronunciations and alternate options in presentation. It has nothing to do with enforcing one method (the one you prefer) and doesn't speak about the representation of native names, which are being represented uniformly among most foreign sports articles. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Djokovic greatest

Tennis Project consensus is pretty clear on this. It is really hard to verify widely and many, and articles fall into the trap of outdoing the other when we lapse in this. It is quite easy to source that "some" consider Djokovic the greatest. Very easy. It is best as an encyclopedia to say "one of the greatest" as we are not a water-cooler office argument center. We are an encyclopedia. We have had that stipulation on Federer, Nadal, Laver, Tilden, Wills, Graf, Navratilova, Lenglen, Gonzales, etc... If it gets broken as you wish with Djokovic then the others must follow. It becomes a tit-for-tat one upping by fans of the respective players. And there is more to it than sheer numbers. Otherwise a player like Roy Emerson would have been number one in everyone's mind for decades, but wasn't. It's why Ken Rosewall still has the record of major wins and is still considered great. It is much easier to verify and source "some" when saying the greatest, or "widely" when saying one of the greatest. We can leave "many" but other articles must then be let loose with "many" which is what Tennis Project tries to avoid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a team sport, such as soccer or basketball, where it is hard to discern who is the greatest. It is based on individual records. Djoković has broken most of those records. He has been labelled the greatest by the most recent sources (forbes, Reuters, ESPN etc..) and until somebody else overtakes those records he has been given that deserved title. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No but we have consensus at Tennis Project on how to handle the term greatest, and your way opens us up to all kinds of issues. It's why we have consensus on it. There is more to sports than numbers. If you go by numbers then Rosewall is tied with Djokovic with 23 majors. Djokovic hasn't won a Grand Slam, let alone two like Laver. Through the 60s the most important even was Davis Cup.... players skipped majors so they would be fresh for Davis Cup. Doubles was just as important so they would be more tired come the singles final. Ty Cobb was the greatest and a lot of that was because he was an asshole, just like Gonzales was in tennis. That's a lot other than numbers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at, but I respectfully disagree. It is based on numbers when it comes to competition. Especially individual competition. And Djoković has most of those major records, not only one or two. If you found 1000 objective observers and made them vote, I'm sure they would agree with it. I feel if we get some more objective input in the wiki tennis community they would agree that the most recent records and sources all point in one direction. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree sure, but Tennis Project has spoken about this several times so you are going against consensus on this issue. Your changes (not by handle) have been brought to the Tennis project to discuss in case they have changed their minds on longstanding consensus in how to handle water cooler fluff in an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia isn't a newspaper where we look at the last year. We look at all sources over history. Sure we give more weight to the last 10 years, but not all the weight. It's why we use terms that are better able to source. There are heaps of records Djokovic hasn't touched. There are heaps that he has also. He has to be considered in any talk about tennis greatness against their peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roger Federer. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You can't have it both way. That's fandom, not an encyclopedia. I'll take this to the Tennis project and wikipedia MOS now if I have to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Same goes for you. An Encyclopedia follows sources, and the most up to date sources from multiple renowned platforms agree that Djoković as the greatest of all time. It's easy to see why as well. He holds all the most important records. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Many or even most objective observers (obviously not including Federer or nadal fans) claim Djoković to be the greatest because he surpassed both Federer and Nadal in most of the games ultimate records. So it is not a false, subjective statement. Claiming so for Laver, Nadal or Federer however would be. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hi Spirit Fox99! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Nemanja Vidić several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Nemanja Vidić, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. phrogge 'sup? edits 14:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please stop removing reliably sourced content without any discussion, as you did here at Vlade Divac. [1] Regarding your assertion that the material is "superfluous", I would like to point out that en.wiki is WP:NOTCENSORED. If you have reason to believe the information isn't correct, I would encourage you to use the TP. Thanks, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:25, 12 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Boban Marjanović, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I always put a summary, but this did not need one. They stated not enough Euroleague info in thee lead, yet he only played in the Euroleague for 2 years, which does not provide sufficient importance for the lead. Instead of questioning me, next time question the legitimacy of the template.Spirit Fox99 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --Joy (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Spirit Fox99: Please review my comment at ANI. You need to either give evidence or retract the aspersions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Spirit Fox99, there's only one link there and that is of the village. The link appears as Smiljan, Croatia because that's the article's name. You're misinterpreting the guideline. The larger unit, Croatia, is not linked. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Within the article it appears that it is. Nowhere else have I seen a village and the country titled together as in that article. Therefore this falls under exception. If anything, "Croatia" should be removed from the title "Smiljan, Croatia". I'm looking for other locations represented as such and can't find any. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is named like that to distinguish it from other articles with the same name. This is done per WP:TITLEDAB. There are plenty of such names of articles. There would be a violation if Croatia was linked separately too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, the offensive aspersions have remained in place, and were archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Spirit Fox99, and now this user has apparently continued making contentious edits in the same topic area. --Joy (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm stating a clear WP:overlinking guideline which states:

"For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit".

There is nothing contentious in the fact that there is overlinking of the word "Croatia" in that limited section. Anyone with two eyes can see.

Check the times "Belgrade" or "Serbia" are used without even one link.

I would like fairness in regard to implementation of guidelines, specifically hyperlinks used or overused. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Spirit Fox99: My above comment at 10:25, 10 May 2024 (diff) should have been clear. See the archived ANI (10 May 2024) section. You have not retracted your aspersions. Instead, you have repeated them—see your reverted comment (8 June 2024). Wikipedia requires collaboration and civil interactions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What was not civil? Write out a summary of why following Wikipedia guidelines warrants a ban. Otherwise I would like to report you as well for this ban. And have other administrators review your reasoning. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

When the block is overturned following an appeal, or when the block expires, you are welcome to ask for a review at WP:AN. However, please be careful about drawing attention to the situation because everything is considered during a review (see WP:BOOMERANG). Spending some time reading and digesting the pages that are linked in the above comments would be useful. By the way, there is a big difference between a block and a ban. You have not been banned. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)