Hi ItsKesha! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you recently removed content from Joe Cole without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Egghead06 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting me? You are disrupting the appearance of the table. And you seem to have no valid reason except for saying "too wide". And you cannot just report someone. You need to warn several times. And if you revert me again, you may be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Human (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:A Simple Human, the infobox will cover half the screen, as it is, I haven't disrupted anything. It's a lot easier to just put the players onto a second line, looks a lot cleaner. P.S. I can report you if I want for violating 3RR, seeing as you have literally just threatened to do exactly the same thing to me. Have a nice day chief. ItsKesha (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: Well you were the first to alter the table by introducing commas. You cant report me for 3RR as i havent violed it. Its not a threat just a reminder so that you acknowledge them. I am experienced to know how WP works. Human (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A Simple Human: I was amending the table to how it used to be. Mine wasn't a threat either just a reminder to not revert again without discussing, but you haven't even tried discussing as asked, you've just chatted on and on about. ItsKesha (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean how it used to be? You only joined WP 20 days ago. And the table was without of those commas since last year. What you are claiming is a blatant lie. And what do you mean by chatted on? Human (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A Simple Human:I'm sure you're fully aware you can view the history of an article? Like it was [1] a couple of years ago, less wasted space as you can see, far more compact and readable. So, kindly refrain yourself from telling blatant lies please. ItsKesha (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: That was almost 3 years ago. The recent one matters. There is no wastage of space is here. Wikipedia is an ever expanding encyclopedia. The commas were removed and it stayed like that for a long time with no issues. You shouldnt either. Human (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A Simple Human: The 2018 World Cup certainly wasn't three years ago. And independently of 2a00:fe0:48:ffff:a176:9b6f:7732:32e0, who actually initiated the change to begin with, and you, I've made an amendment. Also I'd appreciate it if, you're going to accuse me of lying, to have actual evidence. Because currently you have diddly squat. So don't bother answering unless you do. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I take back the accusation. What am I supoosed to know if you went back 3 years just to change it bsck? How is changing it a crime. I reverting it back shouldnt bother you if you instead want to revert back to the previous layout. You are the first one to personally attack me by accusing me of threatening you. I just told you a fact about 3RR, as you have already reverted me twice, that is written in the policy article. Human (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A Simple Human:Thank you brother. It's all water under the bridge! I did not intend to personally attack you, it wasn't meant that way but that is the way it was received by you, so I apologise. ItsKesha (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up in case you aren't aware. Despite the fact the five development team players made their professional debuts in the EFL Trophy match vs Manchester United Under 21's this week - they won't be notable in their own right by virtue of this debut as they played an Under-21 team. Should they play in the next EFL group matches vs the non Under-21 teams in the group, according to the notability criteria in WP:FOOTY they become notable. Zanoni (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanoni: Thanks for the info, I've reverted my edit. Much obliged. ItsKesha (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "ItsKesha", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thoroughly go through WP:IMPERSONATE. Idell (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Idell:; unless you think somebody pretending to be the actual singer Kesha and is amending articles of lower league English football clubs, I'm not sure how it may be deemed I am impersonating her. It is a reference to her song All That Matters (The Beautiful Life) from her album Warrior, but I am in no way, shape or form pretending to be her. ItsKesha (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I asked you to thoroughly go through the guidelines:

Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person.

Idell (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Idell:; it's a song lyric pal. ItsKesha (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright but the policies have to be followed, even though we may not like them. Let me explain your options again. Is your real name Kesha? If yes, then you may keep using this username, but you must disclose it on your userpage. If not, then your username may be misleading and you are urged to change it (see WP:RENAME for information on how to do that). Idell (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idell: is your real name Idell? Well whether it is or not you'll have to mention on your home page or I may have to report you for pretending to be the well known personal computer company. ItsKesha (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My username does not violate any of the username guidelines. If you think it does, you may talk to me with valid arguments backed by Wikipedia policies not this nine-year-old street talk or you may take it up to the administrators. Right now, you are in violation of the policies and be advised that you may be blocked if you don’t comply with them. Idell (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idell: Sorry, so you aren't connected with Dell? Well how was I supposed to know, it isn't mentioned on your profile. According to you that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. ItsKesha (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that your username doesn't violate Wikipedia:Username policy, it's borderline. A name declaring "It's Kesha" implies that you are Kesha, and others may not be aware that the name is a fan homage based on a song lyric (I wasn't aware of that myself until I read the exchange above). Given your contributions, though, it's obvious that you aren't Kesha and you never intended to impersonate her.

If you're going to be a regular contributor here, you may eventually want your user page User:ItsKesha to be something other than a red link, and use that page to say a bit about yourself and your interests on Wikipedia. At that time, it would be good to include a brief explanation of the origin of your username. (I have a selfish reason for suggesting this: Admin work is endless on Wikipedia, and an explanation of your username on your userpage would help us out a little bit by preventing distractions from non-actionable complaints about your username.)

If you ever want to change the name in the future, you can do so easily by requesting it at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Your contribution history won't be lost, everything will move over to your new name. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: As you have been perfectly reasonable I have created a userpage. Thank you for showing civility rather than threatening to report and ban me, a little decency goes a long way! All the best. ItsKesha (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a great picture of not-you!

Keep up the good work, and feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have a question or need some help. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsKesha! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Boris Johnson that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) ^{(talk · contribs · email)} 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm IVORK. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Laurence Fox 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. — IVORK _Talk 03:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like help to create an appropriately worded footnote for that particular tweet you could have simply asked on its talk page. Also, if you'd bothered to review the edit history you'd have realized that the page is slowly being cleaned up over time and footnotes+refs where possible have been added (and will be as editors have time hence why we haven't tagged every single other tweet because we're aware). I don't understand your sudden need to come in hot and heavy on the page. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your article so stop behaving as it is, nobody came in "hot and heavy", nowhere did it mention the page is being cleaned up within the edit space, nowhere have you explained how the edit was poorly worded, nowhere have you behaved like a rational person. ItsKesha (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is chriswyattuk. You recently made some changes to the Fairytale of New York article, and you removed an entire paragraph without any explanation. There were also too many changes in this one commit. Regardless of whether the change was intended or not, you have removed other people's useful contributions. I have undone your change. Feel free to make the same changes again, but in multiple smaller commits, with sufficient explanation of the changes.

[[2]]

That is one pissed-off IP. —valereee (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, that was on YOU, not me! Good job, slick! Again, I cite Music in professional wrestling. Please tell me, EXACTLY, How is that not relevant? 2600:1702:3860:D290:3853:A299:335A:138A (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care mate. Please stop. ItsKesha (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to stop until you tell me a GOOD REASON why it needed to me removed! The ONLY REASON that you COMPLETELY REFUSE to give me an answer is because YOU KNOW that I'm right & you don't want to admit the truth! I challenge you to prove me wrong! 2600:1702:3860:D290:3853:A299:335A:138A (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, ItsKesha has asked you to stop. You need to stop. The fact you want something doesn't mean you're entitled to it. —valereee (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Who asked you? Who do you think you are telling me way I need to do? It was YOU that told us to take it to 1 of are talk boards so now you need to stay out of out of it! 2600:1702:3860:D290:3853:A299:335A:138A (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: why did you ONLY remove the singles from WWE Music Group but NOT from TNA Knockout Music? 2600:1702:3860:D290:3853:A299:335A:138A (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

blocked from posting here, two weeks. Let me know if the problem continues. —valereee (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
260		WWF Brawl for All (talk)	Add sources
3,215		Captain Tom (talk)	Add sources
36		FF Jaro (talk)	Add sources
77		History of WWE Raw (talk)	Add sources
54		History of WWE SmackDown (talk)	Add sources
4,219		Triple H (talk)	Add sources
3,972		Vince McMahon (talk)	Cleanup
5,430		Stone Cold Steve Austin (talk)	Cleanup
492		Matt Bloom (talk)	Cleanup
641		Attitude Era (talk)	Expand
1,709		David de Gea (talk)	Expand
61		British Strong Style (talk)	Expand
1,698		Loki (comics) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
105		Third-party ownership in association football (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
620		Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6,963		Spotify (talk)	Merge
2,982		Single (music) (talk)	Merge
14		FC Polissya Zhytomyr (2016) (talk)	Merge
70		Knockout Kings (talk)	Wikify
61		Mike Tyson vs. Mitch Green (talk)	Wikify
49		Mike Tyson vs. Orlin Norris (talk)	Wikify
6		Racism in New Zealand rugby union (talk)	Orphan
3		Andrei Pavlovich Ablameyko (talk)	Orphan
2		Balkrishna Mabuhang (talk)	Orphan
42		Morgan Boyes (talk)	Stub
528		Mouctar Diakhaby (talk)	Stub
5		Jarvis Kenrick (talk)	Stub
92		Manasputra (talk)	Stub
621		Houssem Aouar (talk)	Stub
19		Dr. Graham's Homes (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to WWE Music Group discography, 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. Paul ❬talk❭ 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit at Keir Starmer. The "socialist" and "soft left" statements in the lead are sourced in the Political Positions section. Adding in controversial and unsourced statements goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which is especially important when it comes to biographies of living people. If you can find reliable sources that state something different, then by all means post on the talk page and we can discuss it there. Thank you for your understanding, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive edits from Salford to Kersal.

The article for Kersal references the football club in more detail than the article for Salford, as does the Moor Lane article, and the Moor Lane section of Salford City F.C.. Kersal is therefore the natural choice - and not just geographically.

From your talk page I see you have a long history of annoying other users and generally making edits contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Your edit history on the Morecambe articles shows you to be both un-cooperative and sarcastic.

Any further incidents will be brought up with the administrators.

The affected articles are 2020–21 Morecambe F.C. season and 2019–20 Morecambe F.C. season, and more specifically the "Location" parameter of Template:Football box collapsible. RednessInside (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RednessInside, literally no other football article mentions Kersal. Why do you think your beloved Morecambe are so special? And why did you revert my edit to mention Horwich as a location? Make your mind up mate. ItsKesha (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ItsKesha well they didn't need to be bankrolled to get where they are for starters ;)

I see that you have reverted to the same tactics you have used with other users, namely ignoring all the points raised and making sarcastic comments.

I literally pointed out all the stadium/football club articles that use Kersal.

I did not change your Horwich edit, nor can find any evidence for you making that change. However, thanks for pointing out that 2020–21 Morecambe F.C. season should've used Horwich rather than Bolton. I have corrected this.

If you believe Bolton play in Horwich, not Bolton, but Salford City play in Salford, not Kersal, perhaps it's you who needs to make their mind up.

As stated before, any further disruptive editing will be brought to the attention of the administrators.

RednessInside (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RednessInside Horwich isn't in Bolton. Kersal is in Salford. That's how geography works. And yes, you did change my edit for Horwich. If you believe Salford play in Kersal, not Salford, but Morecambe play in Morecambe, not Westgate, perhaps it's you who needs to make up their mind? And yes, you literally pointed out all the football articles that mention Kersal: two Morecambe articles, and ones directly related which need as much information as possible. ItsKesha (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ItsKesha And if there was an article for Westgate, I'd link to it, so you're talking rubbish as usual. I also mentioned Salford articles. What's your obnoxious reply to this text from the Moor Lane article? "Moor Lane, currently known as the Peninsula Stadium for sponsorship purposes, is a football stadium in the Kersal area of Salford". Or from the Salford City F.C. article? "Salford play their home games at Moor Lane, known as the Peninsula Stadium for sponsorship reasons, located in the Kersal area of Salford." and also "In December, it was revealed Salford faced objections from hundreds of local residents, and the newly-formed Kersal Moor Residents' Association."

RednessInside (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RednessInside Kersal is a small area in Salford. Every other single article of the kind says the games are in Salford, not Kersal, and not one person has objected. Nobody says Manchester City games take place in Beswick, nobody says Liverpool games take place in the Anfield area of Liverpool. Come off it mate, this is just daft and you've got absolutely nothing to back up what you're trying to do. ItsKesha (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your speedy deletion tag on 2012 Summer of Champions' Cup again. Speedy deletion is only to be used for very specific reason, this article does not fall into any of those reasons. I suggest you read WP:speedy deletion before adding any more speedy deletion templates. If you think the page should be deleted then your should nomitate it at WP:AfD. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahj2107 could you please explain why the article doesn't fall into the reason I proposed? ItsKesha (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 applies to any article "about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" this is a lower standard than notability. As Summer of Champions' Cup is a notabile event, there is a credable indication of significance for the 2012 event. However, this is now irrelevent because I have contested and removed the template and that means the deletion is now controversial and another deletion process (AfD) needs to be used instead.Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REMOVED regarding the discretionary sanctions alerts you removed. Discretionary sanctions alerts are a special case: they can be archived or removed outright but recommended practice is to also place {{Ds/aware}} at the top of the talk page, which involves copying the "topic codes" of the alerts you have received. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does the MP for Islington North have to do with Arab Israeli relations? ItsKesha (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ItsKesha, when did I say anything about the MP for Islington North? You showed interest by editing a page with that tag, so I politely gave you the alert. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said something about the MP for Islington North when I made an edit to his page, and you responded with some nonsense about Arab-Israeli relations. ItsKesha (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense have I responded with? Did I revert an edit just using the edit summary "nah", or something like that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good one mate. ItsKesha (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Football Barnstar
		For your work on improving Battle of Bramall Lane. Jameboy (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleansed your talk page and have taken this to ANI.LM2000 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit on Rachel Riley earlier and you re-reverted. I take your point about the 'rubbish' you removed, but you removed references from the lead and don't appear to have replaced them anywhere else. In addition, you are removing the language parameter from citations - why are you doing that, it's completely valid to include them and the? Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun. Two of the sources I removed from the lead are already in the article. The others aren't worth keeping as there are already sources establishing the information. The language parameter isn't necessary when the articles are in English and this is the English Wikipedia. Thank you. ItsKesha (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except they're useful for a) screenreaders; and b) the articles get translated and/or imported to other wikis, but retain the same sourcing. Where the lang parameter is in use, please don't remove it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, it appears the references you removed aren't already in the article. Restored them for now, as the absence of references from the lead is only a guideline. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun. The language parameter to say an article is in English isn't necessary on the English Wikipedia, it's kind of a given the sources are in English unless mentioned. And the sources you have restored to the article don't need to be in the article, as the article itself already establishes she is a television presenter through sources which already exist, and those additional sources in the lead are therefore redundant. Thanks, ItsKesha (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the articles get translated and/or imported to other wikis, but retain the same sourcing. So therefore the language parameter is useful for, at the very minimum, that use case. If a template, such as Template:cite comes equipped with a parameter, and people have gone to the trouble to use it, and leaving it there causes absolutely no harm and may be of benefit to others? Then just leave it there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun, if articles get translated to other Wikipedias, the parameter can be put to use then. But the language parameter is only to be used for foreign languages. Again, English isn't a foreign language on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'm seeing now what the problem is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some improvements, i will be busy for a bit (but hope I can work things out fast), wishing you all the best, but please remember not to remove Sable's pic again and also Austin, Rock, Foley and HHH the big fours have their own section (please do not make me add these back again). You can remove the Brothers of Destruction part as they were not as important as the big 4. You can include them in a new section called other men's wrestlers or something, but Austin, HHH, Rock and Foley need their own sections. Austin-McMahone was the central theme of the era but after Austin's time off in 1999 Rock and Foley carried the WWF with the highest rated segments, while HHH became the greatest heel of the era. Anyone who followed the era knows that and there are multiple WP:RS to back it up. And I don't get your hatradeof Sable.... I have added multiple WP:RS that are widely accepted, I think "needs additional verification tag" can also be removed. Regardless wishing you all the best, good day and hope to help you as soon as I am free again. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why you are removing valid references that were there before your OWN (pun intended); I respectfully suggest you take any further changes to the talk page per BRD and given that the article has only recently been un-protected. GiantSnowman 21:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why you are adding three sources for an uncontroversial statement, and not sure why you think having lots of badly cited/incomplete references is OK either. But you keep punning while weirdly accusing people of things based on one edit, hope it works out for you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed content from Robert Lewandowski without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The point is that the references you are removing are not supplied anywhere else in the article, and the content is not a summary of the article. You are correct in stating that it probably should be though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter Görlitz, do you really think saying something is an unreliable source is an inadequate explanation? Or do you really think "Juniper Sports" is a reliable source? Now, bear in mind that, if you go to the "Juniper Sports" website, it says "account suspended". Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the worst source, if the account were not supsended. What does RSN have to say about the source? What does WP:BRD suggest overall? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz Do you really think a random person's suspended website should even be given the credence of a discussion? Is that really the low standard you have for sourcing? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think WP:BRD should be observed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Walter Görlitz, which is why I'm observing it by having a discussion as part of the process. Do you care to take part in the process? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read it closely enough. You were bold and you were reverted by me. You reverted me and you were reverted by a different editor. You then altered your approach (which was appreciated) but by this time hadn't you had already ignored BRD? For the record, I started the discussion here, not you. You were essentially forced into a discussion after you were warned. It feels like it was simply a way for you to avoid breaking WP:3RR. Where's the other editor? Not engaged because, as BRD states, you should take it to the [article's] talk page. This is not even close to the article. In my calculation, you have failed in BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read it closely enough, Walter Görlitz. I took on board what the other user (Jaellee) had said, and accordingly made an edit which abided by his advice (the sources had actually had differently formatted references names which lead to my mistake of removing both sources; those in the lead had quotation marks around the reference name e.g. <ref name="Juni">, those in the body had no quotation marks e.g. <ref name=Juni/>). I knew your reverting was wholly incorrect because I had actually checked the source (Juniper Sports) and removed it because it was obviously a terrible source. Your first comment in this thread said "the references you are removing", even though it was clearly only one source I was removing in the last edit you reverted. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be removing WP:RS such as pwtorch, (PWTORCH is one of the most reliable source according to WP:PW/RS) in the name of removing so called "bad sources" on the article Stone Cold Steve Austin , and you have been warned numerous time by not just me but many users regarding this behavior and all can be seen on your talk page history. Please stop this behavior or I might have to report you, because you have been sufficiently warned LONG ago. As you are a 2020 editor I feel such major changes are left to pre 2015 editors but thats not the issue, while you are welcome to remove real sources that are listed unreliable in WP:PW/RS, do not remove those listed EXTREMELY reliable per WP:PW/RS as with PWTORCH. Regards. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was removing it as per WP:LEAD, as clearly noted in the edit summary. Thanks for playing but you are, yet again, incorrect. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your edit warring and decided to start a discussion at Talk:Stone Cold Steve Austin. This is always preferable to arguing in edit summaries. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've responded to your concerns over at the aforementioned talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered a valid source for this stuff? Were you a viewer back then, it isn't 'made up.' This is another site, https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/5-wrestling-characters-that-were-reportedly-inspired-by-movies/4. Which bit sounds 'made up' to you?Halbared (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Keeda lol. Have a look here mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bleacher says the same thing. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1689282-something-scary-waylon-mercy-goldust-and-the-rise-of-wwes-bray-wyatt. Halbared (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cite it properly and it's fine. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

"Guinness World Records credits Pelé as the scorer of the "most career goals", with 1,279" - May I ask why do you think this is needed to be in the "list of footballers with 500 or more goals" article? This is info regarding the number of goals in his whole career and that means even goals in friendlies are included, but that article is about numbers in official appearances only, so is and seems irrelevant to the topic...

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a paragraph discussing the record itself and who has a claim to it, while also talking about what is included in these tables and why. The article should be able to do both simultaneously. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Yes, of course, there is some overlap on the matter of total career numbers as well, and, following the Greek example, we could even have another third list on the article with all career goals of footballers (friendly, non-friendly, A, B, C-level, et c., army, university, or whatever matches included), or at least such a listing (total numbers, in all matches) only for footballers who played before 1995, when there was no clear separation of friendlies and official matches. And having such a list could correlate more with the intro, with those parts where total numbers are discussed.

Other than that, which seemed out of topic when first read, even though someone will most likely find other lists from reliable sites/magazines that have deviations from those lists-references already included (probably from South America and even Central Europe, because total goalscorers rankings concern more these regions), I would say the whole saga has been covered, and those extra references to other lists would be superfluous. The key points are covered, e.g. that having the real numbers for old players is probably impossible, and the closest estimations should be used, that FIFA is very unreliable (for instance, by having recognized Friedenreich with 1,329 goals in 1.239 matches, even though there are no proofs to back these numbers, because the folder with his goals and appearances wasn't found when the person who updated it died), and it's understood, even though not stated, RSSSF and IFFHS, regardless what issues they may have, they are reliable since they are the ones used among many, and so on. Good job!

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reasoning. It's Wikipedia policy that if there's disagreement, to temporarily leave it as it had been for the longest time. So it's very much relevant how long it had been like that.

My reasoning is stated elsewhere. There's no reason to have half of the RSSSF data (which uses one methodology) inside the IFFHS table (which uses another methodology), while the remaining RSSSF data is in its own section. It's nonsense and hopefully not a purposeful attempt to make it harder to read. There is already precedent in List of countries by life expectancy among others. LoorNabs (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LoorNabs can you find me that policy please? Cheers Oh and the top table isn't IFFHS data, it's what the mainstream media widely regard to be the accurate statistics. I've got round to including notes in the table yet regarding differing tallies from sources. But as explained in the lead, the RFFFS statistics are largely viewed as being completely wrong and therefore shouldn't be so prominently reported by having a completely separate table. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I generally agree with your cleanup, I don't see why his seasonal top scorer awards shouldn't be included (PL Golden Boot, Pichichi and Capocannoniere). I think the average reader would expect to see those three, at least. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably agree with that yeah Nehme1499. "Ballon d'Or dream team" and/or "Golden Foot" should be removed in my opinion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, I've removed them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehme1499, if it's OK with you I'm going to copy and paste this discussion onto the Cristiano Ronaldo talk page, just so the reasons for the recent edits are more transparent to the community and can reach a greater audience in case anybody disagrees. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything about Wright moving to Salford, either today or Monday. Please do not rely on whatever message board or Twitter account you are using, and act until any transfer is officially announced. GiantSnowman 06:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "relying" on the owner of the club saying so, GiantSnowman. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, great - so where's the official press release/media article? GiantSnowman 13:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ u GiantSnowman. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the information wasn't even published on the page as I was awaiting the source, hence why I used the <!-- ---! tags around the information, and my edit summary clearly demonstrated what I was doing with the edit. I don't make edits like that for a laugh. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He signed on Tuesday, so your sources were wrong and your edits were wrong, cheers. GiantSnowman 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He signed on Monday as is abundantly clear from the press photographs, GiantSnowman. My edits were very clearly correct as he... signed for Salford on loan. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is abundantly clear it that the transfer was announced on Tuesday 17th. GiantSnowman 11:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, GiantSnowman, what is abundantly clear is that Tyreik Wright signed for Salford and I was 100% correct to make edits in preparation for that. Also, lol @ u again mate, for moving the goalposts; "No you're wrong, he signed on Tuesday!!!... oh no it was announced on Tuesday, you're wrong!!!". lol lol lol. Please don't respond to this comment, I will remove it without even bothering to read it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful to idiots like me if you explained your edits, either in the edit summary or the talk page? As it stands I see no beneficial or meaningful changes to the article, beyond the lede changes which I agree with (and have expanded upon). GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be useful if you could revert properly? Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you edited properly in the first place, we wouldn't have to revert would we? GiantSnowman 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol OK mate. Go on then, amuse me some more, how wasn't my first edit proper? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's like watching myself vicariously through another. Been there, been moaned at, have the tee-shirt. Seasider53 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it truly is baffling isn't it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Another time, if you remove inline sourcing from a player infobox, please would you also make sure the content is explicitly sourced elsewhere in the article. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done per WP:OR, as I don't think anybody is going to dispute whether Andros Townsend played X amount of games in youth international football. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your issue exactly, MaxBrowne2? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about me vs you. It seems to me you're more concerned with showing other wikipedia editors as much disrespect as possible, rather than working in collaboration with them to improve the encyclopedia. Bruce is one of the nicest guys on the site. Quale can be prickly, but he's a very competent editor and his opinions are well thought out. 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Was it respectful to suggest the phone book as a Wikipedia article 🤔? I'm trying to help improve the article, I've given ample suggestions, but when people wilfully ignore policy and reason and proposals of any sort, it's little wonder you's get push back is it? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that listing people by surname is common. Not the ideal response, but this isn't about me. If you genuinely want to see that article improved, show a little respect for the people who've worked on it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not remotely common though. This article is (close to being) unique in this regard. Not one of the people who've worked on it could give any examples of articles being written in such a manner, beyond mockingly suggesting bibliographies and phone books. You can't complain about being shown disrespect and then act in exactly the same way. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to make it all about me. You showed disrespect for multiple editors on the talk page and got a little pushback. Disrespect on talk pages never helps to improve articles, it just gets people's backs up. Feel free to get the last word in. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I'm asking what your issue is, yes, I am making it about you. It's funny really, it appears you don't like pushback for being disrespectful. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert another user at the edit-warring noticeboard. If you do, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea when we can expect a new update of the IFFHS and the RSSSF list????

And, in the meantime, you are quite busy with the list keeping it correct!!! You don't mind?? Seems like a lot of (annoying) work..

Anyway - have a great weekend!!!

Sportfan82 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ItsKesha. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly am I being warned for here? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what edit warring and the three-revert rule are? You are being warned that if you make another revert at List of chess grandmasters without getting a prior consensus, there is a great likelihood that you will lose your editing privileges. Is there something about that that you don't understand? Sundayclose (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking what it was I am being warned for. I'm not ask what edit warring is. And according to 3RR, I wasn't edit warring. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not defined by 3RR. You can edit war without violating 3RR. 3RR is simply a bright-line rule that you should never violate, but there are other ways to edit war. Read WP:EW and WP:3RR. Your warning is a caution to not revert at List of chess grandmasters because if you do you could be blocked. The warning is mostly for your protection so you don't get a block. I advise you to take it seriously because you can't say you weren't warned. Discuss and get consensus; don't revert. Sundayclose (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and per EWW; "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy... 4. Reverting obvious vandalism". Somebody removing the "very long template" from the longest page on Wikipedia four times is obvious vandalism. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more details about what could happen if you revert, talk to the administrator who left the warning above. Sundayclose (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to do? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article doesnt use the name of the era doesnt mean the match didn't happen during the said era. We all know Mankind vs Undertaker, Rock vs Austin happened in the attitude era, but every WP:RS regarding thsoe matches doesnt mention the name "Attitude Era". The amazing Lesnar vs Rollins vs Cena triple threat match happened within the The Reality Era time frame, thus it makes it the part of that ea and it is widely regarded as the best match of that era. Also there are many sources that names them part of The Reality Era [3] but that is unnecessary, the fact that it happened within the time frame says it all! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be removing well-sourced info calling them OR, sources like www.baltimoresun.com are WP:PW/RS but you call them unreliable? Please stop. I am tired of telling you to seek WP:RfC before making such major changes, at this point if you check I have written on your talk page more than any other editors except yourself has [4] in terms of no of edits and in terms of text added I have added more than even you and any other users: Dilbaggg · 29,011 (32.6%) ItsKesha · 23,426 (26.3%)

this is getting too weird. Good luck on football articles, wrestling articles are for wrestling editors, best wishes. Take care. And last request stop removing WP:RS in the name of removing WP:OR, they are not or, anyway no hard feelings, good day/night, take care. Hope this is my final edit on this talk page. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything I removed is original research, some of it was overly sourced, sentences just don't need four sources. Please revert your edits. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revision here [5], since when is something as accurate as the New York Post unreliable? here is yet another proof of you removing WP:RS by incorrectly calling them unreliable. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was New York Post ever deemed accurate, Dilbaggg? Yet another proof of you not having the faintest idea what constitutes a reliable source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please just fix it next time. — Czello 14:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a salient point of course but I could never pass up the opportunity for such prime banter. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, I'd like to keep at least some of the quotes and translations. I can also break it up in a separate Notes section. GeorgiaDC (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was excessive, practically pointless, and arguably a copyright violation. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not IP, it's just someone's post on social media without any literary, design, utilitarian, inventive content. There're multiple RS copying it already, but they've only translated like 5% of it, so we should keep it. GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genre additions to infoboxes are based on WP:RS just like all other information in all of Wikipedia's articles. Also note this previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 72#Creating a genre which shows a consensus against using that genre in film and TV articles. Thanks for your time in reading this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion shows no such consensus, and it is a terrible conclusion that you have drawn. Here are several articles discussing Six Feet Under as a tragedy. Please kindly revert. Thank you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links state that the show falls into a genre category of tragedy. Tragic events happening in a show do not equal genre. MarnetteD|Talk 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just admit you haven't read the articles which discuss Six Feet Under as a tragedy rather than, again, telling fibs. Care to tell me why you think SFU isn't a tragedy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read each of your links and none of the mentioned genre. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first article mentions tragedy and variants seven times, bleak and variants three times, dark and variants eight times, pain and variants five times, sad and variants three times, death and variants 30 times, die and variants 12 times. I'll ask for a second time, care to tell me why you think SFU isn't a tragedy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page shows that you are well aware of the fact that edit warring is not acceptable. Please use the article talk page to discuss, and don't revert back to your preferred version without first getting a consensus in favour of your changes. The sources you added do not support the genre label tragedy for that tv show. --bonadea contributions talk 22:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrating that you haven't even read the sources, well done Bonadea. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and not a particularly civil response. It would have been courteous for you to strike or remove your response here when you saw on the article talk page that I explained why neither aource calls the show a tragedy. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt your response was inadequate, and your calls for a "civil response" are very Tory-esque. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies – I should have linked WP:CIVIL. Anyway, if you thought my response was inadequate, that is fair enough, but that is a very different thing from accusing your fellow editors (not just me, but others as well) of not reading the sources we comment on, when it is pretty obvious that we have read them. Why not use the article talk page to explain exactly what is inadequate in my response? I was trying to be clear without making my response too wordy, and I probably failed to explain my point well enough. I'll attempt to clarify. --bonadea contributions talk 13:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey ItsKesha, please try to use the article talk page when you revert edits which take a little more time to create, and not just revert to your preferred version. warm wishes, --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha:, i saw in the version history of lionel messi, when you reverted a table edit, that you want a discussion about a narrower table on "the project" page. which one? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Hi ThurnerRobert. Apologies, I should have directed you to the page specifically. If you go to the WikiProject Football talk page, you can generate a discussion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at ANI, and let me know if it happens again and I will block them. GiantSnowman 22:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Stop deleting useful information from the article for no reason. That is nothing but vandalism and you will be reported for it. Specifically, the Statistics section. Like statistics for players before QF don't matter?

Thanks.

– Penepi (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penepi, I'm going to revert your edit on account of the discussion taking place here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple references have been present in the article, with no concerns raised, for some time. In the absence of any consensus to remove them they should remain per WP:RETAIN, thanks. GiantSnowman 19:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works though is it. There's no deadline for concerns to be raised. I've thought about this and they're being removed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and that's not how it works though. You can't just unilaterally decide something - we are a community, we work on consensus. GiantSnowman 12:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello! you said a few days ago that you want to create a single table with statistics from all sources. i tried to work on such a table and posted it on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_footballers_with_500_or_more_goals). after you see it, you can tell me what do you think about it. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quebecca (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel I'm "taking the piss", but this shouldn't be included until we can establish that the Darron Gibson who played in those matches for Wythenshawe Amateurs and the Darron Gibson we have an article about here are the same individual. It's quite possible they are, as it's plausible that Gibson would play for a non-League club in the twilight of his career that's local to a part of the world where he sent large parts of his pro career. But, it could just as easily be someone else who happens to have the same name. You would think that there would be at least one piece of independent coverage on a Premier League-winning and former Republic of Ireland international turning out for a club in the tenth tier of English football. A search on Google yields nothing other than what we already know, that a Darron Gibson played three matches for Wythenshawe Amateurs this season, and there isn't any chatter on Twitter (not that that could be used as a source in itself, but could be a useful indicator). Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you don’t seem to consider a family statement on a verified Twitter sufficient for confirmation of death? Just curious as the general consensus is that’s sufficent.@ItsKesha Benica11 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been hacked. Just get a reliable source if it's actually happened. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mino Raiola, 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. Spencer^T•C 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing crucial information about the Cena vs HBK match that was wel sourced from john Cena article just based on your personal bias against Cena. What if it had one source, one source is sufficient for most entries, but its OK I can add 1000 more that acknowledges it as the greatest match on Raw history. Also I am curious as to how long you even watched WWE, you act like a 2010s style pg age fan, let me tell you I watch since 1999 and while this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, I have better knowlede of wrestling, partiularly within WWF/E than you. Also please refrain from removing sourced contents without proper WP:RfC. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Crucial information" in what way? If a match is believed to be "the best", it can be included in the prose regarding that part of his career. It isn't an official ranking and it isn't part of his legacy. A Tweet by Vince McMahon's PR team is not part of his legacy. The crap about WrestleMania is WP:OR. Just because something happened or somebody said something about someone, doesn't mean it is notable or worthy of inclusion. This is a basic Wikipedia policy. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cena vs HBK is a huge part of Cena's legacy. I hve cited multiple WP:RS which you removed based on personal views. Vince also calling Cena, wrestling's Babe ruth is highly notable. I am restoring these information again, but if anything is unsourced they may go, that i would agree with you. Either ways if you want to remove these please seek a proper consensus at WP:PW talk page. Hustle, loyalty, respect. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting you've accused ItsKesha of having a personal bias against Cena, meanwhile your userpage mentions that he is your all time favourite and you're signing off your messages with his catchphrase. — Czello 10:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Czello' Yeah Cena has been my fav since his debut in 2002, but there is nothing wrong with editing articles of your most fav athlete. But I see a lot of WP:PW members are the Cena hater types, like in this discussion Talk:Persona and reception of Roman Reigns, "Delete" section a user mentioned why an article devoted to how Roman is perceived should be a stand alone and not just be on its own like in Cena's case, and LM2000 said he supported an article like this and mentioned " on a personal level, Cena killed my interest in WWE over a decade ago". You know you guys fan around Rock and Austin, Cena is a 1000 times better athlete than them combined, he had some of the best matches ever agains Angle, Lesnar, HBK (arguabally the greatest match ever), HHH, Edge, RVD, Orton, Punk, list goes on and on. He has far better move sets, the 5 moves of doom is a myth, Austin and Rock mainly brawled outside the ring, Cena is 1000 times the superior athlete. Its also not Cena's decision WWE went pg, it was for Linda's campaign, it attracted sponsors so WWE decided to stick to PG. Cena vs JBL I Quit match at Judgement Day 2005 was one of the most brutal blood bath ever, and it actually eqrned a TV MA ratings.... But yeah just like Cena hates chanting Cena sucks espite the guy selling more merchandise than anyone and carrying WWE 2006-2014 on his own, WP:PW members have a personal vendetta against him and won't acknowledge his greatness. There are countless WP:RS that says Cena vs HBK is the greatest match in Raw history, cena even put old HBK over in that match, but you guys won't allow it to be included on his Legacy section. Its fine, haters gonna hate, but Cena has 50-50, and his fanbase is huge, so despite a "certain syndicate not allowing this information on Wikipedia, we will kow its greatness. Also WP:PW/RS ahs the problem of far to little amount of sources, there are many WP:PW/RS that already acknowledge's this great match as part of Cena's legacy and also many otther sources that are eligible to be WP:PW/RS which are not allowed to be part of it by the syndicate. This is why so many crucial information cannot be added and it kills the passion of regular wiWikipedia editors. Anyway its fine, I won't add it back, I have a busy life and I could live my life without caring about Wikipedia. But do I think it deserves to be on John Cena article's legacy section, of course it does, many WP:RS cites it as WP:notable, personally it was the best match I ever saw live, and it would improve the quality of Cena's article further highlighting his greatness. But I have no time to argue with the Cena Haters Wikipedia Syndicate, so I won't discuss this any further. You guys are good editors and I respect the work you have done on WP:PW over the years, but I understand your grudge against Cena, its OK, be as it is, i won't bother anymore, so I am ending my discussion on his matter here. Peace, and yeah Cena is the greatest of all time, and I am glad the article at least mentions he is considered one of the greatest, which is the truth, thats the last thing I say about this, no need to discuss further, hustle, loyalty, respect! Dilbaggg (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might have slightly proven my point just a little. — Czello 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your mate, OK? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK pal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible." [[WP:CS:EMBED]], so yes better to have raw links as citation than non, you cannot erase them but only replace them or properly format them. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good faith when you do it every single time you add a source. Learn how to add citations properly. Also, you can't pick and choose sentences to defend your pathetic and lazy editing - "Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags". Just cite the sources properly! It's not difficult! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in professional wrestling. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. French Wikipedia uses Opta criteria for counting assists. Ronaldo has 230 assists, but 273 assists have been typed for him and it's not true, because 43 non-Opta/indirect assists have been counted too. I'm not able to correct the statistics; so I would appreciate it if you do it. You can use this website: https://www.messivsronaldo.app/ because it has all of his statistics completely and in detail. 10Blaugrana10 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the "pathetic and lazy" insult on my talk page was a bad call. I strongly advise you to drop this feud immediately. You're all out of warnings. It's just blocks from now on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ItsKesha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was asking for guidance on how to deal with users who ignore repeated guidance on how to cite sources properly? The "pathetic and lazy" was clearly a quote, and obviously not an insult in this instance. The quote in full was: how should I proceed without describing it as "pathetic and lazy editing". This is me clearly asking for guidance to avoid this situation happening in the future. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for asking for guidance, you were blocked for your continued uncivil interactions with others. It boggles my mind that you failed to understand that in your appeal. NinjaRobotPirate linked to specific egregious interactions in the talk page discussion you started, and you didn't address them. This is a short block, intended for you to cool off and give you time to reflect on the behavior that got you to this point. WP:AGF matters here. WP:CIVIL also matters; if someone is incivil to you, that is not a reason to react similarly. I advise you to wait it out. If you decide you cannot wait, then I strongly advise you to read WP:NOTTHEM and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before you formulate another appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Anachronist, just some queries about bans and this - if the block wasn't for asking for guidance, why did he make a point of saying "Repeating the "pathetic and lazy" insult on my talk page was a bad call" in his summarisation? MB. Secondly, can you please confirm or deny if it's acceptable to repeatedly accuse somebody of violating copyright and plagiarism? Finally, if I also linked to similar specific egregious interactions by another user, why does said user face no "sanction" or "ban"? Just curious about the rationale behind bans or lack thereof. Many thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question you asked about "pathetic and lazy" was selectively quoted above; the full text indicates an underlying assumption that it is justified and that you cannot see how to avoid it. That is a rationalization, not a request for guidance.

"Pathetic and lazy" is a personal judgment. I am unfamiliar with the context of the question you ask about plagiarism and violations of copyright, but unlike personal judgments, those allegations are based on objective facts.

As to your last question, again, see WP:NOTTHEM. Your focus during your block should be solely on your block, not on anyone else. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not rationalised anything, I was seeking guidance on how to deal with a user who, in my experience, has continuously refused to cite sources properly and ignores policies regarding this. You say "you cannot see how to avoid it", and yet this is literally what I am querying, ways to avoid it! The allegations aimed at me weren't based on objective facts though, that's the point. Why is nobody able to explain why making false and damaging accusations of violating copyright and plagiarism warrants not even a retraction? WP:NOTTHEM doesn't really apply when I am trying to figure out what behaviour does and doesn't warrant a block, and how to avoid such behaviour (see above query) there is no explanation of rationale behind myself being banned and another not being banned, it appears to me to be completely arbitrary. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep talking about it being unfair, I assume you must know you have a topic ban, so I have no idea why you made this edit [6]. I suggest you self revert before the inevitable block happens. BTW one way to deal with it is by not looking at the edit history nor following the editor's contributions. You're not the only editor here, so if there really are problems, it's likely someone else will eventually deal with it. Note that this is the only way for any article you're topic banned from. (Well I mean you could look at the edit history but not do anything, by why tempt yourself? It's dumb to look at the edit history of an article you're topic banned from.) And I have to say whatever the rights and wrongs, you seem to be proving the topic ban was justified by the fact you managed to clearly violate it in your first edit after your block for personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

RossButsy (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cena–Orton rivalry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cena–Orton rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsKesha. Did I miss a discussion on the use of the |url-status= field? I can't see a reason why you removed in the uses with this edit. These references now show the archived version first, even though the original URLs are still alive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to understand what you meant in your comments here. Could you please explain it once more? Atlantis77177 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantis77177, list articles differ from a standard article in terms of its layout. Not hugely, but a standalone list doesn't necessarily require subheadings and prose beyond the aforementioned list, and the implementation of the lead isn't limited in terms of the number of paragraphs. I think it's disadvantageous to remove unspecific text from the lead and place it under a "records and statistics" subheading, when the lead as it reads currently also still has many records and statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your incredible persistence on the article of players with 500 or more goals. It seems to me as if that page needs more protection than it already has. The amount of times that this article gets vandalized and edited without credible sources, is out of this world. I think something more than 'semi-protected' is needed at this point. This has to be one of the most vandalized articles in the sport section. Is there a chance that it would get more protection? Speun (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again such a change and I'll report you Lllllu43 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lllllu43 How about you discuss it on the talk page instead of throwing threats of reporting around? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what the claim that Transfermarkt ‘is not a reliable source’ means. It is one of the leading football statistical databases and the source of much of the underlying mass-media data in other articles I sourced. Mazedriver (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TRANSFERMARKT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, notice taken. Mazedriver (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, about my edit and comment on "Footballers with 500+ goals", if you look on his wikipedia it says Messi scored 474 goals for Barcelona (484 if you count the goals he scored for the second and third teams) not 500! It's the same for every other footballer on this list (except Pelé).

Spectritus (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spectritus - Messi scored 672 goals for Barcelona? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that ? Spectritus (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spectritus In Messi's article in the lead and the stats table, presumably in the Barcelona article, and in the 500+ goals article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I just don't understand why it doesn't say the same number in the infobox. Spectritus (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I should have explained that. The statsbox is for league statistics only. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind discussing on talk page before deleting content of various articles? It is something that you do on a daily basis and you never contribute. The majority of the content you remove -with either no explanation or arrogant comments - is researched and referenced by various users, but apparently not satisfying to you. Sometimes you even demand from other users to update statistics, which is something you could easily do yourself. It would be nice and useful if you abandon any condescending behavior and start contributing. I am sure that you are quite knowledgeable. Vsatin (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been discussed, it was generally agreed that the page was absolutely nonsense, feel free to discuss further on the talk page and try and change the opinion of those involved in the discussion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing sourced information with your own opinions is never a good idea [7]. Here's another source for the importance of TikTok for her career: "Polachek came back onstage for an encore to sing her viral hit track, ​'So Hot You’re Hurting My Feelings,' which propelled her to fame over the past year as the song gained popularity on TikTok." [8]. I won't revert you, but you should revert yourself. Grachester (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "New Haven Independent" also mentions 50 million streams on Spotify, but argues neither for against causation and correlation. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salford City F.C. academy graduates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Callum Morton, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point[9] — Czello ^(music) 10:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

What is it like to deliberately destroy someone's work? Let's say that even if the given sections really meet the characteristics of Original Research. What's it like to suddenly think that I'm going to delete this section now for only one reason - to spite someone else? Are you happy with yourself?

(Redacted) Penepi (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penepi literally nobody cares if you worked hard on it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not (Redacted) like you. Penepi (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penepi got any sources yet? Tick-tock. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single relevant reason to delete entire sections at once. There is, after all, another way to draw attention to, for example, missing sources directly in the section. (Redacted). Anyway, you should look for missing sources yourself; tick-tock... Penepi (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penepi so you haven't got any sources and you've got no valid reasons not to delete original research? Good stuff. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just you creating your own constructions and manipulations. Good stuff. Penepi (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using basic Wikipedia policies. What are you doing to rectify the situation? You can't even type a coherent sentence without flying into a rage. 👍All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all. Once again, manipulating and lying. (Redacted). Penepi (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are basic Wikipedia policies. Where is the manipulation, where is the lie? How exactly have I bent the meaning of them? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse to understand this concept. From the policy you cite:

“secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.”

The sources used in that article do contain said analysis, evaluation, interpretation and synthesis. These ARE first-party secondary sources.Tvx1 13:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Professional Darts Corporation are not one step removed from the Professional Darts Corporation World Darts Championship. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the 2024 PDC World Darts Championship, we were editing at the exact same time, so it accidentally deleted your work once I published my copy. I reverted back to yours, then re-edited my part afterwards. My apologies for that incident.

Kind Regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! With all due respect, please do not ruin all the work, of many years and research for references and sources done, as well for match reports/details of some. For radical changes, please seek for consensus in WP:Footy first. P.S. Of course, my friend, you're more than welcome to make a subset in another section of the list if you like, but I implore you to keep the main superlist in the form it is right now. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you not to use sources which are unreliable. If you want to, inexplicably, use unreliable sources, gain consensus. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ItsKesha,

If you are interested in deleting 19 articles again, please consider tagging them for PROD deletions. This form of deletion does not require the participation of other editors as is required in AFD deletion discussions so they are less demanding on editor time. This is especially important if you are considering the deletion of a lot of articles. PRODs also can happen much quicker as PROD'd articles are not relisted and, in the case of your recent AFD discussions, all but one discussion had to be relisted for another week due to the lack of editor participation. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and well noted @Liz, once I continue with the remainder that should be deleted I will use the prod process instead. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ItsKesha please can you stop trying to delete a load of dart players wikipedia pages? A former world championship runner up was listed as "unnotable" so if there really is a need to delete these articles it should be given to somebody who actually knows about darts Jejd99 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching a world final doesn't inherently make somebody pass GNG, @Jejd99. Glad to be of service. Please don't comment on my talk page again. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with darts or the exact case being mentioned, but do you seriously expect people who were second-best in the world in their sport to have no coverage? What do you mean in your response that you're Glad to be of service? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't seriously expect it, @BeanieFan11, but that's just the way it is. Glad to be of service is an idiom, used as an adjunctive, having been of help to the user in their query. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want complaints then please stop removing legitimate articles. Reaching a world championship final is clearly meeting the notability requirement Jejd99 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will keep updating the sandbox as I want to keep the super list (including youth internationals and other matches that were removed), but, seeing the list does not get updated, I would like to add that you are free to update it, if you are interested in doing so, and you can also use my sandbox, i.e. only parts that can be included, if you wish, which will stay updated. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're rapidly nominating hundreds(?) of darts players for deletion via AFD and PROD within minutes. Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all? Expecting anyone to be able to give the proper attention to these articles in the timeframe you're nominating them is unreasonable. Please slow down. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these articles have been in existence for a decade, there's been plenty of time for them to be given the proper attention. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all? Being old is not a valid reason to mass propose deletion with what seems no effort to check notability... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you're assuming good faith, and on my own talk page no less! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to my point, and please stop commenting on my talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're nominating articles for deletion, and others are asking you to explain whether you have followed the procedures that is spelled out in said process, you can't dodge your responsibility, claiming it to be irrelevant and ask someone to stop commenting on your talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the editor in questions instant reaction wasn't to insinuate I've not performed my duties as a Wikipedia editor on my own talk page, he'd get an answer. How insulting that the user didn't assume good faith with no rationale given whatsoever behind this assumption, is this what we expect of editors on Wikipedia, @OhanaUnited? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It started some time ago, they started flagging and deleting even tournament pages for absolutely no reason and created totall mess in Darts articles, because some were kept and some deleted, which just did not make sense. I was trying to solve it with Wikipedia and it seemed to work and they understood, that Darts have limited sources, but that does not mean they do not have right to be here.

Based on this talk page and even bans that this user had, I believe there is no good will. Even after significantly improving articles, I was told "not enough", and some other robotic phrases. No reasonable discussion with this user, no willingness to cooperate. I do not find this behaviour appropriate, valuable articles of notable players are being deleted. DarthBob (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which tournament page did I flag for deletion @DarthBob? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several European Tour and World Series of Darts articles were flagged for deletion last year and some of them were really deleted, which created a mess. There are literally hundreds of articles for decades and they were always fine, suddenly someone started to work against them. DarthBob (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag any of those pages, @DarthBob, so jot that down as drivel. I've actually got no idea what you're on about. However I do agree with their deletion as they have no lasting effect on anything, and the coverage is nothing but routine. Arguably their should only be annual coverage i.e. 2024 PDC European Tour etc, but articles for all the individual events? Absolute nonsense. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. There was literally no legitimate reason to delete them Jejd99 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except their was a legit reason as they were deleted @Jejd99! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha, would you consider changing your signature? It comes off as extremely sarcastic after things like "Absolute nonsense". -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, ridiculous sign-off. Not sending a birthday card! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced BLPs should not be on Wikipedia, darts players or otherwise. Nick Fullwell, Gary Spedding and many others are not appropriately sourced. If sources exist then the sources can either be added to the article, presented at the AfD or, if more time is required, the article can be copied to either user or draft to be worked on after the AfD concludes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 is aware of the mass darts player deletions but didn't object. Most of them seem notable given their participation in the world championships but I don't think he found good sources for them and it isn't acceptable for them not to be sourced. There's three more nominated today on my talk page. I'd be surprised if none of them had local newspaper coverage at least. The coverage online for some I searched for seems practically non existent I have to admit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ItsKesha,

Please do not post dozens of similar AFDs at the same time. We don't have a lot of editors participating in reviewing deletion discussions and this is a burden to those who do participate. This is especially not fair if you are just cutting and pasting the same deletion rationale in each one. It takes you minutes to post an AFD and participants can spend an hour or more looking for sources to help out these articles. Please consider using PRODs which are not so demanding of editor time and also just do a few (3-5) AFDs per day, so please pace yourself and consider how editors who participate in AFDs can handle the volume of AFD discussions you are frequently posting.

Please do not let this become disruptive editing because that can lead to sanctions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did use PROD's and the notices were removed with no rhyme or reason given @Liz. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And flagging more than hundreds articles like copy paste should solve the situation? There is absolutely no time for editors of those articles or Wikipedia editors to process it. DarthBob (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have had a decade for these articles to improved, @DarthBob. Go ahead and improve them, you know now! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Nick Fullwell are essentially, as of me typing this, unsourced BLPs and tagging them for deletion is completely appropriate. If sources showing significant coverage cannot be located then the article should be removed regardless of whether they played at a particular competition or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass prodding isn't a great idea either Liz. You encouraged him to do that recently. At least with AFD they stand a chance of a few editors looking into them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop spamming my talk page with darts player deletion warnings? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an automated process, @Dr. Blofeld. It's not my fault you have created a ridiculous amount of pages which I don't think meet the GNG criteria. What do you want me to do exactly? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of my articles have ever been deleted, even when faced with AFD. It's unfortunate that the bio coverage of these darts players online is so poor. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate @Dr. Blofeld and I've not intended that as a personal slight against you, and even worse it's not just you who has received these messages on their talk page during this process so I wouldn't those people to think it's a slight against them either. It's just frustrating that, particularly historically, the coverage of darts has been so meagre. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know it's nothing personal, don't worry about that! I think it's a good thing that people are going through articles and checking them, I'm certainly not angry with you. It's just I don't want to know about it if you can't expand them. I did ask once if the tech guys could block deletion messages on my talk page but to no avail. I prefer articles to go through AFD, but the problem is turnout these days is so poor. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With your permission I can remove them from your talk page if I notice that you are the nominator and the notice has been added at your talk page, @Dr. Blofeld? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permission granted, thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the darts players are un-notable please and how they fail the guidelines, you never specify how when nominating. JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion above, it is very clear, that this is a disruptive user who just wants to annoy people and decided to be biased against darts. He claims that those deleted European Tour and World Series of Darts events were deleted with legitimate reason. So how is it possible that some of them were put back afterwards? Why doesn't he try to better source some of these articles instead of flagging hundreds of them? Somebody was even warning him not to do it and he just continues. If there was at least some reasonable discussion, but only reply you get is sarcastic "all my warmest wishes". DarthBob (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care whether Euro tour articles have been created or deleted or whatever as I have not yet looked into any of them, and certainly neither nominated them for deletion or took part in any deletion discussion, but you keep banging on about those Euro tour articles, there's a good chap. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would think DarthBob that sports competitors on a world stage are notable but there is virtually nothing which turns up in a web search on them at least. We do need some sources to write a biography. I personally detest sports database type stubs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JamesVilla44, every single nomination I provide perfectly adequate reasons why they are unnotable darts players, as they fail GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You never explain how they fail it though. JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to @JamesVilla44 because the basic idea when a deletion argument is made with policies, is that the proposer has read the policies in question and understands them. If you want to understand them you need to read them yourself, and if you then want to argue that a darts player doesn't fail the guidelines or criteria put forth, you can then argue your case and it can be debated. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ItsKesha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kevin Mullaney, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of your mass AFDs have been kept and a number of your PRODs declined – now you're resorting to tagging the darts players for A7 deletion?! That is not appropriate behavior. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain to the folks how it is not appropriate behaviour, @BeanieFan11? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of violating a consensus, if you want your edits to be the consensus, you should try to make them the consensus, and if they fail to become consensus, you should respect consensus rather than trying to force your version of an info box or procedure. You should bring the issue up on talk pages, notify interested editors and have a respectful discussion to find consensus rather than try to force your idea on the page without regard to the view of other editors’. You should put your arguments and reasons on the table rather than simply affirming that they are what your version of a page should be like. And don’t wish editors your warmest wishes when you’re also saying that they should never talk on your talk page again, that’s assuming Bad faith. JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Lee Vilenski to check on some of @JamesVilla44's recent reverts regarding flags in infoboxes on darts articles, as you have reverted one of James' edits at 2023 PDC World Darts Championship. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could’ve pointed me to the 2023 discussion page, rather than reporting me to the admin, but we are where we are. At least we don’t have an edit war. JamesVilla44 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've demonstrably not reported anybody to an admin, @JamesVilla44. Please refrain from lying on my own talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant pinging the admin into the conversation. I may have unintentionally exaggerated rather than lying. JamesVilla44 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affirming that I intentionally lied was not in good faith. Rather I mis-worded what I meant to say, which is easily done I’m sure you’ll understand. JamesVilla44 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well chum! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Please see Talk:2023 PDC World Darts Championship#flags and subsequent sections where this was discussed at length. This all violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits then JamesVilla44 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can understand why you might have missed it, it's a crazy long thread. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all good Lee JamesVilla44 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you clean up the backlog of non-notable Dara players. Thank you for doing this dirty job. Bearian (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]