User talk:Boldblazer

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boldblazer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Boldblazer! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annamie Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew West. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Order of list: Variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

The list of Variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 should be in alphabetical order per MOS:LISTORG: (0-9) comes before C and V (therefore, it should be 501.V2 variant followed by Cluster 5 followed by Variant of Concern 202012/01). This is how diseases are listed in Template:DiseasesTOC, for example. This is also how the variants are listed (in alphabetical order) in Category:Variants of SARS-CoV-2. Please do not change this like you did here and here without providing a good reason in the edit summary, especially when doing so would be straying from the generally accepted standards set out in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Thanks, TribunalMan (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@TribunalMan: I was ordering them chronologically like in other kinds of lists. -boldblazer (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and that is fair but, personally, it wasn't clear to me that it was ordered chronologically either. I believe that your order was Cluster 5, Variant of Concern 202012/01, and then 501.V2 variant. Cluster 5 was first announced in November; however, Variant of Concern 202012/01 was first detected in October (but it received its current name in December and began to spread rapidly in the same month). 501.V2 variant was first reported in December. I think that there may be an issue with using chronological order for this specific list because it is unclear which date should be used (particularly for Variant of Concern 202012/01 - i.e. should it be October or December?). I think that alphabetical order would be the clearest for readers while also being the most consistent with how diseases are listed, for example, in Template:DiseasesTOC (and how viruses are listed, for example in List of virus species and other lists by taxonomic rank) and I think that it should be kept this way for this list too. TribunalMan (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex Padilla

In the Seniority in the United States Senate page, I noticed that you made an edit that changed the seniority date for Sen. Padilla to January 18. While the senator from California was appointed on that day, the Senate was not in session. You would notice that the Senate's list of senators, on which the whole page is based, has Padilla's seniority date as January 20. Please revert your changes. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

no boldblazer 09:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 AFC Champions League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melbourne City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Plagiarism is the offence of taking credit for other peoples work as you appeared to have done here here. This is not a minor issue. Can you provide an explanation as to why Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics: Revision history is part of your later creation of a stub article]] and it fails to credit the people whose text you copied and presented as yours. Else can you copy all the original text back to the first article so that I can delete the usurping article history and restore the text (and reputations). Victuallers (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I do hope there is a rational explanation as you appear to be a well established productive editor. The text that you moved is part of the histories of two articles at DYK and "my" article was about to be nominated when I found that "your?" article was now claiming precedence. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I noticed the joint announcement by the IPC and UNHCR and I decided to create the RPT article since searching for it, I did not find one already existing. After creating the RPT article, I then found out that the same content already existed in a different article with a different article title not mentioning the RPT. Therefore, I decided to merge the two under what I considered to be the more correct article title. If I incorrectly did the process for merging two articles together, then I do apologize. This was in no way intended to be plagiarism. -boldblazer (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand there might have been no intent, but it is plagiarism. This is not the way to create a "better title" - we have a tool for that. You didn't "merge" the two, you copied the larger and pre-existing article's content into your smaller later article and the articles history shows this as all your work. You then converted my? article into a redirect...at this point you might have thought about this as you effectively deleted my work without even an edit summary of "stole this text , but now its mine". Would it be right if I created mini stubs for all your articles and then copied in your articles and changed all your articles into redirects? I think this would be wrong. The article is currently a copyright violation as well as plagiarism. If you click the blue links in "your??" article then you will see the articles that I have also created and I am still creditted for. I want to nominate this article for DYK and I assume that you will feel some regret when you are credited with creating the article - when you didn't. One of us is going to fix this. Are you willing to do so? Victuallers (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I understand that it is unfortunate and regrettable that it ended up being unintended plagiarism and it has severely offended you. On all the topics you bring up, I ask you the following things.

Firstly, what is that tool you mention to properly make "Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics" the proper title? The reason I refer to it as the proper title is because it caused the original mishap in thinking that the article had not been created already. You created the article on the same topic but with a completely different name using "Independent Paralympic Athletes" which the sources didn't use. If I had known that the article you created had already existed, then I would have just tried to change that article's name, and this entire fiasco would not have happened.

Secondly, my intent was to merge the two together under what I considered to be the more correct title. This is because the joint IPC and UNHCR announcements refer to it as the "Refugee Paralympic Team" and not as "Independent Paralympic Athletes". Because by that point I realised that now there were two articles on the same topic, and I do not know how to delete articles, I ended up trying to just fix it the only way I knew. If what I did was not merging, then what actually counts as merging? How does one properly merge? I thought that bringing the article content together and creating redirects is what happens during the merging of two or more articles together. I've seen it happen all throughout in various other Wikipedia articles, so I just tried doing what I had seen happen elsewhere before. Was it wrong to have even tried to this for the first time? I have learned how to create articles, and make redirects before, so this seemed to be the next step up. How would one gain experience without ever attempting anything?

Thirdly, would it be better if the next time I try to merge an article together that I leave an edit summary saying that I have merged? If that is considered something better then I am willing to do so the next time merging arises.

Fourthly, I would not care if another user does whatever to an article I may have created because I do not own any Wikipedia articles. There are plenty of articles that I have created that I don't care about anymore after creation because I don't own it. Once I create an article, it is out there, and whatever another user does in good faith is just what happens. If I had created the IPA article and someone merged it together into an article with a better-suited title of RPT instead, then I would think it is an improvement because it has a better name.

Fifthly, if it is absolutely considered that the article is currently a "copyright violation" as well as "plagiarism" then by all means I am totally for fixing those issues. I must state that I did all this under recent knowledge of the BRD type of cycle that another user had told me about. Ever since finding that out, I have been slightly less cautious in doing bold action that previously I would not have done before. The process is just do stuff, and if it is fine then good, else I end up making mistakes and learning from them from what another user teaches me. Usually I end up just doing something and wait for the typical revert message and explanation to come up. At this point, I do not know what would constitute as fixing this properly. I fear that you will just angrily yell at me about whatever I try to do next, considering it seems like you know how to do more Wikipedia stuff than me and it would anger you more if I end up doing something that ends up making things worse for you. I try to do everything on Wikipedia in good faith. Will you assume that premise at least, and help solve this issue together?

Lastly, I do not know how the DYK process works at all. Why would it credit me for creating the article when you created it first and I just moved it to a different article name? Also, why would it credit an individual user when no user owns an article since anyone can edit any article anywhere?

Let's not just be angry at another user for something they unknowingly did wrong and leave it at that. I'm still learning how to Wikipedia. It seems like a never-ending process. Something always pops up every once in a while that I would have never foreseen. I think it's best to just point out and correct the mistakes and teach what should be done instead. I think it is a good way to improve ourselves this way. I mean no trouble. From experience, I kind of find it pointless to stay mad and bicker about things forever. As I said before, I'm willing to fix this. I just don't know if what I do will be acceptable to you, funnily as if you are like some authority of all of Wikipedia. I also don't know if what I know even is the proper way to fix all this. All I was trying to do was merge the article, which it turned out didn't need to be created after the discovery of the IPA article, all together under the RPT article name instead of IPA, following the same naming scheme as with the Olympics with its Refugee Olympic Team article. I'm fine with whatever we do to fix the article, as long as the article title becomes "Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics", so let us work on an outcome. –boldblazer (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This a long answer. I understand that you may have not intended to do this, merging is not easy - there is a guide to doing this which explains the license implications. I understand that you say that when you create and article then you don't own it ... but then when you say you create an article then where is the source that you have? The list of articles I have created is here. If I submit an article for DYK then another editor will check who created the article and then will see that its you ... and you? added a substantial quantity of extra text. They may look at the edit summary or the talk page to see if any mistakes have been made and see my comment. The title of the article is not too important as this can easily be changed at any time without copying the article (as Primefac did). I understand that you didn't understand how to merge but IMO having discovered that there was a pre-existing larger article with blue links, an infobox and refs then you should have copied in your additional text and changed your article to a redirect - the title could be changed at anytime. Otherwise editors can steal any article they want because they say they have found a better title. The cc-by-sa license is all the credit that editors ask and attribution is important. I'll have a go at fixing it. Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is now fixed. Do feel free to check or correct. I have not added the extra stuff you found to the recreated article. I'm hoping that you will do so quickly and then this joint DYK nomination will make sense. Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I have tried to replicate what I did before. I may have missed a small bit but overall what I did previously is now in the article. Thanks for fixing it all up. -boldblazer (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Order of NOCs

thank you for putting some order in the list. I am not sure to understand why Chinese Taipei is classified at letter T, and not at C. Naming Taiwan is a problem since 1960 Games, known as Formosa then, but it should be at the right alphabetical order for readers.--Arorae (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics

On 29 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the world's 82 million refugees will be represented at the 2020 Summer Paralympics by the Refugee Paralympic Team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Refugee Paralympic Team at the 2020 Summer Paralympics), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Translation request for Korean Wikipedia: WiTricity (와이트리시티)

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Korean Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who speaks Korean and is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket

Template:2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket

Template:2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup knockout stage bracket

Template:2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup knockout stage bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup knockout stage bracket

Template:2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup knockout stage bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket

Template:2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup knockout stage bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)