User talk:Gsfelipe94/Archive 4

Weird style

Is light heavyweight a proper noun where you're from? If so, that's not how things work at Wikipedia. If not, why capitalize it? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a look thing I told you once, but no it isn't. I'm ok with non-capitalizing it in the end. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And I'm OK with this. We'll be moving that article soon, if the graphics and commentators from tonight's show are any sign. "Cowboy vs Cowboy" on TV, but not the website yet (except in text). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoel Romero

I'm sorry but I'm not capable of seeing all changes to an article. 99% of the time when someone removes a reference its vandalism and I've noticed that that pretty much all sports people's pages a have a lot of vandalism. Next time when you remove incorrect information with a source make sure to add a new one.*Treker (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manvel Gamburyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HCG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yair Rodríguez

Hi dude. I found on Internet that Yair Rodríguez has a longer MMA record that the one hosted in Sherdog. I found he was 8-0 before lost against Luis Herrera on FMP 13. I also found that he beat a guy named Willie Martínez [1] in a FMP event to reach a 3-0 record. At the time he win the FMP Featherweight Championship against Jonatan Guzmán he had more fights (he didn't debut on that event). Events hosted by Mexican Fighters Promotions on YouTube has official decisions and times, so I think we can put them on Yair's official record. - MichaelBreacker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering the fact that he's a UFC fighter for a while and even fought on TUF, I'm pretty certain those might be amateur bouts instead of professional bouts. Not all of the amateur bouts have those special equipments. So I believe his record is probably right as 7-1. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

x

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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).

Gsfelipe94 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't see how I fall into 3RR, not even edit war. I tried to reach consensus with the editor, by asking him to provide sources that justify his changes. He never showed one and kept reverting for pure opinion. I kept myself within the 3RR, as you can see by the edits on the page's history. Even in his report, he just wanted to get back at me because I reported him. He copied and paste what I did, it didn't even make sense. Let's get back to the logical part though. The rule clearly states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. I reverted it twice as stated here and here. Notice how I just said Please do not turn this into an edit war. Then, more than 36 hours later, I came with a possible solution for the problem right here. He just came back and reverted once again without reason. What did I do? I argued he needed sources to sustain his behavior. That's what everyone here is supposed to do and it didn't fit into edit warring. Check it out as I only reverted twice, including a comment that the second revert was my final: 1 and 2. That being said, I disagree with 3RR completely. I tried to resolve this issue on the user's talk page, to no success. He even told me to refrain from updating the articles because I'm Brazilian and I should keep to Portuguese articles. That's an argument of someone who can find simple sources to back his reverts? I don't think so. So I also don't agree with me getting a block for this situation. I don't see it fitting edit war either and would like a better analysis of the case instead of a plain simple block just like the other guy (I gave arguments for his infractions, I don't think neither he or I gave one that would justify me getting such penalty). Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting this unblock request? If you did, then you should have realised that an unblock request which consists almost largely of stuff not related to the reason for the block, such as explaining why you think another editor was wrong, is not likely to succeed. However, ignoring the stuff that is irrelevant, and concentrating on just the part of your message which is actually about you and whether you were edit-warring, I see the following. (1) I agree that you didn't break the so-called "three revert rule", and mentioning that in the block reason was a mistake, as the blocking administrator has explained. However, that would make no difference anyway, because a block for edit-warring is just as valid whether or not the "three revert rule" has been broken. (2) You say that you reverted only twice, but I have found six reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. There is no point in addressing your comments about the timing of your reverts, as it is irrelevant: edit-warring is edit-warring, no matter what the time scale. (3) Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The conclusion of all this is that you edit-warred, you deny that you did so, and your comments make it clear that you will be likely to act in a similar way again. Unblocking you would be likely to have the effect of encouraging you in your belief that what you did was acceptable, and somehow doesn't count as edit-warring, thereby encouraging you to do likewise again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

What I wanted to show is: I approached the user to resolve the issue and that was completely ignored by him and the evaluation here. I've appealed a block on January 2015 (which was successful), so I read it back then. I'm not ignoring the stuff, If he can't gather people to generate discussion and consensus, then I should let his version stick forever or wait until a different editor enters the dance and reverts it? I don't think being blocked or unblocked here will change my view of the situation. I'll just warn the user in his talk page and report him if he does not provide source/discussion with other editors after two/three reverts. That seems to be the only way to avoid being blocked by trying to keep someone from editing an article based on his opinions only. That last "revert" you pointed out was referred to the way the article became after several sudden edits from new users. It was already like that (before the revert), so it does not fit in my situation with the fellow blocked user. Anyway, this won't go anywhere but I felt it was necessary to make a stand for my position here. Unfortunately most of this editors engage in disruptive behavior/edit warring and it's not worth the trouble. I'll send a message and follow protocol right away everytime. It's not the best way, but it's within the rules and it avoids further blocks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: Since you were the one to block me, I can only use this to reach you as nobody visualized/responded this request. I'd like to know how it is possible to block me for violating the 3RR when I didn't... I respected the timeline of edits, did not engage in edit war, approached the user on his talk page to ask him to provide source/solid arguments for his revert (something he never did) and was received with ignorant comments eventually. I reported him due to his behavior (he indeed violated the 3RR, not me) and in retaliation he copies and pastes the exact report I filed on him. It's plain simple that we behave completely different in this situation, yet we have a apple and oranges situation here. I disagree with this block (I've done worse in the past in situations that could require such penalty, but not this time and I've grown as an editor). So I'd like at least a feedback here. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking administrator note - The block was incorrectly annotated as being for 3RR, it was in fact put in place for edit warring. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet I'd like to know where did I edit war in this case? The user shows up and starts reverting without proper source or solid argument, I approach him normally to discuss the issue and ask him for such things as he was the one changing the original article. I can't see what there fits edit warring by my part. I had nothing to report him on and obviously I don't believe in directly reporting before trying to solve the issue ourselves. I even referred that I wasn't going to revert anything to avoid 3RR/edit war, so even that shows my attitude regarding the subject. I really think I was just thrown under the same bus as this guy because he violated rules and I was there trying to avoid such situation he put himself into. I had a total of 4 reverts in 48 hours (with a gap of 36+ hours between half of them), none of them disruptive and always backed up by sources + valid arguments. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You had a total of 3 technical reverts in less than 4 hours, please don't insult my or any other administrator's intelligence by using deliberately misleading metrics. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not offending anyone here. What would I even gain from that? Those are not 3 technical reverts in less than 4 hours. Instead, I proposed a new change for the article (similar to one he also used several days ago in the article), which he reverted twice without argument. I'm supposed to let him just revert them and that's it? I approached him for discussion even though he had already violated the 3RR the first time. I'm not here to brag anything whatsoever. If I reported him back then I'd probably be thrown into the bus with two reverts anyway. It's the fact that I approached him, asked him for the appropriate procedures for his actions, restored the article to the form it was originally displayed (with sources that were not only put there by me, but other editors as well) and yet I get a block for it. Anyway, since you were the one blocking me, I didn't expect you to revert it. But I wanted a feedback by administrators considering the whole situation. And again, please do not suggest I'm insulting anyone here. If someone was "insulted", it was me by that user on his own talk page. I'm only talking here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the policy: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (emphasis added) Considering you had been in an editing conflict with the other editor over the same wording it was clearly a continuation of the previous edit war. More from the policy: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring ... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's still a matter of interpretation. My approach towards the situation and the other user for a consensus was ignored in this case. It's not worth going over to a talk page of someone like that and then get banned for restoring the article to it's previous standard if he can't get a source or something to back his movements. You said it yourself: conflict. That's obvious there, but he engaged in a war. He would revert it to the infinity if I kept going. Next time I'll probably just send a message and report the users, as I'll probably get thrown into the same block If I try to restore the order and follow procedures. Another situation at UFC 198 had a clear edit war just giving full protection to the article and one of the users involved it even told the other one to "suck a dick". Two measures totally opposite for two totally different situations. Obviously I'll have to wait a couple more hours here, but still believe I was just thrown under the same bus as the other editor who edit warred the article. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful

		The Invisible Barnstar
		As a rollback on Wikipedia with much less contributions than you, I would like to tell you that "edit warring" is edit warring, even if you were the right one in this case. I was just on the similar boat with you with a user (causing me to leave this wiki for a while), and I definitely can tell you that the 3RR is a little harsh to get blocked for, considering that I know that many people have overlooked your contributions as much as mine (which is why I'm giving you this barnstar). I understand these moments where you know you're the right one but all the evidence is turned against you. I'm with ya man; the world is a cruel place, but we all have to learn to deal with whatever is out there. 3primetime3 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, man. It happens, but it's over now anyway. Let's keep on working to help Wikipedia. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Sport Club Corinthians Paulista season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicolás López. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Léo Príncipe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFZ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: 2016 Europa League Final

You read my mind. I was literally just about to make the change. – PeeJay 20:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2016 UEFA Champions League Final, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You know very well that logos are against copyright rules and regulations and should not be added under any circumstances. This is a serious violation and I had no choice but to give you the warning above. Please never add any kits with logos in the future. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Gsfelipe94. You have new messages at Secret Agent Julio's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tocantins

Hey man, how are you? I do know, we can't update this based on rumours. But WP explicitly says that "once an official confirmation given by any of the clubs, the move is official". As the last reference included in his article is from Portuguesa's official website, the move was officialized by someone. We can revert it if it's incorrect later, not a big deal.

Keep it up, MYS77 ^✉ 16:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

But he's a player from Corinthians, who hasn't announced anything related to that and neither has Estoril. Portuguesa probably added that after a report from a media that's not big at all. But if either of those clubs confirm it, than it's a done deal for sure. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Game of Thrones (season 6) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Just some links to guidelines for you to update on. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 Group A

Hi. I've seen that you have updated some line-ups images at the group pages. Could you post the Romania vs Albania image, please? It is the only one missing. Thank you in advance. The Replicator (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I saw it there already... Anyway, I'll do it in a few minutes. Thanks for telling me. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

UFC 200

Hi. How is this not related to the event's Wikipedia article?--EclecticEnnui (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a mixed martial arts/sports event. And those events do not have an external link to IMDb. As a matter of fact, it isn't a tv show. It makes no sense. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

These events are broadcasted on TV. Many UFC events are on IMDb, like these.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

None since UFC 129 back in April 2011. Still, neither those articles had those external links. They add nothing to the event. Sports in general. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are just examples. There are other UFC events not listed there, like UFC 190 and UFC 194. Anyway, if you think they add nothing to the event, then OK.--EclecticEnnui (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing against you, man. It's just that I've observed those links and they really add nothing to the article. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

List of UFC events

Hi Gsfelipe94 - here's why I made those changes.

1. Removing links to well-known locations, such as New York City, Los Angeles, London (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked).
2. Fixing (simplifying) links to venues:

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

UFC 200

If Tate-Nunes is really the new main can you find a poster showing that? Or link a source? Ranze (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read the updated article, you'd get your answer. Btw, they just announced it. A poster is not a source. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the poster Wwemeowmeow (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

UFC 200

AAWWWWW i took 30minutes getting a picture onto it and you beat me to it :'( i wanted to change the pic. Wwemeowmeow (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry i added the picture to it

Wwemeowmeow (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

People dont know how to do research. I got your back anyday mate. People just need to use their brains and that. Wwemeowmeow (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Excuse me??? Me vandalizing = impossible. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have another explanation for this? General Ization ^Talk 04:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just check my contributions, it speaks for myself. Also, I added a note to the summary. You can clearly see those words were added before and I only updated one section of the article, not that one (Already had it opened so I could have it ready by the time the fight ended). Easy thing to do before sending an out of context message like this one you sent. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; you opened an already-vandalized edition of the article, updated it, kept it open for some period of time (apparently about six minutes), and then saved it, reverting a number of other edits that had been made in the mean time. Don't do that, please. In addition to restoring vandalism (as you did), you could have reverted constructive edits by doing so. General Ization ^Talk 04:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't control if people add vandalism during it or they update an article by pieces. I did something I've done for years with no problem. If something like that happens, the constructive edits are added back without reverting or vandalism is removed only. No big deal was ever made, as it shouldn't. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Guess what; it was a problem this time. I've removed the warning, as it was clearly not your intention to vandalize, but please pay closer attention to the edit you select for further editing, and don't hold an edit of an article expected to receive rapid editing by others open for long periods of time. You shouldn't depend on others to "add back" constructive edits you inadvertently revert by doing so (assuming you manage to avoid an edit conflict, which is what should have occurred in this case). General Ization ^Talk 05:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It "was a problem" because you just sent that message here and reverted the entire update. As I mentioned, the editors (myself included) check those details and adjust the article if needed. Sometimes my updates are reversed by other editors the same way you mentioned. It hasn't been problem, including this one today. If you didn't came right away with the "warning", the article would have been adjusted anyway. I think this subject is dealt with though. No problems with the confusion, it happens when we don't pay attention to all details. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

congrats

As an Israeli I was rooting for Yarden Gerbi, but it was a goot match and Mariana Silva deserved the win. I hope your sense of smell doen't fail you, and you will have another medal today Botend (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks! I rooted for Gerbi in World Championships before. Mariana has the skills, but she lacked enough confidence in herself to pull through in the past. She wasn't one of the top picks in this division, but she's doing great today. Dark horse for the win. Hopefully Gerbi gets a bronze for you guys. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope so too . Sagi Muki lost twice after reaching the semifinals yesterday, Golan Pollack lost to a Zambian judoka that I've never heard about, and even Gili Cohen lost her first match. Hope Gerbi will give us the first medal in Rio! Botend (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I felt Penalber had a good chance today... And he did, but Toma was a tough matchup. We have some other good opportunities to win medals in other divisions as well. Hopefully it works out fine. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Super Cup

They don't have to be directly in line with the centre-forward for them to also be considered forwards. Considering they're closer to being in line with the centre-forward than to the attacking midfielder, they surely must be considered right and left forwards? – PeeJay 19:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

More than what I said, I believe it has to do with the positions those players usually have/had in other games. They can be forwards without being in line with the CF, but I don't think that's the case in this one. Anyway, just my take. You had yours and changed what was already there. There must be other people with insights on the subject. Can you get other opinions? I've been busy with the Olympics. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:UFC 200 event poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:UFC 200 event poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 05:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

November 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to William Carvalho. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The source is right above in the text. The very last line before that table. I'm not sure if you can't read or is simply blatantly reverting. That goes for almost all of the other footballers articles out there. Therefore, you're the one edit warring and removing content. You're the one that may be blocked for something. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You may have added a source now, but you didn't for the edit I warned you about. So enough of the bullshit, k thx? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Mind your own business and words, dude. "Bullshit" is that ignorant attitude of yours. Being a bigot reverting things you know that don't need to be reverted is lame. Now please, don't even waste time replying here again. Go on with your so helpful edits. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to retract your use of the word "bigot" in description of me? I think it would be in your best interests to do so. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong word there, I'll give you that. Bully fits way better and that one and I wouldn't remove. That being said, I think we're done here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gsfelipe94. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 UFC PPV estimates via Dave Meltzer

Not sure if this is substantial enough but it's all I've got:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/5et6kg/meltzers_updated_ppv_info_ufc_196_mcgregordiaz_1/

Imhungry4444 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, man. Can you add it in those pages? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)