Welcome Bgsu98!

-Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 00:18, 28 October 2021 (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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgsu98, could you explain why you have been removing Template:Figure skating world records and the world records/achievement sections from pages? It does not seem to be part of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 as you're indicating in your edit summaries. I think it would be best to get community consensus on the world records template before removing it. Riley1012 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was because they were unsourced. I can’t remember for sure, but that is usually why I remove that when I encounter it in articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgsu98. You've requested deletion of User:Bgsu98/CSD log several times now. If you don't want to keep a CSD log, you should go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and uncheck the box that says "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations". Similarly, there are checkboxes for PROD nominations and XfD nominations. SilverLocust 💬 08:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! I modified the settings as I do not need a record of CSD’s. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Bgsu98. I am coming to suggest following the proper header order per the manual of style in your userpage. It currently follows level 1 to level 3, when it should be level 1 to level 2. You can read more at MOS:GOODHEAD but for easy reading, the exact quote is They must be nested sequentially beginning at level 2 (==) for the main headings, then level 3 (===), and so on. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the situation is here. Lachlan Lewer is a United States pairs skater. They were born in Australia. While I can agree that we have an editor with limited English ability, his reasoning is sound on this, and it's done the way most sports articles would do it. You have six reverts over two days so please refrain from more. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States is not an adjective. I examined some other skaters' articles where they specified "x-born pair skater/ice dancer who currently competes for y" in the lede and felt it was a reasonable compromise. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't say that someone is a "Germany pair skater"; if they're not German, you would say they are a "pair skater who competes for Germany". Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do that all the time in sports... it's an international world these days. This person lives in the US and is a US skater, but they are Australian-born. What we put in the lead has nothing to do with citizenship. Now this person was an Australian skater fairly recently and it's why it was Australian and United States pairs skater. However if eight years go by and they still skate for United States we would tend to drop the Australian part. We know from the personal life section and the infobox that they were born in Australia. It's like what wikipedia does with Elena Rybakina... she is a Russian-born Kazakhstani professional tennis player. Or Natela Dzalamidze, a Russian-born Georgian tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consistently see you at the sportspeople deletion sorting with figure skating AFD nomination after AFD nomination after AFD nomination, but I don't see much evidence of WP:BEFORE searches, given that many have had coverage easily found and often your only rationale is simply Non-notable figure skater -- without any explanation as to why. So I was wondering: do you perform BEFORE searches in your mass nominations? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it’s probably not as thorough as some people might like. I really disagree with what some people believe passes as “significant coverage”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how thorough is it? Taking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie Smith as an example: where did you look for sources for her? And what about people like e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viktoria Vasilieva, where the coverage would not be in English, or even in the same script? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember the details on that one, but it was obviously flawed, which is why I pulled the plug. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited German Figure Skating Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oppeln.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	If I could trout myself, I would! Thank you so much for fixing my Axel flubs! Marquardtika (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; that's not something anyone except a die-hard skating fan would know! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

I noticed that you reverted a change I made to a table on The Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps page. You told me that instead of changing the couple of rows that were formatted differently than the rest of everything else, that I should instead fix the "bad formatting" of the rest of the table.

Could you please let me know what makes this formatting bad? Before I made this change I checked on the WP:WDC page, where they have the colors listed under "Row color." To me this seems like the row should have that color, not just the one cell?

This also doesn't seem to violate MOS:COLOR as the color is not the only method used to communicate information, and has appropriate contrast to the text in the table.

Can you please point me to whatever resource you are using to determine what constitutes bad formatting and good formatting in this context? I'm new here and I would love to continue to be helpful and contribute, but it's a bit discouraging to see an edit I made get reverted, called bad, and then not be able to find any sort of policy that would cause someone to draw this conclusion. TheRainComes (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I sounded discourteous; that would never be my intention. In this case, only the cells that identify Finalist or Semifinalist should be shaded in as they match the background color. The rest of the row should be left unshaded. Some of the DCI pages have undergone this change, but not all of them, as there is never enough time in the day. If you look at, for example, Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Corps, that table has been formatted properly. The goal is to eventually have all of the DCI tables uniform. Thank you for your message! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response

However, I still don't see a source that backs up your assertion that the formatting is bad. In fact, it seems that after I pointed out that WP:WDC had listed colors under "Row colors," you went and changed it to "Cell color" instead of responding to what I pointed out.

I'd really love to know where consensus was reached on this. When I look at the edit history for Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Corps it seems you were the one to reformat these tables too.

I appreciate that you have an opinion on how things should look, but it seems that you're making these choices on style and formatting rather unilaterally.

So, I'm asking once again for clarification on which resource you are using to make these decisions.

I can see you're an advocate for accessibility, which is awesome, and I totally agree with that. However, I still fail to see how changing this formatting increases accessibility in any way. Personally, it makes it harder for me to read the way you've chosen to format this. Is this something that was ever discussed or was it something that you decided on? From my perspective, as long as the contrast is okay and the information is presented in more than just with color, there shouldn't be a problem for those with visual impairment. However, coloring the entire row could help someone with an information processing issue (ADHD, ASD, etc.) to be able to more efficiently find the information they are looking for.

I don't mean to be combative, but I do want to advocate for what I believe to be the most accessible way to have this chart formatted. TheRainComes (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]