User talk:162 etc.

March 2026

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Men's T20 World Cup. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. - Darrrrmilk (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see your own talkpage, as well as WP:CIR. 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

See this-WP:DNB Darrrrmilk (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

New message to 162 etc.

Please stop keeping tabs on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisam240 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Help

What is going on here? See Mountain Time Zone. British Columbia is green on the map. BC is not on Mountain Time, at least the vast majority of it outside of the little corner next to Alberta.

How can we fix this map? I have also asked a few others who might understand this problem. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note at Talk:Mountain Time Zone. My user talk page is not a good place for such discussions. Thank you for your continued contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote on your talk page because I was not yet ready for the article's talk page. I wanted to get a sense of what my opinion was before writing on that page. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hi, is there a reason you reverted my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlue_Quills_University&oldid=prev&diff=1344842575? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, you shouldn't "edit or remove others' posts without their permission." That includes posts by bots AFAIK. 162 etc. (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I asked previously if such posts were okay to remove. I don't really think they're worth archiving. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you still object to me removing these "external links modified" notices? No one responded when I asked about it here: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question March 22 2026. Like I said, it's either delete them or archive them and I don't see the point in archiving them. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't delete them. See WP:TPO. 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

See the response here indicating they can be deleted Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question March 22 2026. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

List of current Major League Baseball stadiums

You're removing the changes, which have a citation, without a reason. This is the official name of the stadium and is noted on the boxscore of Dodgers 2026 home opener; on tickets and the MLB ballpark app; or an other MLB media/site. Please provide the citation for removing the full name. ~2026-18931-73 (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:List of current Major League Baseball stadiums, not my user talk.

See also WP:3RR. 162 etc. (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Cory Chase for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cory Chase is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Chase until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Gjs238 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Sandboxing

I don't see how redirecting that to the DAB page makes sense: practically none of the things on that page would ever occur as a verb. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. A previous version of Sandboxing was a two-item dabpage listing Sandbox (computer security) and Sandbox (software development). Both of these articles are listed at the Sandbox (disambiguation) page; having a separate dabpage appears unnecessary. No objection to retargeting the redirect to Sandbox (disambiguation)#Computing, if you prefer. 162 etc. (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I Keep Coming Back

For what reason do I have to "discuss" the redirection of a one-sentence stub that hasn't been expanded since creation? It just seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to do so. Process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is known as WP:BRD. You made a bold edit; I reverted it; the next step is to discuss, likely at WP:AFD.

While I Keep Coming Back (Josh Gracin song) could certainly use more reliable-source citations, I'm not entirely convinced that it is not notable. Further discussion may uncover more sources. 162 etc. (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And I'm the number one country music editor here. So if I couldn't find anything, I doubt anyone else could either. This just seems like a chicken and egg scenario. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And furthermore, isn't the onus of discussion on behalf of whoever undoes the redirect? I didn't see you discussing it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We're all here working in good faith to make this encyclopedia better. Thank you for your contributions.

The article is back to its stable version. I've also added a tag to encourage further sourcing. If you believe there is reason to delete it, WP:AFD is right there. 162 etc. (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

So why are you advocating the "discuss" part of BRD when you're making no attempt to discuss yourself? Again, it just seems like you're making me unnecessarily jump through hoops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't aware that merge discussions now occur in AFD space. That would have been nice to know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:I Keep Coming Back (Josh Gracin song) is a great place to discuss changes to the article. You have posted nothing there.

You're the one who wants to make changes. I just restored the stable version. 162 etc. (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Calisthenics Undo

Hi, I recently edited the calisthenics Wikipedia page and noticed you undid my edit. I tried adding some information back in a more neutral and less "work-out plan" kind of way. Please let me know how it looks and if I should change anything else instead of undoing all of it because I want to make a contribution to that page. Thank you. Digital Rye (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion

Per the discussion at Talk:Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game), I have lodged a request for a third opinion. LiquidSevens (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Electronic engineering -> Electronics engineering

Hi!

In your reply, you kinda missed the point of my question to you. You originally said: “”Previous talkpage discussion indicates that this is a WP:PTM and therefore not eligible for WP:RMT. 162 etc. (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)”

I asked how WP:PTM was relevant, because it wasn’t — and still isn’t — clear to me how that had any applicability at all. — You replied citing WP:PCM, which is not the same thing as WP:PTM. So I’m trying to figure out whether you had initially just mistyped the shortcut (in which case an “oops, typo, I actually meant WP:PCM” would have been appropriate), or whether there is some other, bona fide issue on WP:PTM that I actually am not picking up on. Thanks! — tooki (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, yes WP:PCM is what I meant. 162 etc. (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Bini Junior removal

Hi, I’d like to discuss the recent removal of the mention of Bini Junior. Bini Junior is part of the current identity and ongoing media presence of “Bini the Bunny.” The rabbit appeared in Puppy Bowl XXII (2026), an official televised broadcast (Animal Planet / Discovery), which is also available via HBO Max. In the broadcast, the rabbit is presented under the name “Bini the Bunny,” consistent with the established brand. The recent undo removed a large portion of content, including this update, which makes the article less accurate and up to date. Bini the Bunny now refers to an ongoing media presence that includes both Bini Senior and Bini Junior under the same brand. Regarding sourcing: The HBO/Animal Planet broadcast supports the appearance as a primary source. Official social media posts (including Animal Planet’s and Bini the Bunny’s accounts) also identify and promote the appearance under the “Bini the Bunny” name. I understand these are considered supplementary sources, but they help confirm attribution. I’m open to improving the wording or adding stronger secondary sources if needed, but I don’t think complete removal is appropriate given the verifiable TV appearance and relevance. Would it make sense to keep a neutral version while improving sources? Thanks. Thelewisi (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Per WP:PROVEIT, "All content must be verifiable. (...) The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Your recent at Bini the Bunny restoring the improperly cited material were disruptive.

This material can be included in the article if it is verifiable. Specifically, what reliable secondary sources can be used to verify the notability of Bini Junior? Facebook posts and YouTube videos are not what I'm talking about here. See WP:SOURCES. 162 etc. (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the clarification.

I understand the requirement for reliable secondary sources per WP and WP, and I agree that Facebook or YouTube alone aren’t sufficient.

That said, I think there are two slightly different points here:

Verifiability of the appearance – The Puppy Bowl broadcast (Animal Planet / Discovery, available via HBO Max) serves as a primary source confirming that the rabbit appeared on a nationally televised program under the “Bini the Bunny” name.

Notability of Bini Junior as a distinct subject – I understand this would require independent secondary coverage, and I’m open to providing that if available.

My intention isn’t to establish Bini Junior as a separate standalone subject, but rather to keep the article accurate by reflecting the current state of “Bini the Bunny” as an ongoing media presence that now includes a successor rabbit featured in official broadcasts.

Would it be acceptable to include a more neutral, minimal mention (e.g., noting the 2026 Puppy Bowl appearance) supported by the broadcast citation, while additional secondary sources are identified?

I’m happy to work with you on wording that aligns with policy.

Thanks. Thelewisi (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, I'm not arguing that the appearance of Bini Junior never happened. Clearly, it has. The question here is whether it's notable. If there's no coverage whatsoever in any reliable sources, then it can't be in the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"Ottawa Arena" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ottawa Arena has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 26 § Ottawa Arena until a consensus is reached. ~2026-25149-07 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

List of marathon races in South America

Hi, I'm currently updating the list but you deleted some of the races with the reason being blue links only please. But the asian list (List of marathon races in Asia) has many red links, so what's the criteria here? FutsalFan97 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Per WP:CSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future." I'm not aware of any draft articles for these marathons, so I've removed the entries from the list.

Red-linked entries at List of marathon races in Asia could likewise be removed. 162 etc. (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your move of Perfect Imperfection

Hi 162 etc. I hope you're having a great day. Would you mind having a quick chat about the move of Perfect Imperfection at RMTR, helping me understand why you went through with it. While the move was not directly listed at RMTR the article about the novel first had to be moved away from PTOPIC so that the disambiguation page even could take its place. Shortly before the TR Perfect Imperfection was moved away to Perfect Imperfection (novel) so essentially I was taking it into consideration as well when I took a look at the TR. Since it kind of is a primary topic "ungrab" I moved it to contested requests. While I did not list it in the contestion at the time the move of Perfect Imperfection -> Perfect Imperfection (novel) probably already should have gone through a PM given the discussion about the article title 9 years ago. Therefore I think rather that move should have been reverted and the move away from PTOP and our TR move should have been listed at a subsequent RM.

Is there some flaw in my logic or is there something else I did not consider?

Kind Regards ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

I don't see where this previous discussion took place? If I had seen it, I wouldn't have moved it.

Feel free to revert and/or start an RM for this. 162 etc. (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply there was a very short convo here Talk:Perfect Imperfection (novel) § Ideal Imperfection but I'm not sure that qualifies as "[…] past debate about the best title […]" so you might be right. Anyways I don't think discussing this for a week is the best use of volunteer time so I'll leave it since I'm honestly not invested enough. Have a great day :) ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Major League Volleyball

In response to your request to start another discussion: if I were to present a new large batch of sources to the discussion, would you be open-minded to it, or are you immovable in your view that the PVF and MLV are not contiguous? I hope you can understand that I'm not going to waste my time and energy putting in the research and effort like I have the previous two times, if it's going to be broadly ignored once again. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. From what I can see on the talkpages, an actual merge discussion has yet to happen. That would likely be the next step. See WP:MERGE. 162 etc. (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to this discussion on Talk:Pro Volleyball Federation, and this discussion on Talk:Major League Volleyball (2026)—the latter of which you participated in, and described the league as "a league which has yet to play a single game", implying you believed the leagues to be non-contiguous despite the wealth of sources I provided stating otherwise. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as there are two articles, they should not WP:CFORK each other. If consensus determines that MLV is indeed a continuation of PVF, then the articles will be merged. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please answer my question. I'm not asking about others' opinions, I'm asking for yours. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

My expertise is in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not women's volleyball. It's unlikely that I would participate in the merge discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why rolling back disambiguation?

I see that you rolled back all of my edits attempting to link pages with the YOLO title to the appropriate disambiguation page. These were good faith edits, not vandalism (as you flagged them). If I am out of step with Wikipedia policy somehow, please explain? John_Abbe (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Per WP:NAMB, "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." These article titles are fully disambiguated, and there is no realistic scenario where somebody seeking a different meaning will arrive at the wrong article. The hatnotes are therefore unnecessary, and I've removed them. Note also that I made no mention of vandalism when reverting these good faith edits. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense for most of those cases. Will reapply the edits only on pages where confusion is likely. And started adding relevant links to See also sections, mostly a better fit there. John_Abbe (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Grouping types of disambiguation pages

You rolled back my last edit to Yolo with the comment, 'Links to other disambiguation pages go in "See also".' Disambiguation pages (including this one) regularly group together relevant pages that fall into a category. The page had two links that were both about the aphorism, You Only Live Once, so I grouped them, same as any other category. John_Abbe (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the Yolo dabpage is for topics named "Yolo". "You Only Live Once" is not an exact title match and therefore should not be in the main article body, but the "See also" section. This is all explained at MOS:DAB, which I linked in the edit summary; see specifically MOS:DABSEEALSO. 162 etc. (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of White Girl Mob for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Girl Mob is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Girl Mob until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Pointe-Noire, Quebec

Greetings. Can you provide me with some insights regarding the effective deletion of the page? What is the rationale behind the decision? Where is the discussion with the community? Webfil (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. The Pointe-Noire article was a three sentence stub, with no indication of real WP:SIGCOV. The contents can easily be merged into the Sept-Îles article. See WP:N. 162 etc. (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc. : Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Moreover, it's up to the community to debate whether SIGCOV is sufficient or WP:NPLACE should prevail. The fact that the article is linked to one interlanguage (where 9 different sources are cited), an 8 kB wikidata entry with sources and keys to other databases, a Commons category populated with 6 different pictures, and that it is viewed 40 times per month (bots and AI excluded) should be taken into account by an experienced WP contributor as to whether a formal deletion process could be appropriate.

Per WP:ATD-R, I will revert the edit; you may launch a AfD if you oppose. Webfil (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Pop music in Taiwan

Hello, could you please give a valid rationale for constantly reverting my edits for Pop music in Taiwan? You mentioned that it is a WP:CFORK from Hokkien pop but it is not the case if you read the article carefully. The article refers to pop music that are specifically produced in Taiwan or associated with Taiwan's music industry, which is not the case for Hokkien Pop or Mandopop as both contain music from other countries, e.g. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. Therefore, Pop music in Taiwan should a standalone article that mentions all forms of popular music that originated in Taiwan throughout history, including Mandopop, Campus folk song, Taiwanese hip hop, Taiwanese Indigenous pop music, and Taiwanese rock, as well as any other forms that might emerge in the future.

The pop music-related pages do not necessarily have to be binded by language, as can be seen by pages such as Austropop – which is mainly sung in German but does not share the same article with German pop music, as well as Hong Kong English, American and British pop music which are all sung in English but have separate pages.

If you have an issue with my edits, you should raise this in the talk page with a discussion involving the community, taking into consideration other WP users' contributions and opinions instead of blatantly reverting all my edits.

If the main issue you are raising is the non-attribution, I have already paraphrased the entire article. Heeheemalu (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your bold creation of Pop music in Taiwan, which I've again reverted. WP:CFORK asks us not to create two articles about the exact same thing; that is indeed what happened here with the article you created. I urge you to use WP:AFC should you want to pursue this. 162 etc. (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CFORK is defined as "a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic." Pop music in Taiwan is not the "exact same thing" as any other existing pages. As I already mentioned in my message above, Hokkien pop and Mandopop both contain music from other countries, e.g. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. and Pop music in Taiwan includes all pop music produced in Taiwan. Therefore, the scope is clearly different. Please stop your actions unless you can explain your rationale logically instead of just repeating your statements that have already been refuted. I have already reported your edits as vandalism and requested you to be blocked. Heeheemalu (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop music in Taiwan. 162 etc. (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)