User talk:Super Goku V

Possible next steps

After there latest comment on their talk page, I think the editor your raised a matter with on my behalf might need to see an ANI discussion. Would you agree, or do you think that is necessary? I'm fed up seeing them justify harassment (it was more than just once) and refuse to accept reliable sources as reliable sources, but maybe I have blood in my eyes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that you are the more experienced editor, I would say that if you believe an ANI discussion is needed, then it likely is warranted. To me, there are somewhat on the new side with just under 2,500 edits, but at the same time they have been around since 2006 and should be understanding not to do things that people ask them not to do, among other things. I will say that I have concerns regarding things, especially with how many reverts there are in the last few days. (I am somewhat convinced that a WP:RFPP discussion would cause the article to be given full protection.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Hmm. Do you have a Discord account by chance? If so, I think I would feel more comfortable discussing things there. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have one I use, but you're welcome to use the email feature. I apologize for the inconvenience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I think I did it correctly. (IF not, please let me know.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Invasive Spices discussion

I don't want to pointlessly push that tangent and further muddle the waters over there, so I'll just bring this here real quick: What I meant with "deliberately misinterpreting their request" (Please provide an example of a personal attack) is that since IS never specified that example as being something they said, I could have just called them a stunad of the highest order and got away with it because hey, that is an example of a personal attack, good job me! An extremely clever comedy joke, if you will - I do these sometimes, but for some reason, they just never seem to land in written form :) Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh: Ah, gotcha. Sadly I am not fully awake or I might have understood the joke. With this in mind and given IS' response, I would not be surprised if I misunderstood that response as joking right back. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

BattyBot

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T293603

Hi there! BattyBot was coded to remove incorrect author parameters such as |last=Publishing |first=Here when |publisher=Here Publishing exists. I hope the AWB developers fix the {{hatnote group}} issue soon! GoingBatty (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GoingBatty. Sorry if I caused you more trouble by not sending an incorrect error warning. I had decided to just revert BattyBot and give it a second chance to make the edit as it appeared to me that BattyBot made an error just in the lede. Though now I see that it was a different issue entirely thanks you your last sentence. (To clarify, I apologize if I implied that BattyBot should not have removed the author parameters. That part was fine with me, but I was under the apparently mistaken belief that BattyBot was fully automated instead of partly automated. I just wanted to confirm if BattyBot would repeat the error if I reverted before I made a report to you.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: I understood that you reverted the bot edit because of the issue with the {{hatnote group}} edit. Most of the time, I run BattyBot fully automated. BattyBot (and all AWB bots) will continue mishandling the new {{hatnote group}} template until the developers fix it. I appreciate you making the report, so I could manually fix the article and remind the developers about the problem. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the confusion on my part then and thank you for trying to get the actual issue fixed. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk : 2023 Lewiston Shootings

On my talk page, you seem to be suggesting I report a user who has already been blocked for Edit Warring and Personal Attacks. That makes no sense to me. Why would I need to report the user if the issue has already been addressed? Crescent77 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Crescent77: Splitting this discussion in two might make things a bit confusing, but I can try it if you want to. I am suggesting that because of your comments on the talk page of the article. You personally attacked another editor over your thoughts on their editing. Rather than make comments about their editing on the article's talk page, I believe you should instead bring up the matter to an administrator or a noticeboard if you feel their editing is still a problem in some form. Making uncivil comments does not help to resolve the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to make accusations, please present evidence. Where on that talk page did I "personally attack" the editor?

Once again, why would I need to "bring up the matter to an administrator", when 3 separate administrators have already placed sanctions, including a temporary block, on the user in question? Crescent77 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The NPOV tag addition discussion. As for the rest, I am saying that if you have an issue with the editor, then don't take it up on the article's talk page, but instead take it up elsewhere. Your comments indicated to me that you do not seem to believe the issue is resolved, which is why I am suggesting it. If you believe the issue is resolved, then things are fine as long as everyone remains civil. To partly quote myself, the talk page has become heated at times, but everyone needs to be more cautious about remaining civil. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think what you're overlooking here is that the thrice blocked editor added the NPOV tag as a tenditious act. My comments were directly relevant to that tenditous act, they were not in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, I stand by them. I'm not asking to have them reinstated, as the issue has since been resolved, I would just ask you to consider that your actions may be inadvertently covering for tenditious actions. I appreciate your focus on keeping things civil, but please don't push civility to the point it benefits the uncivil. Crescent77 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the user added the NPOV tag. Yes, you made comments about it. You claimed that the other user had "again become impatient" and then claimed that they were repeatedly making bad faith edits with the words "latest tendentious tactic." The fact that you are suggesting that there is still an issue with the other editor is a point I have been trying to make. If there is a problem, take it to an admin or a board. If there is not a problem or the problem has been resolved, then don't suggest that there is a problem or still is a problem. Remember, comment on content, not on the contributor. Additionally, it is impossible for me to conceal another user's edits as I don't have any permissions related to it. Special:Contributions allows anyone to see edits and the content made by another user as long as they have not been oversighted or suppressed. You can also use Template:Diff or Special:Diff to link to them. For example, this is technically the 50,000,000th edit made to Wikipedia. Currently, there have been roughly 1,183,538,200 edits as seen with Special:Diff/1183538200. This allows the Wiki the ability to see who has done what and take action if necessary. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, my problem was resolved with the sanctioning of said editor and the removal of the NPOV tag. Where am I suggesting "that there still is an issue with the other editor"? Crescent77 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you say that there is no problem, then I will consider this matter resolved if that works for you. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timed out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 November 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Prague shooting

Re this edit: WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here because David Kozák is dead and there is now no serious doubt that he was the perpetrator. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I was going to discuss my viewpoint and understanding regarding the situation based on past situations, but I see that there seems to be some discussion regarding BLP as it applies to the recently deceased that may invalidate that. My thoughts were along the lines of that BLP still applies to the recently deceased and that the person was not a notable figure prior to the shooting. Thus, we needed to have a discussion on the name to fulfill as a conviction can no longer be secured due to the circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I am not as confident that a discussion is needed to comply with BLPCRIME as I was earlier, I have self-reverted the edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Also note that articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict and American politics are also contentious topic areas. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: Yes, I have been aware of contentious topics since my first notice back in 2014. Thank you for the additional reminder. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. That 2014 notice doesn't show up in the regular logs, nor did I see any awareness notice. --Hipal (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. I guess taking a look back in time, I received a "Discretionary sanctions" notice. This time, it is a Contentious topics notice. Perhaps because of how DS notices worked, or because of how old mine was, they were not logged either at the time or at all, while CT notices are by default. Sorry for the trouble and thank you for responding. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 Kansas City parade shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WDAF.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing my comments

Where was the personal attack in this? Synotia (moan) 12:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Abstain from vandalizing talk pages in the future. You are preventing people from saying what they mean, corrupting discourse and making me look egregious with your template. --Synotia (moan) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Synotia: You have been repeatedly warned multiple times about your comments. Your apparent attempt at justifying your behavior because what I deem of importance in the wake of a huge attack that will have important socio-political repercussions is just an attempt to waive away the consequences of not being civil to other users. Under CIVIL, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Your conduct on the talk page has been below that.

In the text that I removed as a personal attack, you made two comments against ASmallMapleLeaf, which I removed under RPA and TPO. Primarily, the problem at Crocus City Hall attack has been your repeated attacks on other editors. The fact that you are claiming the removals of personal attacks as "vandalizing talk pages" is very disappointing. I will not remove them a second time given your reversion, but the fact that you stand by your attacks on others is problematic. I would advise you to review DISRUPTIVE with a focus on DISRUPTSIGNS and LISTEN given your comments and actions. I also advise you to be more civil at Talk:Crocus City Hall attack if you make any additional edits there. There are other ways to get your point across to others. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Hi, can you please read WP:CLOSE? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but in what regard? If it is about Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident, then I am certain Cluebot III knows how to jump from Archive 1 to Archive 3. If needed, we can also switch the number manually when it is time and Cluebot III shouldn't mind. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification re: Ervin

Hi, I saw your reply to me on User talk:Ervin111899, and wanted to ask for clarification. I'm asking here because I didn't want to clutter Ervin's talk page. I'm unclear what you're disagreeing with. Are you saying that, even if Ervin contributed to Simple Wikipedia for 6 months, with no copyvios and no behavioral issues, they still could not come back and appeal? I agree that at this moment, they aren't serious enough about changing, hence my thinking of the standard offer, so they may change and demonstrate their seriousness. I feel like I missed an important point of yours, and I hope you'd be willing to clarify. Thanks, EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, EducatedRedneck. I am okay with them appealing their ban, though I am of the opinion that 6 months is too short for a user that was already given the standard offer and that 9-12 months would have been preferred. That aside, I have concerns that they were blocked in part due to their copy and pasting and immediately tried to get their block reverted with a copy and paste of Diannaa's words that they created months ago. Even their response to me looks like they copied their response to you and moved some words around. The fact that they keep copying and pasting responses is a sign that they likely still don't see what the problem is. Hopefully they understand in six months and don't use the text from their last successful appeal. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I see, so it's not that some form of SO would be offered, but just that a) 6 months was too short, and b) noting that you aren't sanguine it'll be productive. (Please correct me if I misunderstood again.) I agree on b): I imagine it's CIR, and that would be a huge barrier to overcome. It sounds like we agree that there should be a way to appeal in case we're wrong on b), but I doubt either of us will hold the breath. For a), I could see that, too. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand; I feel better knowing I was at least somewhere near reasonable, even if I feel a tad short. Thanks again! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I should make it clear that those are just my opinions on the matter, not firm rules. Though, OFFER says that On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked/banned user continues to be especially disruptive, or has engaged in particularly serious misconduct, then some administrators may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or ever. Granted, I am not an administrator and it would only be a suggesting coming from me and, again, not a firm rule that should be followed. In any case, hopefully they understand the problem and have resolved it by the time they appeal next. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

References with a different citation style than established

Per WP:CITESTYLE, you shouldn't be adding references with a different citation style than what the article has. For example, in the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike article, you added references that were typed in manually, while other references in the article uses cite templates. I have gone ahead and fixed it for you, but please make sure to check next time, so other editors won't have issues. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as I regularly use references like that for years, but gotcha. Is there a way to use Template:Cite web easier? The last time I was trying to use templates like that for sources, I would sometimes have errors and lost edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The visual editor has a function that automatically converts references, and it works well most of the time. WP:Refill is also an option. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I avoid the visual editor, but I could use it for references. As far as I have seen from my brief testing, the only issue is that it doesn't handle multiple authors, but I can figure that out. I would consider using Refill, but the The templates created automatically by the tool need to be reviewed to ensure that they are accurate, as they are often not warning is a bit discouraging. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Templates such as cite web does handle multiple authors. For example, |last1=Foo |first1=Bar |last2=Other |first2=Name. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't clear enough. To try again, here was a test created using visual: <ref>{{Cite web |last=Bell |first=Elizabeth Wagmeister,BreAnna |date=2023-09-11 |title=‘The Jennifer Hudson Show’ and ‘The Talk’ Set to Return Amid WGA and SAG-AFTRA Strikes |url=https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/the-talk-return-wga-strike-1235720254/ |access-date=2024-11-11 |website=Variety |language=en-US}}</ref> The first parameter failed to be automatically converted as there are two authors, so I would have to figure that part out. (Or at least I was going to look into it, but your response is basically a shortcut. Convert |last=Bell |first=Elizabeth Wagmeister,BreAnna into |last2=Bell |first1=Elizabeth |last1=Wagmeister |first2=BreAnna and reorder the parameters.)

In any case, thank you for the help and support. :D --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did have to edit that result myself, since sometimes the reference converter does mess up. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What is a Vanished editor

"Vanished Editor"?Not sure what that means, so, what does it mean? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 02:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Part of VANISH. Basically, someone left Wikipedia and is intending to never come back. The account was renamed to Vanished User (Random Characters) and is locked. So pinging them is a waste of time. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT

Just FYI: With this edit you removed the bold formatting from the target of a redirect against the guidance described at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT (After following a redirect: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic ...)). As Luigi Mangione redirects to this article, it is customary to bold the name so our readers understand that they've arrived at the correct article. See also WP:R#ASTONISH. Please keep this guidance in mind in the future. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(Why is a person of interest even a redirect to a crime in the first place...)

Sorry for the trouble, will check for redirects next time. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)