User talk:Super Goku V

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)