@TurboSuperA+ Hello! Thanks for giving your opinion in the RfC on the Gaza bombardment. We will soon reach a point in which we will seek to find consensus. If you have time it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly where you wound up, most especially on the topic of if this comparison should be in the lead, or if it should simply remain unchanged (Option 1). When I read the present edit, I am not entirely sure. Or of course just leave it as is. In any case, thanks for joining the conversation. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I thought I did make my position clear. I am against the inclusion of the WP:OR calculation of the death toll, because I think it is an arbitrary comparison. Why compare it to bombings of London, Dresden and Hamburg and not Pyongyang, Baghdad and Belgrade for example? I like VR's suggestion in the thread, that if we're going to add a comparison it should compare the amount of explosives dropped rather than the death toll.

I am against option 2 as formulated, but would support option 2 if it were reformulated to include amount of explosives in addition to/instead of the death toll. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

@TurboSuperA+ Good morning. I'm thankful I asked, because you now make me think option 2 is unclear. The point of option 2 is that this metric (casualties) would be ADDED to the tonnage and destruction metrics, so that the comparison is complete. I tried to use the word "addition" in the title, but I suppose the option should have been more clear. As you might read in my own comment, it is the cherry-picked nature of the comparisons (on many levels) that drives my interest. Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I was wondering if you could change the info box to stop say ukraine admits loss of the city. For one every ukraine source say they position in the city and have even done a counterattack. Finally why do you guys keep getting your info on this from Sebastian sas and not better sorceress? Chasiv 25 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

1) I am not the only EC editor that can make the change.

2) I don't know who "Sebastian sas" is.

3) We do go by "better sources". I changed the status of the battle because WP:RS reported on the Russian claim and Ukraine did not deny it at the time.

4) After I had said I won't change the status again, you accused me of pushing Russian propaganda and listening to "sebastain sas".

5) According to WP:RS, Russia does control most of Toretsk and Ukraine is fighting on the outskirts.

"every ukraine source say they position in the city"

Ukrainian sources aren't very reliable when it comes to battles, because they are both an involved party in the war and the Ukrainian media is under strict government control, meaning they are not an independent source of information. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. No one should proxy for an editor who can't edit an article themselves. "editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages." Doug Weller talk 12:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

The same can be used for russia as they are a dictatorship also I am not denying Russia controlls most of the city I am denying the where it says Ukraine admits the loss of urban area as no Ukraine source has said. Finally you might not watch Sebastian sas but still probably watch like history legends or weeb union for info instead of more credible sources like denys davydov. Chasiv 25 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reviewing your close, I'm curious how your looked at the survey of comments and got no consensus when the survey is is around 3 to 1 against inclusion. For you to close this as no consensus you need to dismiss a lot of votes opposed to inclusion on some basis. You haven't done that, so I'm curious if you just misworded the close, because it seems like a pretty clear consensus to not include. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Because closing an RFC is not about counting votes, WP:NHC, it is about arguments, WP:!VOTE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

While consensus is not determined by a simple vote count, proper weight should be given to the strength of arguments per WP:CONSENSUS. Could the closer clarify how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? Nemov (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I gave an overview of the arguments, did I miss any? A "no consensus" in this case means no inclusion. If you're afraid that it might be brought up again in the future, you should know that no RFC is the final say on any issue. Even if it were a "consensus not to include" the issue can still be discussed and reconsidered later. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I would like for you to answer my question. You haven't clarified how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? I don't really care about this topic, the issue is more procedural. It's a poor close as currently worded. Nemov (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

The arguments were assessed by their strengths in light of Wikipedia policy. The "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes. For example, WP:RECENTISM is not actual Wikipedia policy, but it was given its due consideration since so many people mentioned it.

Unless you can tell me what arguments I missed, I am afraid we will keep going in circles. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Your answer here doesn't make sense and I'm not sure you should be closing RFCs if the best answer you can come up with is the "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes. Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy and based on your reasoning here it doesn't seem you like even understand it clearly. You still haven't properly addressed why the majority opinion was dismissed. We're not going in circles, you're not making a logical argument for your close. Nemov (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

"Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy"

Did I say it does?

"you're not making a logical argument for your close."

And you're not making a logical argument why it is lacking. Your only complaint is that I didn't count the votes. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I do agree with Nemov that the closure was not ideal: WP:RECENTISM, while not a policy itself, is an explanatory essay on policies and should have been given due weight as an argument (even if I don't necessarily agree with the argument itself in this case).

Your statement of While it does seem pertinent in this case, I don't think it can be used to categorically deny inclusion of this information. was clearly adding your own personal opinion rather than evaluating whether the argument was in line with P&G, and would come closer to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

But the vote was not on removal of something, does a "consensus for no inclusion" make a material difference here? A "no consensus" is for the status quo, i.e. no inclusion.

Regarding SUPERVOTE, it says "Supervote is a term used on Wikipedia, often in a deletion review or move review". I don't see how it is useful in this case. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is no material difference regarding the content itself – both "no consensus" and "consensus against inclusion" mean that the content wouldn't be added – but the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future, which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns.

Supervotes are more often a concern in deletion or move reviews, as deletions/moves are the most common kind of closures and have formal channels dedicated to reviewing them, but the matter also applies to other type of closure reviews. While WP:NACPIT is also an essay, it does mention supervotes as a pitfall to avoid in closing discussions in general. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

"the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future,"

I don't see how.

"which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns."

Recentism doesn't mean you can't add recent information, it says to be careful when creating articles on something that has recently happened because WP:RS may discuss the topic differently than historians or someone looking back at the event. It isn't a blanket ban on adding information about recent events to articles.

I don't think I am going to revert my close in this case, because reopening/reclosing it isn't going to change the outcome. In my closing statement I mentioned the recentism argument, so it's not like whomever reads it won't know about it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reviewing your TALK it appears you're closing a few RFCs that have puzzling logic. I strongly encourage you to refrain from closing more RFCs until you have a better understanding of policy. Your questions about "why does it matter" indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of why properly closing an RFC is important. I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time, but your feedback here does not inspire confidence that you are open to learning. Please don't let this escalate to a behavioral problem that has to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, thanks for your close, though I am rather perplexed by a few things. Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general, rather than just in medical and BLP articles (the latter of which was already addressed and closed in the sub-RfC earlier)? AFAICT there were 34 editors who weighed in on specifically the total ban, of which a supermajority of 23 were clear supports.
Best, JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

"Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general"

But that is beyond the scope of the RfC. While I agree with you that a lot of people wanted a general ban, I am unsure if that RfC's discussion can do it. I also wonder about WP:CONLEVEL, shouldn't such a ban involve and get input from editors in other Wikiprojects and sections of Wikipedia? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

The scope of an RfC can change if enough participants address that scope. In this case, the original RfC opened on Dec 30, and then by Dec 31 the narrower RfC on BLPs was opened, after which the comments in the original RfC largely switched to addressing the broader ban. I think if 34+ editors decided to weigh in on that topic, that's a large enough consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Anyway, as more personal advice, I will say that I was extremely surprised an account that was only three months old was closing anything—even for easy keep closures at AfD, we typically expect closers to have already participated in hundreds of AfDs. For larger RfCs, especially those in central locations like VP and in contentious topics, the norm is for an admin or an "admin-without-the-tools" (extremely experienced editor involved in many major discussions) to close. I know this is not super obvious to new editors, so I don't doubt you're acting in good faith, but I think the best course of action here would be to revert your contested closes and let someone more experienced assess the consensus, rather than going through the headache of close reviews and potential sanctions as suggested above by @Voorts et al. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I reverted my close and the discussion was re-closed by an admin. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

[画像:Information icon] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TurboSuperA+ closes. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have also started a closure review for the VPP discussion, here voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Can you change the info box where it says Russia captures most of the city as Ukraine holds the southern part of the town as well as parts in central and northern Chasiv Yar. Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Which is more of the City than Russia controlls Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Please leave me alone. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Sorry about the whole ANI thing that has vaguely stemmed from my post on your talk page. I think its fair that people have questioned your closes, but I don't think the thread at ANI is a proportionate reaction to it. I hope this horrible part of wikipedia doesn't stop you from continuing from being an editor here. If I were you, I'd just mute the notifications there and continue editing as normal and not respond further. I hope disproportionate sanctions do not come from this, and again sorry that you've been put through this as a newish editor. A similar thing happened to me a couple of months after I joined and I know first hand that it sucks - I hope you'll come out the other side relatively unscathed and keep editing. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from closing discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't think the consensus was clear cut, as I showed why four of the participants didn't vote in good faith.

I also complied with @Voorts request from the OP: both reverted the close in question and said I wasn't going to close any more discussions.

My good faith efforts and admitting I was wrong was not recognised and I wasn't even given the benefit of having all my comments read.

I ask kindly that you read my comments in the ANI thread and re-evaluate the close. I have done everything that was asked of me, I endured insults and false accusations, yet I wasn't given the courtesy of having my comments considered. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Your comments were read and there is nothing to re-evaulate; the consensus was very clear. And if you aren't going to close any more discussions, then there's no need to worry about the tban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm not worried about the TBAN, my concerns are with the way the ANI was carried out and evaluated. At the very least you could have written that despite all my good faith efforts to rectify the situation, admitting my mistakes and complying with the OP of the ANI, I was still given a TBAN.

You also seem to have missed that 5 of the votes came from editors from the same topic area, 3 of whom participated in one of the RfCs. That is at least 5 questionable votes, and signs of potential brigading, so I don't know if you can claim "consensus" without looking deeper into those editors.

I think it is important to mention those things. You can keep the TBAN, but I'd like you to amend the closing statement to reflect the discussion, rather than relying on a simple WP:NHC to judge consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

"Editors who are familiar with the subject opine on it" is not evidence of a cabal. There is no cabal, and continuing to imply there somehow is one reflects poorly on you. Your good faith efforts to rectify the situation are a large part of why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned. You're in a hole right now. I'd strongly suggest you stop digging by dropping the stick (or shovel, as it were), and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being in a "cabal". Tag-teaming and coordination are frowned upon on wikipedia, WP:TAGTEAM.

"why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned."

Site banned for what? And if that is the case, why didn't you write it in the closing statement? In fact, you gave a temporary TBAN, but then Voorts convinced you to change it to an indefinite one. So I am not convinced by your statement and don't appreciate the veiled threat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Voorts convinced me of nothing. They pointed out, rightly, that I had - in the utter mess that thread became, largely because of your constant lengthy replies to nearly everything - misread that part of the consensus. And there was no veiled threat, it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban, and your efforts mitigated that for others - the fact you chose to interpret that as a threat and are not convinced by your statement is indicitive of the fact, apparent throughout that thread and continuing here, that you have a battleground mentality which is not how Wikipedia works. The fact you still don't seem to understand the situation after it has been explained to you multiple times and are still beating the dead horse is only proving the fact that the tban is absolutely correct.

A wise person, upon seeing that everybody else holds the opposite viewpoint to themselves on what they have done, considers that maybe it's them, not everybody else, who is in the wrong. Drop the stick, stop digging yourself deeper in the hole, and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

While your links to Wikipedia policies are certainly impressive, merely mentioning them does not prove that I am in violation of them.

"it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban,"

Yes, and Voorts replied that that is probably inappropriate saying that my edits in main space could be fine since they haven't looked. This leads me to believe that you may not have read the thread in full. Furthermore, my actions do not justify a site ban or threats of it, I kindly ask you to drop that line of argumentation.

You also participated in the discussion of the ANI before closing it, which makes me wonder how "uninvolved" you are. This point is further driven home by your hostile attitude on display right here on my Talk page. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I made one reply to answer one concern of yours. I did in fact read the thread in full. As I have this thread where you refuse to listen, maintain a combatitve attitude, and continue to assume bad faith; any hostile attitude on display right here is 100% a result of your actions on this page and your actions alone. I came into this neutral. I'm now fairly certain that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. Good day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Are you threatening me with a block? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Turbo: Wikipedia is a collaborative project built on consensus. The consensus is that you are not equipped to close discussions. You are allowed to disagree with that consensus, but continuing to argue about it and casting aspersions on the editors who participated in the discussion is disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't think the consensus is as clear-cut as you present it. That's my personal observation (supported by diffs) I have not accused anyone of violating a policy.

Here's another observation: You wrote in the OP of the ANI: "I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it."

Two days later I said: "TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again."

Then the next day I wrote: "As I said, I'm not going to be doing any more closes,"

Then the day after I wrote: "I have agreed not to close any more discussions" and left a message on your talk page saying: "I have agreed not to close any more discussions, so that is a self-imposed TBAN from closing, as you have asked for in the ANI and you can hold me to that."

Yet despite showing willingness to listen to the community, despite agreeing with you, you still went out of your way to petition that I be indefinitely banned, when the closer originally gave a time-limited TBAN.

I think you can stop beating the dead horse now. You got what you wanted and I have moved on and resumed my efforts of improving Wikipedia. All the best and happy editing! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm just letting you know that the "addendum" you wrote is not supported by consensus. Also, it will add unnecessary bureaucratic work over non-controversial closes, it is going to be a waste of editor's time that can be better used elsewhere.

But you do you, champ! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Why are you acting like I am harassing you all I did was ask you to was edit 2 Wikipedia articles. Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false as you know he spreads Russian propaganda and just claim not to know him. You obviously know him and probably watch his vedios for factual information. Chasiv 25 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

"Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false"

"You obviously know him"

Now you're telling me what I know...

You're wasting time, time you could be spending making good faith edits to Wikipeda to reach extended-confirmed status and then edit the two articles in question yourself. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

As the war has been paused for 30 days according to a cease fire, that America accepted, the war will resume on April 10th, after the temporary cease fire that lasts for 30 days ends. Djdjfjfjfnfn012 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

"pending Moscow's acceptance"^[1]

WP:CRYSTALBALL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

[画像:Information icon] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. link Special:PermanentLink/1280093358#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

It'd be best to move (cut and paste) the whole Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#c-TurboSuperA+-20250311081600-Worrying_trend_on_articles_about_Croatian_coastal_cities_that_were_under_occupat discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia, IMO, so we don't annoy our technical people. Also, feel free to join the project and contribute in other discussions. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Should we be making a seprate article for Russian gains west of the oskil river? Please let me know your opinion Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

TurboSuperA+, thank you for a great analysis and synthesis on RfC for US involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine (even placing those in one sentence seems strange, literally). Just to support your conclusions: those discussions are very bureaucratic in nature, and seem 'whataboutism' more then anything else. Sometimes outsiders' view is invaluable. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I appreciate your message. I do what I can. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Please read wp:editwar and WP:OUNUS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm not edit warring, you are reverting what has been there for nearly a month. If you wish to make a change, seek consensus on the talk page. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Read wp:3rr and it was objected to almost a month ago, and thus should not have been in the aritckle per WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

WP:RS say the Kursk operation has ended, and they say it ended it Ukrainian defeat. You're contradicting consensus among WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

WP:ONUS doesn't apply here, I suggest you read what it actually says. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Stop icon Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing —especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Give it a rest. Spend more time reading the WP:RS links provided, rather than copy-pasting templates. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Read wp:v a source must say it, in their words. So they must say "russian victory" (or similar). This is why I have my doubts as to how well supported this claim of Russian vicotry is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

And I see you are at it again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Note as well if you are reverted, YOU are expected to get consensus for the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are reverting something that can be sourced to four WP:RS. You need to have a better reason to remove it other than you disagreeing with the statements. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I did I said it was undue try reading wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.)

Four WP:RS reported on her statements, it is WP:DUE. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

There are a lot more than 4 RS in the world. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Does something have to be reported on by every RS on the planet to be wp:due? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

No, just a lot of them if the person is just one politician. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

4 is a lot. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

LOL, 4 is less then 1%. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Now you have been warned by someone else, having repeatedly engaged in edit warring in Contentious topic, so now I think it's time to ask you to read wp:disruptive. Yes, this is now a warning, as you continue to refuse to obey WP:OUNUS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

And what is the magic percentage? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Note (as well) that if (indeed) Lev Golinkin had been removed by consensus before you have now pushed over 3RR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Adding information backed by WP:RS is not a revert. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

A revert is ANY edit that reverts a previous edit. If you have added back previously removed content, that is a revert. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

If you have added back previously removed content, that is a revert

I didn't, I wrote the paragraph myself. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

The content is what he said, that is what was removed. As you seem to be fully aware. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Now you're telling me what I know and don't know? The absolute gall on you. How can I be expected to know every single bit of information added and removed in the history of the article? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Please revert, or i WILL REPORT YOU. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Show me the discussion where there was consensus that Lev Golinkin's statements should not be in the article. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

That is why I didn't report you, I assumed you were not aware of previous discussions [] []. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is no consensus in those discussions that Lev Golinkin's statements should not be in the article. If he is so problematic, then another editor will remove his statements from the article. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

But it has been removed previously, and you are now aware of previous discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

The first discussion is from 2022, it predates the articles I cited, which were from 2023. So that discussion is not relevant to this case.

In the second link, I see editors arguing that he can be included also:

• I wouldn't remove him from the article altogether, Special:GoToComment/c-Bobfrombrockley-20230614121100-Manyareasexpert-20230614092800
• I’m not opposed to the proposed edit Special:GoToComment/c-Mzajac-20230614205000-Manyareasexpert-20230614092800

I don't really see anyone saying he shouldn't be included. I see discussion of him, but no hard conclusions. Discussion is part of the collaborative process, and the existence of a discussion does not mean the content should be removed on sight. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have now made you aware of your error; it is down to you now to learn from it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is no error. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

So do you: To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 12:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

In the 15th of April you replied 6 times in one thread, about the same as every other user (all altogether) 6 times the day before, and 4 times (today). All in the same thread. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Am I not allowed to discuss and reply to an editor? If an editor and myself are having a back-and-forth discussion, that's not bludgeoning. Your main contribution to every thread is a bludgeoning accusation, sometimes you make it more than once. It is not helpful. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

You have, what you do not need to do is say the same thing 5 times, to different users. But yiou have been warned, so there is nothing more to discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

"what you do not need to do is say the same thing 5 times, to different users"

Feel free to provide diffs, otherwise you're just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 13:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

For what it's worth, I don't think the back-and-forth with me should be taken as bludgeoning Placeholderer (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello TurboSuperA+,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Anamarija Basch for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Anamarija Basch to be deleted, you can contest this deletion , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

I accidentally placed it in Article space instead of Draft space, but I moved it immediately. I guess it doesn't delete the source article when being moved to Draft space? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I would like to know what evidence you or anyone else have that Sonnyvalentino and I came to the Azov RFC because of canvassing. Nobody contacted me about the RFC; I found it after you posted it on WikiProject Ukraine, and Sonnyvalentino has also explained how they found the RFC.

I don't find it very WP:CIVIL, constructive, or consistent with the purpose of an RFC to put accusatory templates on the RFC responses of editors who happen to disagree with you. I find it especially concerning that when I rejected the accusations and asked for evidence, you did not elaborate or present any proof, but simply doubled down by saying vaguely that the "evidence had been submitted to the proper channels".

I look forward to hearing your explanation about this false and groundless accusation you have made. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 07:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

For what it's worth, you've edited in the topic area before, so you finding about the RFC through WikiProject Ukraine (despite not being listed as a member of it) is a plausible explanation. If I am wrong, I am happy to retract/strike what I posted.

On the other hand, Sonnyvalentino has never edited in the topic area before. "I also came here after checking the RfC list" is very vague. What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular, despite never showing an interest in the topic area before? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

You posted the RFC both on WikiProject Ukraine and on WP:NPOV/N. I'm sure you're aware that active RFCs are also listed on WP:RFC/ALL. Sonnyvalentino has edited in the Eastern Europe topic area before, even if not specifically about Ukraine. Sorry, it's absurd to claim that the mere fact of people (who happen to disagree with you) responding to your RFC that you publicised on several boards is suspicious. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 07:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

If that's all I'm basing it on, how come I haven't put the same template by every "no" !vote on the RFC? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Because that would be too blatant, obviously. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 07:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

[画像:Information icon] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Russo-Ukrainian War AN discussion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

This user has once more violated his ban please view the Link below. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1291454720 41.144.2.73 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

I've made a promise to myself to stay away from drama for a while. With that said, I don't think MAE violated their ban in this case. They are not banned from editing in the Eastern Europe topic area, just on topics that have to do with Nazism and the Holocaust. In the future, it is best you ask an admin these questions, preferrably one that was involved in the case, like Rosguill, The Bushranger, Tamzin, etc. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bombard (weapon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basilic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Fixed. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 20:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Empath has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Note that such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I didn't expect it to be controversial since several editors on WP:FTN agreed to a move. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 05:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Please don't do that.

Adding content directly from the ODNB is plagiarism and copyright violation. That kind of content should be paraphrased: it can only be used here when put "into our own words".

While articles in draftspace are not private, and can be edited, your recent edit in parallel with mine is not helpful.

Charles Matthews (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I did paraphrase it and "put it into my own words". You are allowed to say "Church of England clergyman" because that is how he is described in multiple sources, e.g. . You also don't have to say "known as a Christian socialist" because again, he is called a Christian socialist in sources. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 06:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is an extended discussion at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It is really important part of the house style here, to know how to paraphrase without getting too close (I'm referring now to your use of the opening para of the ODNB article on Adderley, which was way too close). There are bots here that pick up copyright violations, but because the ODNB is behind a paywall, they often don't find it. I have spent many hours here fixing up ODNB-related issues, rewriting whole articles. Paraphrasing purely factual information is sometimes a problem, and there is no copyright in facts themselves. It is still helpful to recast sentences.

But your comments above seem to show misunderstandings. When I say "cleric", it may be broader than "Church of England clergyman" but it is concise and clear. When I say "known as a Christian socialist", this implies Adderley is notable as a Christian socialist, and is the sort of thing we put in leads to flag up why anyone should bother the read the article: a Christian socialist around 1900 was far from being an average clergyman. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

(I'm referring now to your use of the opening para of the ODNB article on Adderley, which was way too close). You mean the edit I self-reverted with a "sorry" in the edit summary?

When I say "cleric", it may be broader than "Church of England clergyman" but it is concise and clear. Sure, but why call him an "English cleric" when there's at least two sources that describe him as a "Church of England clergyman" explicitly? A cleric can be Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, I don't see why we should be vague when we can be precise?

When I say "known as a Christian socialist", this implies Adderley is notable as a Christian socialist I don't think the "known as" is necessary, because the lede already establishes notability. Take for example Albert Einstein, he is not "known as a theoretical physicist" he is one, but he is known for is theory of general relativity. James Adderley is a CoE clergyman, is a Christian socialist, but he might be known for founding the Christian Social Union. People are rarely known for being something, and most often known for doing something, e.g. Claude Debussy is a composer, he isn't known as a composer, etc. etc. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'll just say a couple of things. Firstly, Adderley was sufficiently Catholic in his views to make labelling him Church of England factually correct (by his ordination), but unhelpful. Secondly, tinkering with the lead of an article before the article is even half written is putting the cart before the horse. Now I'll get back to work on Adderley. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Now I'll get back to work on Adderley. I'm not stopping you. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15&preloadparams%5b%5d=1296031236"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Fixed. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 16:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello TurboSuperA+, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted User:MoheyfytyPlayz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Oh ok. I thought it was promotional because the person was here to promote their youtube channel. Does the promotional criteria only apply to companies and persons' names? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 17:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Ivanvector I have marked this User:Mikeja1015 as U5 (same as the tag under which MoheyfytyPlayz userpage was deleted). This is the correct tag for such a page, right? TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 04:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, you initially posted this at ANI (here) as part of an ANI involving me. You would say: Cinderella157 hasn't technically broken any policy here, but I do think they went against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT. Quite arguably, editing against the spirit of P&G is more serious than breaking P&G on a good faith error or omission. It could reasonably fall to WP:GAMING or WP:TENDENTIOUS. Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct. I think that you have now been made aware that the RfC template makes notifications to various places, depending on the options selected and I selected three. I also specifically notified MilHist. Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false. You only name me in this - ignoring this RfC, which would also go against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT according to your post. You would allege by inference that I am not sufficiently trustworthy to edit P&G. If there were any substance to this, it would be pretty serious and cause for sanction. Without substance, it is clearly a personal attack. I trust from the comments you have received that you understand that there is no substance to these allegations.

I suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to acknowledge at each place that your post was ill-conceived such as by striking in combination with an appropriate edit summary or similar.

When I first started editing, I held similar views to you (and others) regarding capitalisation and found myself at odds with the MOS. My perceptions were challenged. It was through reading and expanding my knowledge on the subject that I realised that the simplified perception of proper names was adequate in many instances but insufficient for the instances for the many grey areas. It is inadequate where our writing is scrutinised, such as on WP. That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name. It is a collation of some comments I have made on the topic. It may not change you mind but it should challenge your perceptions. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Cinderella157 Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct.

It was meant as an opinion. I did not ask or !vote for any sanctions.

Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false.

True, the RfC template does notify projects and I completely overlooked the heading. That is my mistake.

That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it

As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it.

I have edited the part about you and I apologise if it made you feel wrongly accused. I hope this doesn't impact our collaboration in the future as we do cross paths from time to time. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 10:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

It was meant as an opinion. It reasonably reads as an allegation.

As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it. A reasonable misunderstanding of what I meant to say. Please read the two sentences as two totally different ideas - ie {{If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name}} - ie Please read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name if you have not already done so. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have read it, and while in some rare cases one can cast doubt on what is or isn't a proper name, I disagree that it is such a problem to identify them.

For example, here "we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive." you seem to suggest that Natural History Museum is not a proper name, but it is, they capitalise it themselves. "London's" is a possessive noun and is not a part of the name, that part is a description of where the museum is located.

This "Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not." makes me think that you are arguing from a philosphical point of view, as in the article proper name (philosophy), but the proper name article reads quite clear to me:

Few proper names have only one possible referent: there are many places named New Haven; Jupiter may refer to a planet, a god, a ship, a city in Florida, or as part of the name of a symphony ("the Jupiter Symphony"); at least one person has been named Mata Hari, as well as a racehorse, several songs, several films, and other objects; there are towns and people named Toyota, as well as the company. In English, proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner, although some may be taken to include the article the, as in the Netherlands, the Roaring Forties, or the Rolling Stones. A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not (the Rolling Stones are not stones and do not roll; a woman named Rose is not a flower). If it once had a descriptive meaning, it may no longer be descriptive; a location previously referred to as "the new town" may now have the proper name Newtown though it is no longer new and is now a city rather than a town. (emphasis mine)

You say "Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the)." but proper names seems pretty clear on that too: proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner. So if you have to modify it with a the to make it into a specific referent, then it isn't a proper name. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Where you would question:

For example, here "we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive." you seem to suggest that Natural History Museum is not a proper name, but it is ...

I had stated more fully:

What is a proper name is something generally poorly understood since many rely on the simplistic definition. A true proper name is not descriptive and unfortunately, people are inclined to categorise all of the things that are conventionally capitalised in English as proper names. For example, we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive. [emphasis added]

I recently posted: As an educator I understand that a simple conceptual framework can facilitate an understanding at a basic level but a simplistic framework can be a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding. The problem is that Mrs McGillicuddy is held up as a demi-god and her teachings divine. To question her teachings is heresy. I am not saying that this should not be capitalised. What I am saying is that not everything that might be capitalised in English is necessarily a proper noun. Grouping everything that we should capitalise in English togeather and labeling them all as proper nouns is a simplistic framework that becomes a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding. We capitalise businesses and instutions because that is the rule in English. The same goes for titles of works. We don't need to call these things proper nouns to justify their capitalisation. Calling them proper nouns can be problematic because they are often descriptive and proper nouns are not descriptive. One of the problems I find with the article proper name is that it follows the same course of lumping everything together under the same heading.

You would question:

This "Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not." makes me think that you are arguing from a philosphical point of view, as in the article proper name (philosophy), but the proper name article reads quite clear to me

The pertinant part of the quote you take from proper noun is:

A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not (the Rolling Stones are not stones and do not roll; a woman named Rose is not a flower).

The Rolling stones may be a bunch of stoned rockers but they are certainly not small boulders tumbling down a hill. While Rose might be a sweet smelling thorny woman, she is not a plant. Magellan named the Pacific after having made a stormy passage through the Straits of Magellan because the Ocean he entered was quite tranquil. On another day with worse luck he might have called it the Bellicus Ocean. If he were vain, he might have called it the Magellan Ocean. It is not always peaceful. The etymology of a proper noun may appear to be descriptive but it does not mean the proper name with that etymology is actually descriptive. On the other hand, the French Revolution was a particular revolution in France. We know that it is a particular revolution because of the definite article. The name is inherently descriptive and not a true proper name. It is capitalised for its importance. We would do so on WP because it is done with near universal consistency in sources. The B|battle of Waterloo is also inherently descriptive. Contexturalising for prose, the ngram shows about equal capitalisation here and google scholar certainly shows it is not consistenly capped here. There is a good case for not capping it on WP.

You and I are both referring to Proper noun, which discusses the "semantics" of proper nouns. A proper name is not descriptive but an arbitrary label. It would be SMcC's propsition (at WP:PNPN) that the semantics of a proper name fall to proper name (philosophy) and I would disagree with the distinction it makes but I agree with the conclusion - WP uses evidence rather than a definition to determine what we capitalise. [For the most part] there is nothing about a proper name that tells or describes the referent. We do not know from the name alone that Everest is a mountain (or a person) or the Nile is a river (also see Nile (disambiguation)). Georgia might be a person or place. We might assume that Sue is a girl since personal names tend to be gender specific but beyond that, we know nothing at all about Sue. And then, they could always be a boy named Sue. If you read proper name (philosophy), you will see it is about how arbitrary names have "meaning": how we know that the Nile is dirty big long river in north Africa full of things that want to kill you and Everest is a bloody great mountain between China and Nepal covered in snow and ice. This directly relates to logic as a branch of philosophy.

To your third question:

Yes, you have got that almost right. Some proper names do take the definite article - eg the Thames, the Pacific or the Andes. These are not descriptive but do take the definite article. Proper name would call these weak proper names. As an aside, the capitalisation of descriptors in geographical names is something of a special case since the capitalisation appears to be more a matter of transferring cartographic conventions to prose. The R|riot in Brisbane, The B|battle of Waterloo, the French R|revolution, the Syrian civil war etc are all descriptive phrases that take the definite article in prose and all have a specific referent intrinsically linked to using the definite article. These are certainly not what we would call a true proper noun. To paraphrase what you have said: So if, if it is descriptive and it is modifide with a 'the' to make it have a specific referent, then it isn't a "true" proper name. The counterpoint is that we do see some of these terms near universally capitalised in sources and WP would capitalise these even though they are not true proper names. Such terms (eg French Revolution) can be described as capitalisation for importance or significance where the significance and importance is near universally acknowledged.

While I have added a deal of additional detail here, for the most part, my answers are in what I have already written. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

1. labeling them all as proper nouns is a simplistic framework that becomes a barrier to achieving a more advanced understanding.

   Therein lies the problem. I believe we should rely on a simplistic framework. We shouldn't expect editors to be experts in lingustics to be able to determine whether something should be capitalised or not. In the same vein, I do not think that move/rename discussions should be turned into philosophical debates.

2. Calling them proper nouns can be problematic because they are often descriptive and proper nouns are not descriptive.

   If the word originated as a desciption and then turned into a proper noun during use, we cannot say that it is not a proper noun because of its etymology. Language is a living thing, it is constantly changing. Take for example New York's nickname, The Big Apple. That is a proper noun that began as a description. New York isn't actually a big apple, but it was described as such because musicians considered playing in New York as a big deal, it was a big gig, the big apple. The name stuck and now it is "The Big Apple".

3. Such terms (eg French Revolution) can be described as capitalisation for importance or significance where the significance and importance is near universally acknowledged.

   There are also proper adjectives which can also be descriptive, and they should also be capitalised. e.g. "French Revolution", the "French" is a proper adjective, it describes the nature or the location of that particular revolution. Yet we can refer to "French Revolution" as a proper name. So French Revolution isn't capitalised for emphasis, it is capitalised because it is a proper name.

   The SEP seems to agree:

   The Cambridge Grammar of English distinguishes the syntactic category of proper name from that of proper noun (Payne & Huddleston 2002: 516). A proper noun is a word-level unit of the category noun, while a proper name is a type of noun phrase. So, for example, the proper name "Alice Walker" consists of two proper nouns: "Alice" and "Walker". A proper name (the noun phrase) may also—and often does—consist of a single proper noun, just as a verb phrase may consist of a lone verb. Hence, the sentence "Alice sleeps" is comprised of a noun phrase/proper name and a verb phrase; the noun phrase contains a single proper noun, and the verb phrase consists of a lone verb. Its analysis into syntactic constituents would look like this:

   [_S[_PName[_PNounAlice]][_VP[_Vsleeps]]]

   Proper names may contain other parts of speech, too: "Brooklyn Bridge" places the common noun "Bridge" alongside the proper noun "Brooklyn". "The Raritan River" includes the determiner "the". "The Bronx" combines a determiner and a proper noun. Finally, "the Golden Gate Bridge" is a proper name with no proper nouns in it at all.

   I think you are introducing unnecessary complications into a topic that doesn't seem to be that controversial anywhere else except in philosophy of language, and it is the philosophers' job to argue about everything.

4. The name is inherently descriptive and not a true proper name.

   I looked up "true proper name" on Google Scholar and there wasn't many results, pretty much just What is in a Name?: An Inquiry into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Proper Names .

5. Proper name would call these weak proper names.

   This is what it says: "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language terms these weak proper names, in contrast with the more typical strong proper names, which are normally used without an article." Searching Google Scholar for "weak proper name" yields the following (among others): This further shows that this is a topic for linguistic journals and philosophical debates, it makes no sense to have these kinds of arguments on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 09:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reponding to your comments as numbered:

1. I made a distinction between simple and simplistic. Where you would say, I believe we should rely on a simplistic framework, I would say simple, given that distinction. MOS:CAPS gives simple general advice: if it is not consistently capped in sources, we don't cap it on WP. The simplistic perception that a proper name is [any] name (noun phrase) that identifies a particular person, place or [any] thing (where the square brackets would indicate perception), works for things like John Smith, London or Missouri (the ship) - noting that none of these are descriptive or include descriptors (eg bridge, revolution etc). None of the disagreements on WP about caps fall to such simple cases. The simplistic rule does not address whether descriptors are part of the proper name or whether a proper name is modifying a descriptor (or being modified by a descriptor). There is a simplistic assumption that the only things English might capitalise is a proper name when clearly, it is done for other things that are terms of art etc. There is a simplistic rationalisation that a name phase for anything that can be said be a specific thing is a proper name - even to the point that any "thing" [must have] has a proper name. In cognitive development, proper names are assimilated as concrete 'things" eg John Smith, London or Missouri (the ship) are concrete. Other things such as gods are personified and perceived as concrete. It is a truism (a simple rule) that proper names are always capitalised and nobody disputes this. If a noun phrase is far from always capitalised in sources (more than can be accounted for by simple error, then there is clearly something more to this than what can be explained by the simplistic rule of what a proper noun is.
2. Yes, English evolves. Words pass in both directions (eg RADAR as an acronym). But WP follows, it does not lead. We don't say, this looks like it may come to be consistently capped in sources so we will just help it along. WP is not a crystal ball. My point about etymology was to not conflate anything descriptive in the etymology with a proper name not being descriptive. The Big Apple is not an apple that is big.
3. One could argue the semantics of a proper adjective (the adjectival form of a proper name) or a proper name being used attributively (ie a proper name modifying another noun like an adjective does). Either way, it does not follow that a noun phase that includes a proper noun being used attributively ipso facto makes the noun phrase a proper name. I touched upon this in the first point. It is a common misperception that, if part of a noun phrase is usually capitalised, then all major parts of it should be capitalised (use title case). Many geographical names end with a descriptor ie Golden Gate Bridge is a bridge and Golden Gate Strait is a strait. For some geographical names, using a descriptor is optional (eg I sailed through Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay), though if one drops the descriptor, it is usual to use the definite article. There is no simple rule to tell us which descriptors to cap and when. A simplistic rule would have many inconsistencies compared with actual usage. Rules in English are noted for having near as many exceptions as they do compliance.
   The quote from SEP (the Golden Gate Bridge" is a proper name with no proper nouns in it at all) reminds me a lot of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , where practictioners working with an inadequate theory or paradigm (eg the Geocentric model of Ptolemaic astronomy) persist in trying to force empirical evidence to conform to such a paradigm like a square peg to a round hole. I suggest it is more appropriate to rationalise the name phrase Golden Gate B|bridge as a proper name (Golden Gate - there is no actual gate that is golden) modifying a descriptor (B|bridge) that may or may not be capitalised consistently depending how important it is percieved and capitalised in sources. In this case it is capitalised with consistently but this is not always the case for bridges (eg the Öland Bridge, the Rochefort-Martrou Transporter Bridge, or the Garabit viaduct - where viaduct is a type of bridge).
   Trying to rationalise everything that should be capitalised on WP (and English more generally) on the premise that capitalisation is only used for proper names is a bit too much like a model of astronomy premised upon the earth being the centre of the universe.
4. Google scholar nonetheless has hits. true proper name is a term of art used herein to describe proper names which are not descriptive compared with names that are in full or part descriptive of the referent but which are consistently capitalised in sources or which some would assert to be a proper name even when they are not consistently capped in sources. There is nothing wrong with using true proper name as a term of art in the context of this discussion.
5. You stated earlier: So if you have to modify it with a the to make it into a specific referent, then it isn't a proper name. I responded Yes, you have got that almost right. Some proper names do take the definite article - eg the Thames, the Pacific or the Andes. These are not descriptive but do take the definite article. Proper name would call these weak proper names. This was an explanation as to why your statement was incorrect. Perhaps more simply, if a noun phrase is inherently descriptive and specific because of the definite article (the) it is not a proper name and it is probable (likely) that it will not be capitalised consistently in sources - eg our solar system or the galactic centre of our universe. Before you come back to argue the point, have a look at the ngrams here, here and here. Then please confirm against google scholar that sources using lower case are [almost] always referring to our solar system or the galactic centre of our galaxy. See also the Iranian revolution or the Syrian civil war, which include a descriptor and are made specific by the definite article. Descriptors associated with geographical names are a similar but separate matter.

In various discussions (eg here, here and here) you would appear to be advocating a rule based approach to determining what a proper name is and what we should be capitalising on WP. Any robust rule, law or theory that adequately describes and determines what a proper name is, inherently falls from the discipline of linguistics and more precisely, onomastics. WP is inherently source base and the strongest sources are peer reviewed academic sources. So, if one was to advocate a rule based approach to capitalisation, we would need to consult the best quality sources. Your linked comments have referred to and would appear to advocate simplistic rules for what a proper name is - eg where specificity of referent is viewed as defining. In RMs, I have simply pointed out that such a perception is not defining and that such a simplistic rule is inadequate to resolving such questions. Specificity of referent is intrinsically conferred to a name phrase by the definite article (the). If the name phrase in question adopts the definite article in prose, specificity alone does not determine that the name phrase is a proper name. I have occasionally added that, if anything is defining, it is that a proper name is not descriptive. I agree that, in an RM, we shouldn't be having a detailed discussion like this section is. I am not the one advocating a rule based definition of proper names. I am simply pointing to the flaws and inconsistencies in some simplistic perceptions of the rules. A criterion for capitalisation based on empirical evidence (usage in sources) is a simple solution but not a simplistic solution. It is what we have now. If something needs to be capitalised on WP, it will be consistently capped in sources. However, we do need to be aware that some styles cap the expansion of an initialism so we need to discount sources where this is done. We also need to be aware of and avoid capping terms of art, in law especially, which uses caps to denote a term of art. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

I appreciate the integrity of your comment at ArbCom. One can have a robust but civil discussion on this issue as we have demonstrated. It is unfortunate that this is the exception rather than the norm, where parties involved in discussions on capitalisation commonly act to turn such discussions into a battleground laced with incivility and personal attacks. I find that unacceptable as I am sure you do. My regards for what I hope has been a stimulating debate and exploration of the issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hiya, just curious which sections are under question of being written by an LLM at Lando Norris, so I can work on fixing any potential issues. MB 2437 21:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

It is the Lando Norris#IMSA section. The whole paragraph has a single source and the link contains "?utm_source=chatgpt.com". TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 06:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, I will work on rectifying this. MB 2437 06:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, and sorry for tagging the whole article. I did it because there was no template for sections, but there is now: Template:AI-section. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 06:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

No worries! I am concerned there may be a wider issue now so I will scan through the rest—a lot of the article needs work anyway. MB 2437 06:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I found the article (and the section) by searching for insource:"chatgpt.com". Editors who use ChatGPT are too lazy to even remove that bit from the link, they just copy-paste the text without thinking or reading it over. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 06:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Wikimedia may need to crack down on it, given it is textbook plagiarism. MB 2437 06:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

The worst thing about it is that LLMs are often wrong, but they "hallucinate" sources so at a glance it all looks well-sourced. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

They can't even get book quotes right; I asked GPT for a list and it hallucinated 20 of them. I told it to stop making things up and it immediately did so again! It's worrying that people can hastily add such information without verifying what's been said. I find LLMs very useful for idea generation and some code fixes but nothing more. Fortunately, this instance only got his class position and total laps completed wrong; at least the overall positions and other details were correct. MB 2437 07:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I told it to stop making things up and it immediately did so again!

When I use LLMs it feels like I am correcting them half the time. This "AI" thing is nothing but a fad, a pump-and-dump scheme. Some of these companies have valuations in the billions of dollars. It's like we haven't learned anything from the dotcom bubble, or any of the other bubbles.

I find LLMs very useful for idea generation and some code fixes but nothing more.

It's basically a more advanced Google search. I think a lot of them have code execution now, so one can debug errors immediately. When it comes to generated text, a person has to "debug" it "manually".

this instance only got his class position and total laps completed wrong;

It always gets something wrong. The editor who added that paragraph has been adding lots of LLM-generated text and sources to Wikipedia. I left a comment on their talk page asking them to stop using LLM to edit. They haven't been active this month, so I hope when they come back they agree to not use it any more. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I believe it will become of good use eventually, but we are decades away from that point. I find I'm spending more time verifying its "work" than I would be if I did the research myself. It was completely useless when I wrote my engineering thesis barring its use in programming—admittedly, that was more to do with me being useless with MATLAB syntax.

I'm surprised this instance slipped under my radar given they had completely removed an entire unrelated section to add it. I remember seeing someone correcting the section's heading and being confused (given I wrote the headings) but at least I now know I wasn't being a fool after all. MB 2437 08:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I believe it will become of good use eventually

Maybe. Right now they're using it to spy on people, target ads and make autonomous killing machines. I'm not going to hold my breath for AI innovations that will improve the life of regular people. If AI could do laundry, tidy the home, clean the dishes, clean the floors, every single household would have an AI. As it stands now, they're using it so the toaster and the refridgerator can collect data on you.

I find I'm spending more time verifying its "work" than I would be if I did the research myself.

Yup. Honestly, it's nothing more than a curiosity. I mostly use it for things like getting a one-liner ffmpeg command to convert a video and keep it under a certain file size.

barring its use in programming—admittedly, that was more to do with me being useless with MATLAB syntax.

I wish LLM was around when I wrote my thesis (also involved MATLAB).

I remember seeing someone correcting the section's heading and being confused (given I wrote the headings) but at least I now know I wasn't being a fool after all.

One has to trust one's hunches. They exist for a reason! TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 08:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Clean the floors—Roomba has been doing it since 2002! It will always take a bit of engineering genius to solve those issues. With defence budgets ballooning, there is no doubt such genius will be misused. I wish LLM was around when I wrote my thesis—honestly, it saved me from losing my mind on a fair few occasions. It's not the best with wikitext, unfortunately, but was able to solve a few template issues I've had. Mostly on me for sticking to my guns and refusing to use Lua. One has to trust one's hunches. They exist for a reason! I have no clue why I didn't investigate further, low-IQ moment on my end; must've been busy! MB 2437 08:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Roomba has been doing it since 2002!

Poorly. Roombas just vacuum a bit and they cannot get the corners, under the sofa, etc. all the places where the dust gathers.

refusing to use Lua.

Lua is easy. Sure it is weird, and most of the things you learn aren't transferrable to other languages, but it does have its own logic and it is easy to learn.

I have no clue why I didn't investigate further

Because of WP:AGF and trust in people, probably. TurboSuperA+ 08:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have no interest in interacting with you, so consider this a formal request to stay off my talk page unless you are mandated to post something. Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi TurboSuperA+. Thank you for your work on 2025 anti-corruption protests in Ukraine. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day today!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 09:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for reverting edits with sensitive private info and for requesting revdel. When you do so in the future, it's better to use a nondescript edit summary, so as to call as little attention as possible to the edit while waiting for an admin to respond. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

That makes sense. I will avoid drawing attention to it in the future. Thanks. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 04:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello. Could you please see the draft I have revised? I have corrected the comments that were pointed out by another reviewer. I have found 3-4 independent authoritative sources that describe the award in detail:

1. 1 (Forbes)
2. 2 (SWI swissinfo)
3. 3 (medienwoche.ch.). Thank you! 95.153.162.39 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I did a search for sources. I linked the ones I found here. I am unsure whether the topic meets notability guidelines, I'll leave that for another reviewer to decide. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! Why didn't you check the sources I added? They're in the article. 95.153.163.242 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Why didn't you check the sources I added?

Because I didn't want to. There are other reviewers out there. There is no rush. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 08:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

TurboSuperA+ I’ve been actively working on addressing the concerns raised in the draft you commented on (like the AI-style writing and formatting). I’ve tried cleaning up even the thin spaces and similar issues, but I still haven’t fully resolved everything. If you have any pointers or would be willing to help with preparing it for acceptance, I’d really appreciate it. This article is important, though I'm not the draft creator. Majid8097 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I can help when I can. But my suggestion would be to take it paragraph by paragraph, source by source. Read a paragraph, check what the source says, rewrite the paragraph in your own words so that it says what the source is saying. TurboSuperA+ _(talk) 09:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks again for the advice. I’ve followed your suggestion and gone through much of the draft paragraph by paragraph, cross checking the sources and rewriting the content to better reflect what the sources 'actually' say. I’ve made sure to keep the structure accurate while avoiding overclaims. If you get a chance to look over it again, I’d appreciate any further thoughts! Majid8097 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

—tony 03:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Read wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Same to you. TurboSuperA+ _(talk) 18:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi there! I think you were working on an Ngram essay—I remember you referencing this and I swear I read it within the last few days, but now I can't find it. Anyway, another pitfalls that I think is worth mentioning: The OCR technology is prone to mistakes with correctly rendering diacritics and "special characters". Thus it may not accurately identify variants like cafe versus café. This is mentioned here. This has implications for discussions involving WP:UE, WP:DIACRITICS, MOS:DIACRITICS, and related P&G. As with a lot of Ngram queries, I would give more weight to large differences that were stable over time, such that an error rate of, say, 10% would still produce a significant lead.

Although we disagreed on the question of deprecating Ngrams, I find the project of cataloguing its limitations, raising awareness, and providing tips and tricks to be worthwhile.

Cheers, --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

It's at WP:NGRAM. That's a good point regarding the OCR and diacritics. TurboSuperA+ _(talk) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Where did you see the news article I have already changed everything if you do not have an argument for deleting the article please keep quiet Norikarm20109 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Read the comment that I left. I explained my argument there. Ne aware of Wikipedia's civility policy. TurboSuperA+ _(talk) 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Sorry I was rude I just couldn't create articles for 2 months now I studied the rules of Wikipedia and tried to do everything

And an article about Armenians who left the Russian Empire and began to survive against the Ottomans and Azerbaijan during the First World War

Information conducting you can enter all sources of the world and there it will also be written that Andranik Ozanyan went to Zangezur and through Zangezur went to Artsakh against the army of Nuri Pasha

Even in some sources it is mentioned and I decided to take all the events from the 1st World War but at the time when Armenia became independent and make an article about it

I don't know whether you will approve or not, but it would be nice if my work was appreciated. Norikarm20109 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to ask you give your deletion recommendation of plant-based cat food another look.

In general, as to my comment on the discussion page:

• This topic deserves it's own page as an article spin-off WP:SPINOFF. Adding all the relevant information that is worthy of Wikipedia to the existing cat food page would make it too large and probably put WP:UNDUE weight on the cat food article.

This is a new page accepted only 2 months ago for which I have not yet gotten to the point of fully splitting the content out of the original cat food page. I request more time to complete this and to leave the page in place right now

Specifically on your comment: I understand that this seems surprising, the scientific field of plant-based cat food has changed with multiple studies coming out over the last 10 years. Reliable sources have been used, and the tone reflects the research available on the topic, rather than the view of any ideology. At least that is what I aimed to do and fine tune with the help of the AfC process. I feel that the reporter's representation of the article is incorrect and very biased, all I ask is that you judge this young article on its merit. Sklabb (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

This isn't acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

No need to be so hostile, it was a single edit. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

That's why I said to knock it off, rather than drop a {{uw-vand4im }} or something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I guess it came across stronger than you intended it. I didn't have the intention of making more than one such edit. :) TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 17:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

If a friendly warning doesn't get across the point that vandalism is wrong, the standard remedy for an experienced editor who vandalizes is a short deterrent block. I have blocked this account for 24 hours. Please don't do that again. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Tamzin Your block is punitive, not preventative. What in my post made you think I was going to do it again? Please remove the block. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 05:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

The part where you think there was something wrong with SFR warning you for vandalism. You seem to be under the impression that you are allowed to vandalize politically sensitive content as long as you, what, don't edit-war once you're reverted? Come on. If you dislike that you have been blocked, then that means the block is serving its purpose at deterring you from vandalizing in the future. Come back in 24 hours, never do that again, and this can all be a one-off lapse in judgment. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

They already said they didn't intend to do it again, I agree that this seems punitive and not preventative, which is against WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Please reverse yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

They said they didn't intend to "mak[e] more than one such edit", referring to the vandalism that SFR reverted. They didn't say they didn't intend to vandalize again, and in fact communicated the exact opposite by failing to understand why they were being told "knock it off" after vandalizing a high-profile politically sensitive article. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

You're escalating this. SFR already dealt with it, and clearly didn't believe it was block-worthy. I think there is understandable frustration with what happened today, and a lapse in judgement is just that, a lapse. There's no need to pile on to it with a punitive block that isn't preventing anything that wasn't already addressed. Where is the imminent risk to the project in leaving them unblocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

They said they didn't intend to "mak[e] more than one such edit", referring to the vandalism that SFR reverted. They didn't say they didn't intend to vandalize again

Yes, saying that I "intended to do only one such edit" (referring to the edit that was reverted) means that I intended to do that one edit and no more. Where are you reading that I communicated that I intend to vandalise again? I never said such a thing nor implied it. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 05:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Tamzin WP:BLOCKP says: deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior My edit was over 24 hours ago. This is clearly a punitive block for absolutely no other reason than to punish. Nothing in my post says that I think vandalism is OK, nor that I will do it again.

The part where you think there was something wrong with SFR warning you for vandalism.

I never said there was something wrong, I said it was "hostile", as in, the tone was hostile, when it could have been said in a more pleasant way. I don't think your block was necessary or warranted, especially since I have edited since and not vandalised any pages. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 05:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm really not in the mood to explain to an experienced editor why a 24-hour block is an unremarkable response to unrepentant vandalism. The mature thing to do here is accept the consequences of your actions and serve your 24 hours like every other vandal. Otherwise, please see the guide to appealing blocks. I have no further comments on this unless asked as part of an appeal. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

For what it's worth, I briefly considered adding a passage to WP:NPOV stating that a certain article was exempt from neutrality, but I thought better of it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Tamzin, thoughts on an unblock? I think the point has been made and they aren't likely to repeat the behavior, at least for the remaining duration of the block. FWIW if the behavior does repeat itself I think we would be looking at a much longer preventative block. Giraffer (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I kinda see where Tamzin is coming from. Saying they didn't intend to repeat the same edit isn't a statement that they don't intend to vandalize again, or at least not a statement that they don't intend to express personal political viewpoints in articles again. Maybe the point has been made now, but a clear statement would be nice. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I do not think the point has been made. The point will be made when the block expires after 24 hours, a normal amount of time for first-offense vandalism. What point would we make by unblocking when they're still dodging accountability and trying to wikilawyer their way around a cause⇒effect consequence so simple that most middle schoolers vandalizing during Computer Lab know it? The opposite point, of course: Doing this is fine and if you do it again it'll probably be fine too. That is not a point I would like to make. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I would absolutely want to see an acknowledgement of accountability and a commitment not to repeat it before I would unblock, but I wanted to see what your thoughts on unblocking at all were vs. leaving it to expire (hell, it's only a day). I am struggling slightly to see why a 24 hour block is better than say, an indef: the problem here is not going to expire with the block. Giraffer (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

An indef would only be necessary if we thought a tempblock was insufficient to prevent further vandalism. I am reasonably confident that spending the normal 24 hours blocked for vandalism will adequately convince this user not to vandalize again, that being unblocked will convince them that politically-sensitive vandalism is no big deal, and that indeffing them would be excessive. This is the basic principle underlying blocks as deterrence. It's why we do short tempblocks for first-offense vandalism, edit-warring, mild-to-moderate personal attacks, etc. The inconvenience of the experience and the implied threat of longer blocks in the future make people think twice before doing it again. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I think Tamzin is right to be concerned that TSA+'s response to the warning might indicate a willingness to repeat the vandalism. I'm overexplaining what is more of a quick judgment than a set of logical steps, but it's something like:

1. TSA+ engages in severe vandalism
2. SFR responds with a very mild warning
3. TSA+ says the act won't be repeated, but also says the warning was too hostile
4. Since my understanding of the warning (very mild) compared to the act (severe) doesn't match TSA+'s, I wonder why
5. Perhaps TSA+ view the act less seriously than I do
6. Perhaps TSA+ will repeat the act, since they are misunderstanding its severity

I would be fine with letting the block expire naturally, and I'd be fine with an unblock if they make a comment that convincingly explains that they understand the severity of their conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• @Bishonen: Well I'm glad someone's sticking up for unapologetic politically-motivated vandals. Hope you'll be around to block this asshole next time they decide to make a mockery of the encyclopedia for their own cheap thrills. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

  Tamzin, if I saw this text posted anywhere on Wikipedia I would consider blocking (you) without warning. And you should not act as administrator in the area you are so much emotionally invested. Please disengage now and switch to smth else, otherwise this is not going to end well. I think Bishonen made a good decision, and let us stop here. Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

  You're completely right, @Ymblanter. The only thing I'll say in my defense is that I wasn't emotional when I made the block; I got emotional afterward. But that makes no difference as to the propriety of my comment, which was unacceptable. I apologize to Turbo for the personal attack and to @Bishonen for the very uncollegial language. I'd like to say more on this but I accept that I've tainted anything I might have to say, and will fully withdraw from this matter unless asked to comment on ADMINACCT grounds. If y'all are curious about what's going on with me that led to this outburst, you're welcome to see this section on my talkpage, but I'm not trying to make any excuses here, and y'all are of course welcome to not care at all what was causing me to be a dick. Again, my apologies. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

  Great, all is well what ends well. By "emotional investment" I actually meant that you started the AfD with the proposal which we should not discuss here but it is important to notice that it is highly unconventional, meaning you feel strongly about the subject. And TurboSuperA+ vandalized the article related to the same case. This is of course not a COI situation, but in such cases it is better to have someone else done the job. I hope this is all resolved now, have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• And I'm glad you're showing me and my opinions so much respect, Tamzin, and in the course of calling an editor an asshole, too. Good work. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC).Reply
• @Bishonen: Thank you for unblocking me. In case you are unsure, I will not repeat the behaviour on the same page or other pages. @Tamzin: I too have mental health issues, so I won't make yours worse by turning this into a bigger deal than it became. I accept your apology and hope you feel better. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello TurboSuperA+. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Helmet Kohl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: From whitehouse.gov archive: "The dream of Helmet Kohl and the generation that founded NATO... " https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/Work/042099.html. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Shirt58 It was a Talk page redirect of a typo redirect. I wasn't sure if those were necessary. I asked another admin about it here. But if you say those redirects are necessary then I won't tag them for speedy deletion in the future. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Oops! In my haste to find an example of the misspelling, I totally overlooked that it was redirect to an article talkpage, not a redirect to the article itself. Entirely my own fault - if it's not already there, I'll put it back into the speedy queue. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

All good. :) TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 13:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your comment. I've added a Criticism section to the Draft:The Council on Spiritual Practices. EchoMontane (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

That's an improvement. I am going to leave it for another AfC reviewer to take a look. I'm still learning the AfC ropes. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 07:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

In regards to one of the quotes used, wanted to say that your interpretation would be generally considered the correct one. However, I do disagree about WP:libel specifically. I acknowledge that point 10 should not have been used in the argument. That quote would be usually associated with BLP, and many would not take a loose interpretation of it. Additionally, I want to clarify that I do respect other editors and that we are part of a collaborative project. Wukuendo (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Alright. I just wanted to give you a heads up that focusing on a single article or issue is not looked on kindly by editors. It really doesn't matter whether you have an actual conflict of interest if your behaviour is exactly the same as someone who does have a conflict of interest. It is not necessary to respond right away to comments, it is OK to wait for other editors to give their opinion. It is not the end of the world if a sentence from an article gets deleted now or in two days, because there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 06:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Will take your good advice under consideration. Perhaps I'm being overly enthusiastic to engage, though a tremendous amount of the editing is not on the actual article content, but is in talk and related discussions. In many situations, being directly asked a question or for a response, or was being talked about by name. Often on Wikipedia, not responding when asked, also has various kinds of consequences. Certain articles also get more attention and contention than others, edits to Red (for example) don't generate lots of back and forth or talk comments.

I also took the advice, to ask teahouse about the libel question, because it can be interpreted differently. Was told that WP:Libel, including WP:BLP, applies to more than just biographies and is for any (living) person (referred to) on Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for pointing out the relevant policies. I have revised the draft accordingly and ensured it follows WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

I will be careful to avoid unsourced or promotional content, and I appreciate the guidance from experienced editors. "Articalwr" (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are right, I thought this was a book that Royal Ark had uploaded. Nonetheless, Royal; Ark is a personal blog and is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) Guy (help! - typo?) 10:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Glad it's sorted out. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have reverted the recent edit that removed sourced information about the Huns. The claim that they were "not Turkic" is unsourced and falls under WP:OR, whereas reliable research and sources have been provided to support the opposite. Archaeological evidence, including the Slab Grave and Ulaanzuukh cultures, as well as genetic studies, demonstrate that Hunnic burials overwhelmingly show Y-DNA haplogroups R1b and Q1a1a1, both of which are widely associated with early Turkic populations. By contrast, haplogroup C2, commonly linked with later Mongolic groups, is not present in the majority of these contexts. This genetic and archaeological data strongly supports the view that the Huns had a Proto-Turkic foundation. Beyond genetics, cultural and historical continuity is clear: the Huns’ values, military strategies, nomadic traditions, and political structures were carried forward most directly by the Turkic peoples. While the Hunnic language itself remains debated, its similarities with Proto-Turkic are noted in comparative linguistics, Yeniseian features overlap significantly with early Turkic, and even the surviving Jie language materials remain broadly intelligible to modern Turkic speakers. These points demonstrate that the Huns were not only a steppe confederation of multiple nomadic groups, but also that their dominant cultural and genetic legacy was Proto-Turkic. The information provided here is based on peer-reviewed studies and reliable academic work, and additional details have already been explained on this talk page for transparency. For these reasons, the removal of sourced material and its replacement with an unsourced categorical claim is inappropriate. Please do not continue to vandalize the article; if you disagree with this content, you are welcome to present credible sources here on the talk page for discussion. Repeated unsourced removals will be treated as disruptive editing.

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]} AsianTiele (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

First of all, accusing others of vandalism when it isn't is considered a personal attack.

Second, you were the one who removed long-standing, and as far as I can tell, sourced content that cites secondary sources. You did not provide a reliable source to support your edit, instead, you based the edit on your own reasoning.

Third, after an edit has been reverted, you have to start a talk page discussion and gain consensus for your edit. Alternatively, you can provide a secondary reliable source that directly supports the edit.

I checked the first source, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe and it is hardly conclusive on the topic. In fact, the author says that they consider "Huns" as a primarily political and ethnic category, while "Turkic" they consider to be a broad linguistic term referring to speakers of groups of languages (belonging to language families and not specific ethnic appellations (p.7).

All the other sources, other than Chinese Architecture, are primary sources so I doubt they directly say Huns are Turkic, but if they do you should quote the relevant part. I am going to revert your edit again and you shouldn't reinstate it until you have gained consensus on the talk page. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page which is good. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 12:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

It is deeply concerning to see yet another manipulative and obstructive response to well-sourced contributions. The archaeogenetic evidence from excavated graves and tombs has been clear and consistent, showing that the dominant paternal lineages in these populations are Y-DNA haplogroups Q and R1b. These results are not speculative interpretations but the outcome of peer-reviewed genetic studies published in respected scientific journals. They provide direct and verifiable insight into the ancestry of these groups and therefore must be treated with the same weight as any other academic source. Unfortunately, contributions based on this body of evidence are being reverted, not due to any methodological weakness or lack of reliability, but seemingly because they do not conform to certain entrenched editorial preferences. This practice is widely recognized within the Wikipedia community and is incompatible with the platform’s stated principles of neutrality and verifiability. To disregard established genetic data in favor of subjective narratives undermines the credibility of the article, misinforms readers, and erodes trust in Wikipedia as a neutral resource. I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue. The scientific record is transparent, reproducible, and unambiguous; to dismiss or obscure it because of personal agendas or ideological motives sets a harmful precedent for the treatment of all scholarly research on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to remain a reliable and trustworthy source of knowledge, neutrality and respect for peer-reviewed academic work must be upheld without exception. AsianTiele (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't care about genetics.

I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue.

The place for that is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 12:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—they are the very foundation of identity, heritage, and historical continuity. Ignoring this aspect leaves the discussion incomplete and misleading. I’ve already clarified my position thoroughly, and at this point, I will not be making further edits until the administrators review this matter. AsianTiele (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Administrators aren't going to "review this matter", that is not how Wikipedia works. I posted a notice at WP:NOR/N and editors are going to see the discussion and weigh in on it with their opinion.

I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—

Relying on primary sources to form a conclusion is considered synthesis. Please read WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 13:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

This matter has also been raised at the Administrator’s Noticeboard for wider review. I have already provided the relevant research and made my position clear. Since the response was to dismiss genetics outright rather than address the sources, I will not be making further edits or comments until uninvolved editors weigh in. AsianTiele (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

These accounts removes information and butting other thinks 154.115.222.6 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello TurboSuperA+. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Decarlos Brown Jr., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: BLPCRIME is not a valid CSD criteria; you will need to take this to RFD. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 20:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

OK. Thanks! TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 20:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Only Admins should post in the Result section. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

My bad. Fixed (I hope). TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 12:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

We typically don't nominate user talk pages for WP:SPEEDY (like User talk:Berima K Asabeng), since that's the primary location where we communicate with the users. If there's promotional content, I would just remove it and leave a {{uw-usertalk }} notice in its place. Of course, if the username is also promotional, they can be listed at WP:UAA to be blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I didn't know about that notice. I will do that from now on. Thank you. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 15:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, you declined this draft. Isn't enough to have Billboard Music Award nominations to qualify? Meningreen (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure Billboard Music counts as a major award to satisfy criterion nr.8 for WP:NMUSIC. I could be wrong. You can always ask for help at WP:AFCHELP or resubmit the article. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Why do you think the military jet photo is fake? It looks pretty real and conclusive to me. Also do you watch history legends 144.125.54.202 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

I replaced the image with a video of it being shot down. Why do you think an image is better? TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 17:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

If you think video is good then I am fine with that I was just wondering if you thought an image along with the video would be better? Also do you watch history legends 2607:FEA8:C3C0:30C0:885E:88B4:D51D:2676 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to reach out because I recently came across Open International Geography Olympiad, an article you had accepted through AfC. However, I noticed that the article contained copyright violations, which were present at the time of acceptance. I have gone ahead and removed the offending text, but I wanted to remind you to make sure you check all articles for potential copyright violations before accepting at AfC. If you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns on this matter, please let me know. Thanks again! Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

That's my mistake, I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for letting me know. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 05:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Reply

In an RFC, you asked to provide a quote from . It's off-topic and extra noise for the participats, so I provide it on your talk page: [Stalin] secretly ordered his agents to establish communist governments in these states. They did this slowly, through a gradual takeover of the police, armed forces, and the economy. <...> In this way, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and later Czechoslovakia became satellite states. This meant they were outside the Soviet Union but actually ruled by the Soviet government. There are more references, but keep in mind that we're talking about a brief period (only a few years) after the war. Excluding that period, Yugoslavia was not considered a Soviet satellite state. I am well aware of the Non-Aligned Movement. -- Mindaur (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

Mindaur, that's not what our article says. Did you leave out a word there? See Satellite state#Post-World War II. I'm old enough to remember when Yugoslavia had a communist government and was considered a very close ally of the USSR, but with a bit more freedom, even allowing western tourists to visit the country without fear. In the 1970s, I remember waves of Yugoslavs fleeing the country and seeking political asylum in the USA. They did not want to have anything to do with Communism or the USSR, and they lived in fear of complete domination by the USSR and a completely closed border, like other USSR controlled satellite nations. I'm not an expert on the terminologies used here, but those are my recollections of the situation then. Our article is no doubt much more procise in its choice of words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Valjean: I think you might be confused:

• Not sure what is "our article" you are referencing. If you are talking about the "Satellite state" article on Wikipedia, then it has the following sentence: The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is considered an early Soviet satellite,[11][12] <...> (disclaimer: I didn't write this sentence). Anyway, what matters is what WP:RS say.
• I provided another source below. You mentioned 1970s, but we are talking about the brief period before the Tito–Stalin split in 1948. Nobody questions that Tito's Yugoslavia broke with USSR and was unique in this regard (until Albania's split in late 1950s). It's not a discussion whether Yugoslavia was generally a satellite state during the Cold War; it was not.

-- Mindaur (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

That's quite an extraordinary claim. I can't find any academic review of the book, nor Andrew Langley's credentials. It is a 96-page book aimed at teens. As far as I know, no other historian has made the claim that Yugoslavia was a Soviet satellite state.

There are more references,

Such as?

but keep in mind that we're talking about a brief period (only a few years) after the war.

Yugoslavia was never a Soviet satellite state, not even for a short while after WWII. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

You can easily find more sources yourself, e.g. an article by Bogdan Raditsa – , where the early relationship is described in detail. From the beginning, the Yugoslav Communists have advocated complete subjugation of their own and other nations to the Soviet Union. (p. 122); On May 21, 1945 Tito himself defined the position of a satellite toward the Kremlin: <...> (p. 123); This "gratitude" according to Mr. Kardelj, was more than an emotion: it was the Yugoslav Communists’ desire to become part of the Soviet Union as soon as the international situation permitted. (p. 123); and so on. After all, the Soviet army participated in Belgrade offensive as well as other operations and had very considerable influence (and I am phrasing this rather gently) over the Yugoslav partisans. Wherever the Soviet army advanced in Europe, so did their political objectives, system and ideology.

Even if you don't like this author, you can find others. Perhaps this is controversial in former Yugoslavia. I don't see why would it be. Moreover, the 1948 split (and it was a complete break with the USSR) is a much more defining moment in history.

-- Mindaur (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

BLPs are a CTOP; please edit them carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I added a sourced statement made by the BLP subject themselves. You have now reinstated my edit with slight changes. I am going to take that as tacit admission that you were wrong to revert my edit (and post this CTOP notice). These kind of actions can be considered uncivil. You're "coming in hot" as they say. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 03:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

If you slow down and read, and understand, before inserting content, and before responding, your editing experience might be different. You're asking questions and making accusations, without having understood the proper attribution on the hundred days (sic) hours. "Coming in hot" applies to reinstating a problematic edit without discussion, and on a CTOP. When you are reverted on a BLP, understand before you edit war. I've partially fixed your insertion; it's still sub-optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Duplicated content is not a WP:BLP issue. How can it be? If it is duplicated then that means it is already included in the article.

Adding a statement made by the BLP subject themselves falls under WP:ABOUTSELF and can be added even if it comes from a source that isn't good for factual statements.

You reverted me, only to then reinstate the edit albeit in a different location. This means that there was nothing wrong with the edit. Positioning in the article is not a WP:BLP issue either.

Furthermore, I have written several biographies, including a BLP, showing that I do understand Wikipedia's policy on BLPs. So you posting a CTOP notice and then patronising me about the policy is uncivil.

You've been an editor for 20 years, do I really need to remind you that civility is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 03:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia isn't a battleground, which means we're not here to try to win arguments or prove who's right or wtong; on BLPs, we have to get it right. When you're reverted, if you attempt to understand why before re-inserting the content, that will save time for everyone. If you didn't realize the hundred hours issue was already in the article, properly attributed to a high quality source, and you couldn't find it right away (maybe because the hundred was spelled out rather than 100 in digits), then had you simply asked on talk about the revert before re-inserting, we'd have been done an hour ago, without the unnecessary lobbing of charges. Also, I find that many editors don't know that Latin Times is part of IBT. Hope this helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

When you're reverted, if you attempt to understand why before re-inserting the content

I literally did. I asked you which article you're referring to and you answered If you don't yet know which NYT article I'm referring to, you haven't yet understood the issue. How is that helpful?

maybe because the hundred was spelled out rather than 100 in digits

Yes, because when you reverted me in the edit summary you also wrote "100" in digits, which led me to search for "100" in the text (and find nothing).

I find that many editors don't know that Latin Times is part of IBT

I certainly didn't. Which is another thing you could have written at the beginning, because I searched RSN for "The Latin Times" and came up with nothing. Again, I did so because your edit summary only mentioned Latin Times, not IBT.

Rather than being direct and clear, you chose to be imprecise and cryptic, and then you accused me of not trying to understand the issue, even after I have made reasonable attempts to do so based on the information given.

Now you're accusing me of battleground behaviour in form of "advice".

Please be more clear when communicating with editors to avoid these unneccessary back and forths. Hope that helps. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 04:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I understand the 100 vs. hundred added understandable confusion and made it hard for you to find the content already present. I understand you might not have thought to look at our article on Latin Times . A kind and experienced editor told me, when I was new, that a simple rule to live by is always stick to one revert and never edit war ... inquire on talk and be sure to understand before re-instating. You asked after you re-instated, and after I started a talk discussion. A lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided had you asked before escalating to charges of incivility. Water under the bridge; I'm off for the night, and happy to drop this stick. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

It also could have been avoided if you just edited "days" to "hours" (or removed that part altogether). Just because someone reverts an edit that doesn't mean they had good reason to do so. You reinstated my edit, so that tells me that it was in fact a good edit that should not have been reverted. Edit warring is 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, and I only reverted your reversion once, so the accusation of edit warring is premature.

During the course of our discussion you have accused me of: 1) breaking BLP rules, 2) edit warring, 3) not looking up information, 4) not understanding BLP, 5) battleground behaviour, 6) making an edit with "so much wrong", 7) making a mess ("all the clean up"). And for what? For making an edit that you yourself have reinstated. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 14:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

And yes, I made a mistake regarding the 100 days when I wrote that she said she had a plan vs. her advisor saying she had a plan. But only that part could have been removed (and I wouldn't have reinstated it) rather than the whole edit.

These discussions where we're really in agreement yet behaving like we're not take a toll on me. After making my comment last night I immediately fell asleep. Which is a good thing, cause I was only editing because I couldn't fall asleep in the first place.

I really don't want to argue. I felt attacked for an edit that wasn't as bad as you made it seem with the "all the clean up" comment and I have been on the defensive since. I'm not going to edit that section further and it will probably be a long while before I edit that article again (if ever). When an edit causes all this I tend to not touch the article again, because I really do wish to avoid arguments on Wikipedia (I just have a knack for inviting them, it seems).

As far as I'm concerned I have said everything I wished to say. I am not going to dispute whatever edits you wish to make to the article. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 14:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

It can only be wrong to post a CTOP notice if the editor has not edited in the area of the notice. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Except the CTOP notice was unnecessary, because my edit did not infringe on P&G's regarding BLPs. From WP:CIVIL: Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

CTOP notices are alerts, NOT warning templates. I see nothing in [[Template:Contentious topics/alert]] about being involved. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

TSA+, I was tired last night, and I'm sorry that my edit summary referred to WP:RSP, when it takes an extra step to get from Latin Times to IBT. But, there was too much in that edit that needed repair for a simple fix, and I was surprised to see you reinstate what is actually a BLP vio. Please consider the impact on a living person of the implications in how you misstated even what the non-RS said, with was the only way to oust Nicolas Maduro and effect a peaceful transition. She added that she had a plan for the first 100 days following the potential removal of Maduro from power.

Now, in the light of a new day, and having reviewed a) your talk page, which evidences an WP:IDHT issue, and b) the actual edit you made, yes, it has a serious BLP issue, which you reinstated, and now are still arguing as if there was nothing wrong with it. It's more than the hours/days typo; I could not have repaired that edit by changing days to hours. Not even the Latin Times claims that MCM added that statement in the interview.

You're arguing, not listening, as if you aren't able to take critique on board, and being able to accept advice and criticism goes with the territory on Wikipedia. Yes, you edit warred on a BLP (3RR is not a license to revert three times, and when you've been told you are using a non-RS on a BLP, you should not reinstate it even once without discussion), and yes, you breached BLP by using a non-RS and then mis-stating even what it said. If you aren't able to take on board the difference between what you twice inserted and what I've corrected it to, then you might consider staying away from BLPs.

As a result of this discussion, I'll be more careful to point out the extra step needed to get from Latin Times to IBT in the future. At minimum, I hope you'll accept two pieces of advice. 1) Never edit war -- always take it to talk before re-instating. 2) Always check the quality of any source you are using to add content to a BLP before you use that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the advice. I am never going to edit the Maria Corina Machado article again. I hope that that ends this matter. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 16:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Be well, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

How much of this kerfuffle could have been prevented by a strict adherence to WP:BRD? See Wikipedia:Short BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't think there was anything particularly bold about the edit. It was literally what she said in a Bloomberg interview. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

BRD is activated by the revert, not by the bold edit. What happens after another editor objects by reverting is where problems can be prevented or caused. I suspect this whole mess could have been prevented. That's my point. I'm glad to see this has been resolved now, so carry on and have a good day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I realize that it often feels like someone needs to do something, and opening an AN/I thread is something, but I really feel like that thread about Jimbo was in tremendously bad taste, and felt like it was deliberately made to create a big public spectacle of defrocking. jp ×ばつg 🗯️ 09:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The ANI report was necessary to stop the disruption at Talk:Gaza genocide, as well as prevent any snowballing of the issue as many news outlets had picked up on it.

What is in bad taste about informing an editor about Wikipedia policy. Instead of rolling your eyes at the mandatory ANI notice, maybe you should read some of the comments on Jimbo's talk page. Three administrators and a bunch of editors have all explained what he did wrong.

I don't know why you're singling me out when there were editors agreeing with the ANI report and !voting for sanctions.

Why was it in bad taste? Do you believe he should be allowed to throw his weight around in discussions, canvass editors and ignore consensus?

Your loyalty and defense of Jimbo is admirable, if misplaced. He's a millionaire with global reach and a global audience. I think he'll survive. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 08:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is a discussion that may interest you at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, TurboSuperA+. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thomas Ziehe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, TurboSuperA+. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kursk front of the Russo-Ukrainian war, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, TurboSuperA+. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Đuka Dinić, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hello, TurboSuperA+. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Thomas Ziehe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi TurboSuperA+, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. TurboSuperA+ _[talk] 09:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply