Archive 2

TurboSuperA+

Thank you very much

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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pizza oven (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Imwin567 was:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pizza oven and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Imwin567 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TurboSuperA+! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Imwin567 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pizza oven has been accepted

Pizza oven, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edot war

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]

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 [[1]] [[2]]. 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]

Bludgeon

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]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anamarija Basch

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]

Accusations of canvassing

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]

ANI discussion involving you

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]

Arbitration clarification request

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]

ManyAreasExpert violated Topic ban again

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]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

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]

June 2025

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]

Draft:James Granville Adderley

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. [3]. You also don't have to say "known as a Christian socialist" because again, he is called a Christian socialist in sources.[4] 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]

Your thread has been archived

Hello TurboSuperA+! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Why do Lists of people by given name exist?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

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 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]