User talk:Googleguy007

WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct at Talk:Love Jihad

This comment is a perfect example of battleground-conduct that should be avoided especially when editing contentious topics. Posts like this with its mocking tone and removal of a FV tag, when you don't have access to the source and haven't thus verified that the statement is supported by the citation, are non-ideal too. Please be more careful in the future. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Corrected the first link to point to the intended edit. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

"POV" means point of view; "NPOV" means neutral POV - you have used "NPOV" in several comments ([1], [2]) where I think you mean it is "POV" or unbalanced towards certain points of views. Using these vice versa could cause confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I assume I’ve colloquialized “NPOV violation into “NPOV” without thinking (probably from making relatively minor copy edits for NPOV where I just summarize it as “NPOV”), I’ll make sure it use POV from here on out, I understand the confusion that could cause. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love jihad conspiracy theory

Hello, Googleguy007,

Usually title changes on contentious articles like this one are decided through running an RFC. There is a process designed to do this. RFCs run for at least 7 days, not a few hours, and they are closed by an editor or administrator who has been uninvolved in the discussion. If this page move is contested, please move to doing an RFC about what the title should be for this article. If you are unfamiliar with how an RFC is organized, please ask a more experienced editor or bring your questions to the Teahouse and someone who has organized an RFC can either help you or point you to the proper policy page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phloxxara

You are welcome to start an SPI and a CU may be able to give an up or down verdict (or find the true sockmaster), but I'd consider it exceedingly unlikely that Phloxxara is a Kautilya3 sock. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. and in edit summaries on this talk page Doug Weller talk 07:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, sometimes it seems that I tend to spiral into failing to AGF during long disputes. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googleguy, I'd second Doug's warning and suggest that you simply slow down and be more patient. It's rarely necessary to post more that 1-2 times a day on a article talkpage and I find that, slowing down, re-reading ones posts, and editing out any extraneous expression of frustration, assumption of bad-faith (or, even any discussion of other editors rather than sources and content) only helps the editor and the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: when I said "re-reading ones posts etc", I meant during preview and ~~them~~ prior to actually posting the comments. The talkpage guidelines frown upon editing the substance of ones talkpage posts esp. after someone has responded to them and lay out recommendations on how to do so when really needed. That said, I recognize the good intention behind your recent edits and will leave them alone unless someone else objects. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC) (Grammar fixed. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Oops, my bad. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. that and it let me think, after going through I think my main issue was civility, I don’t think either of us were being particularly civil but I can see that I was being much more uncivil. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Al-Fahim vandalism

Dear Googleguy007, I hope you’re doing well. Please may I ask that you stop reverting my edits as there is no reason for you to be doing so. You are currently vandalizing and violating Wikipedia’s code of conduct. Refrain from doing so again without plausible reason. You cannot remove valuable information with sources for no reason whatsoever, I will repeat again, this is vandalism. Otherwise, i will have to report this to the Wikipedia administration. Thank you for understanding, I hope this won’t occur again. Jacobmicheal232 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done: What I am removing is clearly promotional puffery, and which violates WP:NPOV. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the majority of what you removed is credible and valuable information not puffery. Read what you are removing before doing so. Refrain from vandalizing again. Jacobmicheal232 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you help me to add Brazil superpower draft on the main page in Potential Superpowers arcticle Jursaniko (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navaly church bombing

@Googleguy007, the 2017 al-Jinah airstrike was added to the see also section of Navaly church bombing due to the similarity in the nature of the two attacks. Both being state actor air forces dropping ordinance due to poor intelligence on what on the ground was considered safe havens due to their nature as religious sites, thus resulting in civilian casualties. Cossde (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no strong evidence that it was due to poor intelligence why the Sri Lanka Air Force bombed the church. I believe it was on purpose and a war crime, as thats the pattern the Sri Lanka Armed Forces have repeatedly carried out throughout the war. In 2009, the Sri Lanka Air Force would bombs hospitals directly after receiving the coordinates from the Red Cross, so many times, that the aid workers then decided to withhold giving the coordinates to the authorities: https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/08/sri-lanka-repeated-shelling-hospitals-evidence-war-crimes Oz346 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Closer

You don't need to comment on every single DELETE point in that article pointing out their edit history in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination). How is having 9 edits under my name even relevant, considering I've been active for over 6 years? It seems like you're trying to portray the "DELETE" as, what, sockpuppets? Trolls? It's incredibly bad faith. Funktasticdog (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD, as discussed by others, is particularly succeptible to meatpuppetry/offsite canvassing, the disproportionate number of accounts with few to (in one instance) no previous edits making basic "IDONTLIKEIT" or "nonnotable" without any more reasoning is very relevant information. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir

hi Mayamam123 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Googleguy007,

especially with WP:BLPRESTORE in mind, you would be welcome to join the existing discussion at Talk:Darryl Cooper instead of jumping into an edit war.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]