User talk:HÊÚL.

Welcome!

Hello, HÊÚL., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! †Bloodpack† 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, HÊÚL.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, HÊÚL.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions for PW

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to professional wrestling. Before continuing to make edits that involve professional wrestling, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please familiarize yourself with both the sanctions and WP policy in general. For example, per WP:BRD if people disagree with your edits (at least 3 people have reverted you on the same edits), it is YOUR responsibility to take it to the talk page and attempt to gain a consensus. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per your edits here, and all your past warnings and blocks regarding edit warring, you’re blocked for a month. Next time, it’ll be indefinite. Considering how much I’ve lectured you on this and how the article talk page is blank, there is just no excuse. Follow this most very basic protocol (don’t edit war and hash out issues on the talk page) or don’t edit. No more chances. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I sourced all my edits on that page and all that the other editor did was reverting them saying that it was unsourced info. This is unfair. He "edit warred" as much as me. Did you blocked him too? Because this time you are accusing me of something I did not do. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 reverts. Against 2 editors. 0 talk page edits. 0 following WP:BRD. What is your explanation for this? Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was just two reverts. The other I just added more info. 2) Against 1 editor accusing me of something I did not do (and he was not even punished by that). The other one just bought the crap and appeared there only one time. 3) He did not followed the WP:BRD too. How can I discuss with someone who is saying to me "stop putting this green" but I was just putting it blue? How can I discuss with someone that was reverting just saying that it is unsourced if I just busted up my arse all night long searching for sources to back up my edits to improve the info? To me this is called vandalism. It is very different than just a disagreement of opinions. This is bad faith.

And the fact is that you are just enjoying yourself for doing it. You were just waiting to do this. I showed you a disruptive user vandalising a template (an user that recieved two warnings for edit war in January, one in February, one in March, one in April, one in May, two in August and one in September and two disruptive editing warnings (one in April and one in May) and is still free to go doing wrong things) and what did you do? A lot of nothing. This is unfair. HÊÚL. (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If you read WP:BRD as I’ve told you so many times, you’d understand that if it was being followed, it would involve you initiating a discussion because you were the one initially proposing a change that was challenged by a revert. You were in the wrong to revert a second time. You failed to get a consensus that supported your change. You failed to even start the first step in the process - starting a discussion. You were informed that this was the next step, and you ignored it.
    - That is not the correct application of the term vandalism.
    - No, I’m not enjoying this, and it’s a bad-faith assumption to say so. I don’t enjoy telling you to step edit warring and I don’t enjoy giving you lectures about how you need to engage people in rational discussion to solve your disputes rather than just slamming that “undo” button over and over again to try to win arguments.
    - To recap: You asked me for help with a user. I asked you if you discussed the issue anywhere. You never responded. And somehow this is an example of my wrongdoing? Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is because you are the administrator here not me. I showed you how many times the guy was warned ONLY THIS YEAR and what you do? Asked me about a discussion. I do not discuss with vandals. If they are interested in vandalising they are not interested in discussing and therefore I searched for you. The guy was warned ELEVEN TIMES in 2018 (and we are not even on the eleventh month of this year). Who was warned more? Me or him? And who is blocked right now and threatened with an indefinite block? I was here before you and I was never a problem here. This login has twelve years. I had another one before in 2002/2003 that unfortunately I had lost. And is disgusting the way you are taking joy in what you are doing with me. You are talking about "proposing a change that was challenged by a revert" and it was not even the case as I explained before. It was not a challenge or a disagreement of opinions. It was not the case of providing sources because they were already there. It was vandalism you assuming it or not. And bad-faith is all this one-sided punishment for things that two people were doing. If you just want me out of here so say it right to my face. Do not hide behind your powers. You were never even humble to admit when you misacted. Maybe you forgot that you were just an user before became an administrator. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I’m just one person, and there are all sorts of bad editors making bad choices on the website. It’s not my job to do a full investigation every time some editor gives a vague complaint without being able to follow up on basic questions. You’d probably get a similar response from the police if you alert them to a robbery but never respond when they ask you for what city it occurred in. But it doesn’t matter, you can point the finger at everyone else all you want, you edit warred without making effort to engage in discussion, directly after being blocked for the same thing. Feel free to post an unblock request to have another admin review your block. Any admin is going to give you the same response I have, especially if they look through your block log and talk page history. Blame others all you like, you’ve repeatedly violated a black and white policy with no defense that excuses it. The only time you seem to engage in discussion is when you’re getting last-chance warnings or are already blocked and more or less have to. That’s not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is not acceptable is your biased behavior as an user and as an administrator. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been extremely clear and consistent in my message that you need to discuss and not just revert repeatedly. You made an edit, was reverted, and the you reverted back another 4 times and didn’t discuss at all, let alone get a consensus that supported your change. This is not acceptable. What part of our past discussions made you think this was acceptable? Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: What part of I did not reverted 4 times you did not understand? I reverted 2 times and then edited again with more info and then again to take out the flags. I said this since the beginning. Or you did not notice that the guy reverted when there was a -1,976 change and then again a -2,379 and at last a -2,313? Or now when we revert things words magically appear and disappear? HÊÚL. (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of the edits are the same. They still count as reverts. For example, it appears you re-added “Dusted” by “Asteroid Boys” every time. That’s reverting. Sergecross73 msg me 10:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reverting to add back what was taken out by accident? What the problem with you recognizing that you messed a big time in this one? It is not wrong to admit your errors. The other two times that you have blocked me I acknowledged my errors. Stop acting like you are a god free of mistakes. HÊÚL. (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, since you stated before that I was the other editor, 3 separate editors reverted you. Myself, [1] by Mt.FijiBoiz and [2] by NotTheFakeJTP each of us more than once.

Lets look at your edits on WWE United Kingdom Championship Special as an example. You continually added "Dusted" by Astroid Boys despite providing no source. As I explained to you multiple times the actual date of the event always goes first, not the air date, see WCW/New Japan Supershow III as an event example and look at List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events and see everything shows the taped date first. You added it to WWE United Kingdom Championship Tournament series without providing a source that these were related. You removed the times of the match, something included on every article for PW events. How can you justify any of those edits??? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I provided not one but TWO sources about "Dusted" by Astroid Boys and you on bad faith removed both. Second, as I told you multiple times that the actual airing date of WWE taped shows always goes first. Just look at all the articles: Nxt, 205 (now), Smackdown (before went live), Main Event; or another tournament: Mae Young Classic (2018). Third, I NEVER added United Kingdom Championship Special to United Kingdom Championship Tournament series. I added it to the United Kingdom Championship series. It is totally different and you are AGAIN acting on bad faith. And about "providing a source that these were related": first, there were two sources already in the article saying it and I showed you this; second, needing to prove that United Kingdom Championship Special is related to United Kingdom Championship Tournament is so stupid than have to prove that NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn III is related to NXT TakeOver: WarGames. HÊÚL. (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the Mae Young 2018 to have the dates they actually happened consistent with 2017 and everything else. No idea what you are talking about in regard to NXT, 205, SmackDown or Main Event, they dont discuss when something happened except for the airing of an episode, which is different than when something happens. If however you look at List of WWE Champions lets look at reign 51 and 73 as examples, they do the actual date not the airing date. Look at Impact One Night Only (2017)#GFW Amped Anthology – Part 1, taped is first. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Notability for inclusion, events are sorted by when they occur not when they air. The list goes on and on. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Template:Former WWE programs despite asking you multiple times to prove your edits were legit you just said things like "WWE said" and "Even the opening theme is the same" and provided a link that didnt even support your claim, and that was not a WP:RS. Again how do you justify that? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I provided you a source. Second, when Mae Young Classic (2007) ended it was put there (because there were no announcement of a 2018 edition) and as soon as the 2018 one was uncovered it was removed, just simple as that. Since the United Kingdom Championship series was discontinued (for now) in favor of NXT UK it makes sense to put it there, since a 2019 edition was not announced. The major problem is you putting a show that is already on air in there. HÊÚL. (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked there was no 2007 Mae Young Classic but ok. Just because something was done wrong before, doesn't mean it should be done wrong again. 2018 is done airing yet its not being added to former despite not 2019 being announced. Rule of thumb is after 1 year of no airing or announcements it is considered former, not 2 months. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On WWE United Kingdom Championship Tournament you again claim it was the last without providing a reference. You added tables to the see also section yet if you read WP:SEEALSO you would see that it is incorrect to do so. You changed the date format to being incorrect again. The one source in the article [3] refers to both days as the tournament yet you claim it wasn't without providing an alternate ref. One again how do you justify your edits? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is the last FOR NOW as I said above. Second, I was wrong (and did not know until now) in putting the "see also" name but this could simply be edited in another name ("related events" per example). Third, this article was published way before the show was even taped. When it happened the tounament took place only on the first day (the second was not even branded as United Kingdom Championship Tournament) even the United Kingdom Championship Tournament 2018 states this and there are a lot of sources about it (you know this and are acting on bad faith again). HÊÚL. (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia policy, unless you have another reference that states the previous reference is no longer correct, the existing reference is to stand. To claim it not part of the same is WP:OR based on your own conclusions you drew. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is why talk pages exist and why WP:BRD is the policy. If you think something is wrong take it to the talk page or go to WT:PW and raise the issue. You don't just make sweeping changes to every page and continually revert 3 people who disagree with you. Wikipedia is about collaboration, not about you deciding what something is and forcing that to be the be all and end all. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I have not done anything wrong, and all your reasons for thinking I have, seem to originate from the fact that you don’t seem to correctly understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As I’ve already said, if you don’t believe me, feel free to have another admin review your situation - see Template:Unblock. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I showed everything you did wrong but it seems that you still do not have the proper humility to admit. And just as an extra info: the guy I showed you (the one with ELEVEN WARNINGS only this year) again vandalised the template I told you. But the great problem is me and you are doing everything right. HÊÚL. (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Your defenses, like saying your edits weren’t reverts, were fundamentally false, and pointing the finger at other editors doesn’t absolve you from any blame from not following policy. As I said, your reasoning is invalid, and if you don’t understand that, it’s because you don’t understand policy.

(Sidenote - you’re not even doing a good job at reporting people. You never link to any specific evidence. Half the time you don’t even mention them by name, for some reason. And you still never answered my question on if you had discussed the dispute with them at all. But again, even if you did, and even if I blocked him indefinitely, it still wouldn’t affect your block or block length.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HÊÚL.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Square Enix franchises

Just here to tell you that I gave Groove Coaster its own section in the template, something you already attempted doing before I undid it. It has its own spot in the List of Square Enix franchises list and the article doesn't make any mention of Space Invaders whatsoever (aside from a few reviews and of course the game's logo), so I felt as if it made sense. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

~~I removed this message because after a while I felt like it was unnecessary. Guess I can't remove it now. That's a damn shame! Namcokid47 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I'm not sure why you keep re-adding this comment - I've already spoken to an admin (Sergecross) and he stated that as long as comments do not have a reply, they can be removed. So I'm pretty confused why you keep reading my comment(s). Is your ego simply overjoyed that I was wrong? Namcokid47 (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

whack. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Just here to tell you that you can stop adding back my comments on the Square Enix franchises template. I don't know if its your ego or if you don't seem to understand Wikipedia guidelines, but please stop. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly chat

Hi how u doing what is ur name and how old r u Abi25gail05 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fantastic-four-promotional-poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fantastic-four-promotional-poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fantastic-four-bootleg-DVD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fantastic-four-bootleg-DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Look Fall 93 program.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:First Look Fall 93 program.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]