User talk:Super Goku V/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Interpolation

I think the simple counting is not prejudicial one way or the other, but the simple format I introduced is much to be preferred to the listing tables purporting to be 'analysis' that were intruded into the previous RM, unhelpfully further messing up a lengthy discussion. The simple cumulative count is probably better placed in the new section, but then it is no longer interpolated in the ! voting sequence. Also in the previous RM there was a tendency for comments to disregard the actual binary question of the RM. Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Qexigator: My understanding of the last RM was that it was tables for suggestions on a name and evidence for or against names by counting the uses by reliable sources. The counting you are doing is neither of those. However, my main problem was that people were commenting above and below it on the move discussion, hence why I re-sectioned it. Under WP:REFACTOR, If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Since you made a comment here, if you wish to manually undo my edit then it can be undone. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see the move to a separate subsection as a good one, so thanks for that. I think it is working quite well, but I have given myself the job of updating as-and-when, not of doing the closer's job of assessing the reasons offered for and against. I believe the last RM's table exercises demonstrated among other things the futility of competing counts of what may be deemed RS for the purpose of responding yes or no to what must be a choice of stay or go to some other name. Qexigator (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Them pings

Sorry that the pings didn't work, and that I didn't sign that post (sign button fails for me sometimes). I'm topic blocked now, so I leave it up to you to deal with duplicate content situation. You could delete the subpage, blank it, etc. Naturally, you could let someone else handle that if you think you've done your part. I agree with everything you said in reply on the talkpage, it's just down to implementing one solution or another, doesn't really matter which IMO. Kind regards — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Given the situation, I will just leave everything as is and things can be discussed in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Wikilabs" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikilabs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Wikilabs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article

The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.

Before:

After:

The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you participated in discussion of the removal of that template from the article on Instacart at Talk:Instacart#Undisclosed_payments and so would have some familiarity with the general situation.

My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).

CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.

As of this writing nobody else has responded.

Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.

Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

last name

FYI, on [1], you typed Myer's, as opposed to Myre's. You may want to consider changing the name to the correct spelling, if you are able to, so there is no confusion. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, though generally a posted message should not be edited if it has been more than a few hours after it has been posted. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Astroworld Festival paragraph

Kind of at a loss given your past edits why you didn't want to just make the edits to keep within copyright parameters yourself to keep the info there as opposed to the copyright tags unless it has something to do with the subscription blocks of some of the sources. I've edited it accordingly after going through an extensive copyright review from all the sources. As for the other material, I was under the impression either WWGB or Diannaa would've taken action past the mass copyright reviews they had already done. Thanks for the tool going forward though. Unless I'm missing something in terms of not knowing how to use that system, all I'm seeing for red sections is direct quotes from people, unless you're implying you want those replaced too, but Dianaa had seemingly intentionally left several of those in the article. My impression if she wouldn't have left them if they were a problem. Onan808 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Onan808: I did make a number of changes to the article in one edit to fix what I saw was a problem. That paragraph in particular wasn't something I felt I could fix on my own, which is why I marked it and mentioned it on your talk page. (Additionally, I don't have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle, which hinder me a bit.) Thank you for making edits to fix it. Regarding administrator intervention, I have not gone to one and discussed this with them. I did bring this up with WWGB though. As for how to use the tool, sections in red are text that is exactly the same as the article being compared to. In the case of organizations, titles, people, and units of time, they should not be a problem and can be ignored. In the case of quotes, they need quotation marks around them. In the case of other text, it is likely a direct copy and should be rewritten. For examples:

Y

• "ratio of guests to staff" - Is a quote and has quotation marks around it
• Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association - Is the name of an organization
• ...a crowd surge. At the... - This is a split sentence and generally should be fine. Earwig ignores punctuation and can produce false positives.
• 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. - Units of time should be fine
• HPD Assistant Chief Larry Satterwhite - Is the title and name of a person

*

• to the brain and heart - None of the above apply. The Houston Chronicle seems to attribute this to a physician, so we could attribute this to them.
• an ambulance in the crowd - The Houston Chronicle seems to say that Scott said "There's an ambulance in the crowd" which is almost an exact quote. This should be quoted in some form. After it is quoted, it will not be a problem
• also worked as a firefighter and EMT - None of the above apply. It might be best to exclude the firefighter portion in a rewrite as it does not seem relevant
• passed out at the front of the stage, and over the next ten minutes - Two separate issues from the HC article. One is the partial quote "...passed out at the front..." and the rest is the wording "...at the front of the stage and... from the HC article.
• informed festival promoters that the show - None of the above. The HC seems to attribute this to the HPD Assistant, so attributing this to them would be the best idea.
• behind the main stage, only to be diverted to another area - Directly from the article and in the same context. A rewrite is recommended.

• the front of the crowd - This wording is used in other contexts in the Houston Chronicle article, so it isn't necessarily an issue. Changing it out of precaution would be fine.
• after the mass casualty event - This wording is used is a different context in the HC article, so it isn't necessarily an issue. Changing it out of precaution would be fine.
• "put a middle finger up [to/in] the sky" - Is a quote and has quotation mark. It does seem to not be quoted correctly though and should be adjusted, but it is not a copyright concern.

I hope this helps give you an idea of what is an issue and what isn't. Additionally, this only covers the HC article. There are other sources that had a higher than preferred percentage of a possibility. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, a lot to unpack here. Going to need to have a system where you raise what you see as issues with each reference one-by-one and I try to correct all the points under each before we move on, as that's the only form that'll work for me long-term to avoid any mass deletions on the article that'll still satisfy copyright. There'll be so much back-and-forth on this I'm anticipating I'm almost wondering if you want to make a seperate section for it on my Talk page or the article Talk page so as to not clog up yours here. Would almost prefer my Talk Page so there's less interference there but it's your call as you'd be doing the majority of the heavy lifting in identifying issues you'd point me to to fix. To start with on quotes, especially as it regards Travis and the ambulance, there was a deliberate push for WWGB and several other editors to avoid direct quotes with quotation marks, even for sections that it was hard to replicate with synonyms so there just ended up being exact lines in some cases that weren't edited. Was that their way of heading in a direction to avoid copyright expecting someone to fix it later? I don't know. As for your example on "the brain and heart", there was a whole exchange earlier in this process from an edit either by WWGB or Dianna or someone else deliberately deleting any authority figure that didn't rise to the importance of naming - they'd make the same argument for Houston Methodist internal medicine physician Dr. Josh Septimus who gave that quote. There were many EMTs, etc. (at least 3 or 4 figures I think) who I had named on here whose names were deleted and replaced with generic titles. I just put "a local internal medicine physician" now which is his title - would that satisfy that part? Just went through a lot there and I'd go through the rest of what you raised but I wanted your response on everything I just mentioned first.Onan808 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have taken some time to reflect on things and I believe I could have been too worried. I was kinda worried that you were going to get into trouble over the article, so I believe I intervened too much and caused you a bit of trouble in response, so sorry about that. If WWGB and Dianna are saying that you are doing things correctly, then you are and I should leave things alone. Sorry if I have been a jerk to you with this. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onan808: (Separate comment because I failed to use the ping template properly in my above message.) Additionally, I apologize for any stress I have caused you this past two or so weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I guess. Truthfully, there are things that were discussed directly between WWGB and Dianaaa and I, but there were a lot of other things that weren't I didn't bother reaching out to them on as I tried to get a pattern of the formatting of what they were looking for that would still satisfy copyright based on the comments they both left on the article edit history. There were occasions where the two criticisms conflicted though which I never quite figured out. There's also been a lot of edits since Dianaaa's mass deletion of sections early in this process with no replacements (she didn't bother with punitive action on copyright towards me that you brought up though there was one broad warning early in the process during heavy editing chaos).

Both of them in addition to higher up editors will be visiting the article again en masse once the mass number of visitors exponentially increases again from a ruling in the investigation, upon which mass cuts will start up again with a massive debate I'll try to get into once the dust settles, just like before on this subject. For the rest of what was mentioned, most of it comes down to support from other sourcing most likely behind subscription blocks though the HC may support some of it. Any further questions on edits you wish to just make on your own regarding any statements behind subscription blocked refs, let me know. I appreciate your concern on retaliatory measures but I can accept any ramifications from those other editors on my own. -- Onan808 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

grammar and spelling

In regard to an edit request regarding Bob Saget's high school graduation class year, you typed source instead of sourced and addended instead of attended. I was having trouble figuring out what you had changed in the article. I am hoping you will make the corrections on [2], because from my understanding, I am not able to, unless I have your permission. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed my reply on the talk page. As for my changes, this is the edit I made. As you can see, I have removed the year that he graduated from the article. The line currently reads, "The family would then move back to Philadelphia prior to his senior year with Saget graduating from Abington Senior High School." Currently our sources are split between 1974 and 1975, so we would need a separate discussion to decide what to do. You have permission to start that discussion on the talk page, regardless of my support or not to it. The thing you cannot do currently is edit the article as it is indefinitely protected due to persistent vandalism. Only autoconfirmed users can edit the article and only registered users can become autoconfirmed users to my knowledge. I hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that you attempted to edit my comments and was reverted by another user. There is a policy that discourages editing other users comments because of spelling mistakes. I have fixed my comments up to this point and will try to not make further mistakes, but if I do make mistakes the best thing to do is ignore them. If a mistake makes my wording unclear, just reply to me with a question for clarification on that talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I see there was an editor on another IP address who edited your comments and then the comments were reverted, so I am not sure who the editor was or the location of the editor. I responded on [3]. I appreciate your answers and see there is currently no year listed as to when Bob Saget graduated high school, because of conflicting sources. I appreciate the information you provided! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Then I apologize for the misidentification and for assuming because of that. For the rest, no problem. Feel free to start a sub-discussion if you wish. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted! Understood, thanks again! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bob Saget

On 13 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Saget, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Bloom6132 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Novak Djokovic 2020 career timeline

Template:Novak Djokovic 2020 career timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

FAQ brackets in Elon Musk FAQ

Hi. The actual text of WP:NPOV has "representing" not "represent", and I believe the proper way to indicate removed letters from a quoted word is with empty brackets, i.e. "represent[]". QRep2020 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, hello. I am unaware of using brackets at the end of a quoted word to indicate a spelling change, I was under the impression that the entire word should be placed in brackets, but I will revert back because I didn't know the word was changed from the source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel "represent" is not a word that should ever be "smuggled" into a quotation even on account of a tense change, but maybe I am overthinking it? Perhaps MJL knows best in all their wisdom? QRep2020 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020: I would normally use brackets around the word to indicate a change in phrasing (ie. [represent]), but according to the article on brackets (permalink) represent[] works, too (just haven't seen it before). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, friend! QRep2020 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't get a notification about additional replies to this, but it seems that everything worked out in the end. Both of you have my thanks for your help in correcting my mistake and for explaining something I did not know. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Doly Gringy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Doly Gringy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Doly Gringy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

		The Detective Barnstar
		You did an amazing job locating all the references to finally get the Hurricane Ian death toll caught up and end a discussion about inconsistencies. Well done!!! Elijahandskip (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Thank you for the Barnstar. I hope that that is all correct to date, but I will admit that I could only find what the sheriff's office reported for Lee and Charlotte with the rest being the official totals from the medical examiners in each county. There might still be a county that has a sheriff's office reporting a higher toll. There was a source with a list of deaths in each county that had a higher toll for one of the counties that starts with a H, but it was a early source and it isn't currently reflected in later sources. (Sadly forgot which source and which county.) Still, this is as accurate as I can currently find. Sadly, I have yet to find a source for the direct/indirect deaths for the missing citation in the infobox, so that might end up removed. Hopefully I can figure out why the grouped citation is causing the spacing issue in the References section as it was already a struggle to get it to work and I would rather not need to replace it. (At least that only needed three sources unlike the seven on the talk page.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Elhusseini

Hello, Super Goku V,

The way draftifications are currently held is that they are done ONCE. If the page creator objects and moves the article from Draft space to main space, it should not be moved to Draft space a second time. If you find the article deficient, you should either work on improving the article, tag it for the problems it contains or use one of our deletion processes like CSD or AFD. So, please, look at the page history and if an article has been draftified once, don't do it a second time, no matter how tempting it might be. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I am sorry for the trouble. I thought I was following the rules at Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space and misunderstood Eagleash's talk page message to the user. (After seeing your message and rereading Eagleash's again, I now understand where I made the mistake.) I have made an adjustment to some setting and this should not occur again. Thank you for the explanation and for fixing my mistake. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for letting me know that my talk page's size was completely out of control. I really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3