User Talk: Super Goku V

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archive box|
Year: 2012, 2013, 2014 ↗, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 ↗, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 ↗
}}

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 ↗ closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 ↗ has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.

AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.

Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA ↗ about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.

WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) ↗ and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) ↗ are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}}

Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment ↗ aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.

The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.

Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources ↗ page contains information that may help.

Within this topic area, the '''balanced editing restriction''' is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}}

:* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
:**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged ↗, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
:**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
:* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
:* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
:* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
{{cob}}

If a sockpuppet investigations clerk ↗ or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority ↗ to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse ↗ contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}'''

Gulf of Mexico

Articles suggesting that Mexico's Gulf Coastline is 1,743 miles all trace back to a flawed 'Scripps News' article from early January, 2025. In that article, the author mistakenly credits Mexico's entire east coastline to the Gulf when more than 250miles of the 1,723 is actually on the Caribean Sea (leaving Mexico with less than 1,500 miles of Gulf Coastline).

Mexico's Gulf coastline ends at the Cabo Catoche Lighthouse located approximately 21.604710, -87.103079) - https://web.archive.org/web/20161020064540/http://www.iho.int/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S-23_Ed3_1953_EN.pdf

"It [Mexico] has a 9,330 kilometer coastline. Out of this length, 2,805 kilometers [1,743mi] face the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. The remaining kilometers face the Gulf of California and Pacific Ocean." - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-longest-coastlines-in-north-america.html Sccarney (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Bit confused you posted this to by user talk instead of the talk page, but gotcha. That would explain why I could not find what they were all citing. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::As someone who rarely "participates",
::the protections on the talk page would let me reply.
::So I copied the 3 people already discussing. Sccarney (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Correction: would NOT let me reply Sccarney (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah gotcha. (This also reminds me that my reply at the talk page never got finished due to a browser crash, so I better get on that.)
::::In any case, I think you can submit a request to the page protections board: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ↗. They have a section where you can "[r]equest a specific edit to a protected page" which a protected talk page would count as, I believe. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::1) Google maps is not a mercator projection.
:::::(Even if it were, mercator distorsions are minmized in the tropics.)
:::::2) It all comes down to which source that you choose to grant more credibility:
:::::a) A 30+ year old organization that is referenced more than 100 million times per year by educators, students, et al, or
:::::b) A political blogger with a degree in media studies. Sccarney (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Very well regarding the distortion concern I had. As for the sources, I would pick a third option and say that neither seem to be credible enough. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Archive tampering

Look, if we've got a talk thread that was derailed and closed out, and no longer contains anything relevant to the original title, then we owe it to the community to properly reorganize and label that thread. Your tampering with the archives and undoing my attempts to organize it are undermining attempts to bring clarity and ease-of-use. How ironic, in the midst of a discussion of the very thing, that people continue to behave badly and disrupt collaborative operations. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:8DB6:9653:34F4:CB50 ↗ (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tampering with the archives? I am trying to fix problems with the malformed refactoring. Whoever cut the discussion in half made an error by doing so. I tried to fix it, but I initially failed to notice that there was a better way that complies with the talk page guidelines ↗. This second time around, I did figure it out and attempted to replace my revision. Didn't work immediately due to the edit conflict, but it is working now and hopefully we can both agree that the issue is resolved. I will note that your language has been an issue multiple times and hope that you will be more supportive to collaboration in the future along with assuming good faith ↗. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for cleaning up the Iran–Israel War ↗. I greatly appreciate you doing the hard work to make sure it was scrubbed of AI hallucinations. Remember (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:No problem, though technically the problem went away with the merge. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Tnx for taking the time to read my request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war#Request_2

I think i agree with your argument. Its hard to shut down our analitical mind and just report what is happening, despite it having little or no sense to one self.

I guess my issue is having no sources asking the same questions i have : If the IAEA report is the final trigger, did Israel actually launch such a complex attack in less than 24 hrs ?

It reads as the literal smallest possible drop that spilled the glass.

Welp, im learning i guess, lol.

Thanks a lot for your time. SpaceFold (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:No problem and thank you for the response, {{reply|SpaceFold|p=|prefix=}}. I will say that things like this can be complex and complicated, so more people is generally better to figuring things out than less and I will concede that we probably do need more sourcing regarding the IAEA situation than what we currently have.
:Regarding it being the final trigger, I think it should be noted that there are indications the initial strike has been planned for months. ↗ This is going into speculation territory, but I would not be surprised if there was a routine report ahead of time that mentioned the IAEA report on Iran would be released on June 12th, which Israel would be able to time the strike to just after its release. They could use the report being released as a technical justification if it did not favor Iran. And based on their intelligence gathering, they likely felt that the report would say that Iran was in violation. Hopefully sourcing comes out in the next few years that either confirms or directly refutes this. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly ↗

Hi, @Super Goku V! Last January 29 you tagged the above article as having content copied from within Wikipedia without being properly attributed. Thanks for calling attention to that lapse! I'm unsure where to find the article that needs to be credited. You referred to an exchange on the admin noticeboard ↗ and I'm not catching on to how this leads me to the source to credit. If you'd let me know, I'll happily credit the source article. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

:Uh. I understand the whole exchange at the noticeboard better now. That said, if some genie has wafted out of anything around you and revealed to you what the sources are, that'll give me some idea what to do... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I am not 100% sure. The user hasn't edited since that date, so we never got an answer.
::However, I just did some searching. The note {{tpq|q=y|The presidency rotates annually between the five geographic groups: African, Asia-Pacific, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, and Western European and other States}} matches text on President of the United Nations General Assembly ↗, so I have a good hunch that the text came from there and was converted into a note.
::The remaining text could not be matched. Maybe it came from Seventy-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly ↗ with adjustments? Comparing both, it is a 70% match by text and a perfect match by formatting.
::That is all I got. If there is a third article involved, then I am unsure what is might have been. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I forgot to address the infobox and the rest. Those were added by the user involved at the noticeboard ↗. Based on Seventy-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly also having those elements (Infobox, Template:United Nations General Assembly ↗, :Category:Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly ↗, and reference section), I would say that it is more likely to be a match there. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for input regarding AfD: Ali Tajdari

Dear Super Goku V,

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I’m kindly reaching out regarding the article Ali Tajdari ↗, which is currently listed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Tajdari ↗.

I noticed that you've made multiple constructive edits to that article in the past — including trimming questionable claims, removing unsourced awards, and generally helping bring it closer to Wikipedia standards. Your careful involvement and editing choices indicate that you’ve taken the time to review the content critically and responsibly.

Given your past engagement with the article and your experience as an established editor, I would really appreciate your thoughts in the AfD discussion. The article has existed for over three years and reflects notability in several areas — sports (notably MMA titles), national-level music releases, and television appearances. While there may still be room for improvement, your input could help clarify whether deletion is truly the best outcome, or whether further constructive editing remains a viable path.

Thank you for your time, and for your continued efforts to improve Wikipedia.

<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> Jijijef (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

:I think I only made one edit, but regardless I have responded there. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Transgender healthcare and people ↗ arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people ↗. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence ↗. '''Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop ↗. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction ↗. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Kmart ↗

Thank you for answering the edit request. You forget one thing though. You also need to remove in the second sentence the source of the store that closed. It's the second source (store #7793) that is right next to "US Virgin Islands" in the middle of the sentence. I know deleting a reference is not the ideal but we can't keep a source that doesn't support a claim. The alternative would be to keep on saying there are four stores left.

It probably would be better to remove all sources coming from Kmart's website even those for the stores that are still opened . It is well known that Kmart's website is a poor and unreliable resource for tallying stores that are still opened. But regardless if we go with this idea or not, this source ↗ should be removed from the second sentence. Thanks. 76.65.72.53 ↗ (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

:I had presumed that those were actual articles and not just links to the Kmart website. This is more frustrating of an article that I had realized. However, I will leave that for a potential talk page discussion rather than trying to do it myself. Feel free to bring it up there if you wish. (Also, done regarding the source.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

:Category:New Shepard passengers ↗ has been nominated for renaming

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:New Shepard passengers ↗ has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gulf of Mexico

Thank you very much for your edit request responses, however, instead of hating a request for a rename (or the sort) to Gulf of America, just delete it with a edit summary of something like "Moratorium in affect" or "See archives" or the like. Cheers, - '''FlightTime''' ('''open channel''') 20:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

:Gotcha, though I just did the hat because that had been done in the prior discussion with the same issue. I will likely delete in the future based on Fyunck(click)'s edit and your discussion here. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

::No problem, but do remember if there's already a response(s) from another editor(s) or further comments, then don't hat it or delete it, it then becomes an open discussion. Cheers, - '''FlightTime''' ('''open channel''') 21:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Okay, I might now be a bit confused based on what actions have been taken at the talk page in the last few weeks (though with a focus on recent actions) and this discussion. To make sure, if only a single comment is present and violates the moratorium, then delete. If comments by at least two users are present in a discussion that violates the moratorium, then don't delete or hat. (But {{template|atop}} and {{template|atopy}} would be fine?) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. Czarking0 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

:Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD! As you may have seen in my previous message, I am conducting a survey. Several editors have responded already and I do not want their hard work to go to waste. If you could take a few moments to make your voice hear please check this survey.
:Don't worry I won't send you another reminder.Czarking0 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
::Yep, I just have been feeling odd for some reason with regards to responding on your talk page. (I guess to me, a survey is usually private and this isn't.) I will try to respond before the end of the month. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

''Friday the 13th ↗''

Wanna review ''Friday the 13th ↗'' (1980)? I improved the article.GettingSwole (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)GettingSwole

:Hello, {{ping|GettingSwole|p=|prefix=}}. I apologize, but I am unsure what you specifically want me to review and I don't recall an interest in it. (Did I make a edit a long time ago to it or something?) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
::I put it up for a Good Article review GettingSwole (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Er, okay? (Still not sure why you requested my help, {{ping|GettingSwole|p=|prefix=}}.) I guess since I did have some time, then here is just my thoughts on your edits alone.
:::One of your edits removed what looks to be two sources from the end of the lede for some reason. Was there an issue with those sources? <code><nowiki>{{sfn|Kawin|2012|p=143}}{{sfn|Krone|2024|pages=90–91}}</nowiki></code> You added the text "He recalled:" for a quotation regarding someone named Nelson. It is an improvement, but I think it might be better with a comma in place of the colon. You made a change from Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian (Semitecolo) ↗ to Saint Sebastian ↗. While I agree that it is an improvement, it might be better to link to Saint Sebastian#Martyrdom ↗ as that is what the text was talking about. Two of the references you moved have the word "sponsored" in the URL. Are you sure that those are good sources? There were quite a few links removed, with a few of them being surprises. Were there that many duplicates? I believe that the article does fit :Category:Films about summer camps ↗. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I also started a talk page discussion about some of this to see if others are interested in discussing the edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list ↗ for ''Transgender healthcare and people'' ↗. The proposed decision ↗ has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page ↗ in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, House '''Blaster''' ↗ (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Administrator Elections - Voting Phase

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px">
<div style="display:flex; align-items:center;">
<div>
The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at '''Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase''' ↗.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote ↗ has a week to use the SecurePoll ↗ software to vote, which uses a secret ballot ↗. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements ↗ are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page ↗ (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page ↗. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall ↗ candidates must achieve 55.0% support ↗. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ↗ ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page ↗. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
</div>
<div>80px ↗</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;">
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list ↗.</div>
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Super Goku V. Thank you for your work on Hawaii wildfires ↗. Another editor, Aplucas0703, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Without any other article possibilities. It is a possible disambiguation page candidate in the future.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Aplucas0703<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

aaronneallucas (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Reporting username violations

You said here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Super_Goku_V-20260114103600-GoodDay-20260112190400 ↗ that you believe an unspecified account violates the username policy. Such violations should be reported at WP:UAA ↗. Leaving cryptic messages at AN is unhelpful. I have skimmed the discussion in question and don't see any obvious username violations. '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 14:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Toadspike}} Well, yes, but I didn't think it was cryptic at all. I guess I thought I was clearer about Castellum and his charity organization than what I was and I assumed the lack of response was because people disagreed. I will make it clearer as I did not intended for it to be unclear at all and will consider UAA. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:So, having looked at UAA, Castellum's last edit to en.Wiki was on December 26, 2025. For the first point, egregious name violation isn't defined, but I do have doubts that this counts by the standard meaning of egregious. The fifth point says, {{tpq|q=y|'''Discuss less-serious violations''' with the user on their talk page so that they can rename ↗ or abandon ↗ their account in good faith.}} So, would I be correct that this is more likely a user talk discussion than an administrator attention needed situation? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, I've left them a warning and replied at AN. '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 10:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:::No problem and thank you as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

BLP and people with the same name

On Joachim Roncin ↗, you added content about Joachim Roncin and the Olympics, but none of the sources confirmed that it's the same Joachim Roncin who created #jesuischarlie. I was able to find a source confirming that (and frwiki probably has more), but without that source it was a fairly serious BLP violation, since it might have been two different people who shared a name. There's an essay on that somewhere, which I haven't been able to find so I can link to it. lp0 on fire () 17:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

:I don't recall that a source has to mention prior works to be usable, so this is definitely interesting and new to me. I will note that I did confirm that it was the same individual before adding that. (In fact, I did use fr.wiki to point me in the right direction after running into it on a Google search.)
:If you wish, I will try to add the France 24 article Paris Olympics unveils 'joyful' art deco-style posters inspired by famous landmarks ↗ to the page somewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
::It's not so much that it has to mention previous works, but if the only thing indicating that it's the same person is the name then I believe it can be seen as OR to assume it's not just two people sharing a name. Of course if it's similar work it's probably fine, but imagine the extreme case: one article states "John Doe is an American banker", and another says "John Doe was convicted of rape"; we really need confirmation that it's the right person before adding it to the article, especially in a BLP. lp0 on fire () 22:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I will try to keep this in mind in the future. In any case, I did see after my earlier reply that you added a source to the last sentence to address this, so thank you for doing so. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
::::No worries! Thanks for contributing to the article :) lp0 on fire () 23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Rubaya mine collapse ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 6 February 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''2026 Rubaya mine collapse ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. '''Spencer'''T•C ↗ 07:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

re: your ID

the american sitcom papa's house was pretty bad, but the *one* scene in the whole series i found hilarious was a super goku spoof. slapsticky, and yet, somehow it rly worked.

check it out. ep 1-13. ~2026-83897-7 ↗ (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

A sturgeon for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Sturgeon of Policy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello hello!
I spotted you on the Tumbler Ridge article's talk page doing some mediation and naming policy. Found it admirable and thought you might like this fella, the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus).
Much love, rock on! ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

272727

5000 ~2026-12536-94 ↗ (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

What am i expect to do about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangier-T%C3%A9touan-Al_Hoceima

I assume that skitash will again Stonewall me. I dont want to edit war. A RFC is time consuming. He is not discussing with me. He solely focusses on "First Nations" despite the RFC includes indigenous people.

What am i supposed to do? Do an RFC every single time Skitash disagrees? Is this truly how wikipedia is supposed to work? Especially after they killed my Third opinion chance? Bananakingler (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bananakingler}} (Not sure if you subscribed to this thread, so I am going to ping you this time. Please let me know if you are or are not subscribed if you reply to this. If you don't, then I will assume that you did subscribe.)
:I am on a mini-break, but since you are asking for advice I will pause it briefly. From what I can tell, the issues is if Template:Infobox settlement ↗ has precedent over the RfC or not. Usually the RfC would have precedent, but it would be weird that a 2023 RfC said one thing and Infobox settlement wasn't updated to account for it. I haven't reviewed MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV ↗ to see how it applies, but Skitash probably does have a point. That said, you probably do have a point as well regarding the RfC, though I haven't reviewed it either. If there are any other RfC or policies, then I skimmed past them by accident.
:{{tpq|q=y|They killed my Third opinion chance.}} To be honest, I don't see the focus on Third Opinion. I don't think I have ever even used it before, but I might have tried it once or twice and just have forgotten. Remember that Third Opinion is just a way to prevent two editors from getting stuck without a consensus by getting a Third Opinion to break a tie. It isn't the only way to resolve a dispute. From my perspective your options are: To Negotiation ↗ with the other editors and see if there is a potential compromise; To go to the Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ and seeing if they can give the three of you advice as to if the RfC does or does not apply over the template, though note that the noticeboard ({{tpq|q=y|(...) focus[es] on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy}} and you should review their FAQ page ↗ before using; Following the Wikipedia:Requests for comment ↗ procedures, though you did note that you wanted to avoid this; and going before the Arbitration Committee ↗, which is an option, but one that I want you to avoid. (The only thing I can see ArbCom focusing on is if Morocco and articles related to it are a contentious topic| ↗. Your final option would be to drop the matter and consider coming back to it a few years from now, if ever.
:Let me know if you want more details regarding the options. I will try to check this over the weekend, but I don't expect to be fully back before the 2nd. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb ↗. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence ↗. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to <code>arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org</code>. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. '''Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop ↗. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction ↗. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you help me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berber_Spring&diff=prev&oldid=1345484498 ↗

skitash is using this revert against me but as you saw I self reverted? What am I supposed to do? Bananakingler (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence ↗. Took me a moment to find where they could be interacting with you still.
:For what you should do, just say the truth. My understanding is that you didn't understand WP:ARCHIVE ↗ and thought that you could delete the discussion on the talk page like has been done on the user talk pages through WP:OWNTALK ↗. Now you know the difference thanks to Sean.hoyland. My understanding is also that you didn't know about WP:TALKHEADPOV ↗. Now you know in part due to our talk earlier on your talk page.
:Honestly, I don't understand why they are focused on you so much when the case is larger than that, but it is what it is. Just be honest about things and explain what you did know and what you now know. They will be able to tell that you are a newer user and haven't learned all of the policies and guidelines. Plus in my opinion, you have had a rougher time with learning things because of the things that have led to this case being filed. Just try to hang in there and try to be wary of being dragged into too many rebuttals. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
:I just saw the talk page for the arbitration case. So, I will add, follow the advice of others if anything I said above contradicts what they have said. HouseBlaster in particular has multiple levels of experience more than I do and I would value their advice more than mine.
:Also, note that the workshop period lasts a week longer than the evidence submission period. If you think someone is wrong, there is a good chance it will be pointed out during the workshop period. As described at the purpose of the workshop ↗, {{tpq|There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.}} --Super Goku V (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you very much für all explanations. So after the evidence phase there will be another phase where I am allowed to give a statement right? In that case it is better for that phase right? Bananakingler (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry for the delay as I took a small break this weekend. There is a phase in addition to the evidence phase called the workshop phase that is active and additional week past the evidence phase. (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop ↗) You could use it to dispute the evidence or otherwise make a statement. But you should review all of the words in the lede section before making a response just so that you understand the purpose better as there will likely be proposed sanctions and rules to attempt to resolve the incident. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I am also going to point to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Open cases ↗ as it covers the phases in detail. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi Super Goku V, in the open ''Maghreb'' ↗ arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted ↗. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page ↗. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision ↗. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 (talk ↗) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Schedule

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF; padding: 0.5em 1em 0 1em;" role="article">
right|80px ↗

The May 2026 administrator elections ↗ are set to proceed.

We plan to use the following schedule:

* April 29–May 5: Candidate sign-up

* May 8–May 12: Discussion phase

* May 13–May 19: SecurePoll voting phase

If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections ↗.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list ↗.
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Election – Call for Candidates

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF; padding: 0.5em 1em 0 1em;" role="article">
right|80px ↗
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at '''Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates ↗'''.

Here is the schedule:

April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates

May 8–12: Discussion phase

May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

The requirements to run are identical to RFA ↗—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed ↗.

Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful ↗ and unsuccessful ↗ RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates ↗, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing ↗.

The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.

The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is '''no official difference''' between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.

Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors ↗.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page ↗. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list ↗.
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase

{{Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/MMS/Discussion phase}} -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF; padding: 0.5em 1em 0 1em;" role="article">
right|80px ↗
The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until {{Administrator elections status/data|May 2026|end}} at {{Administrator election time|end}} UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at '''Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase ↗'''.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

{{Administrator elections/Header/daterange|May 2026|begin|end}}: SecurePoll voting phase ('''we are here''')

Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote ↗ has a week to use the SecurePoll ↗ software to vote, which uses a secret ballot ↗. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements ↗ are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page ↗ (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page ↗. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall ↗ candidates must achieve 55.0% support ↗. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ↗ ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page ↗. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list ↗.
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Kyle Busch sourcing

Hey, just wanted to thank you for your work on the improving the racing record section on Kyle Busch ↗. I was the one that put them into invisible comments, and I'm unsure if that was the right decision, but regardless thank you for fixing that mess. For future reference, where are the PDFs with previous IMSA results available? I was unable to find them myself. Not much else to say but just wanted to say that I appreciate it and apologizes if I made a mess. '''Galactic''''''Velocity''''''08''' (''talk'') 19:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

:No problem, but I am a bit confused. I don't recall removing any invisible comments at all, so maybe someone else did? {{tpq|q=y|For future reference, where are the PDFs with previous IMSA results available?}} ...to be honest, I just brute forced the results by using Google. Example: <nowiki>https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aimsa.com+"kyle+busch"</nowiki> (Wiki hates the quotes, so I put that in nowiki tags.) Thinking on it, I should have been having the searches prioritize PDFs. The only other thing I could have done was search for the words Points and Standings, but other than that I don't feel like I have much. (I will say it was a pain to find those and that IMSA needs to stop moving the files around.) :P But that aside, I hope this helps and as far as I know, you didn't make a mess. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
::Gotcha, thank you again. Noting that brute force trick for the future as I wouldn't have thought of that. '''Galactic''''''Velocity''''''08''' (''talk'') 13:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

March for Australia ↗

Hi SGV, 
I have no major issue with the content in general; however, it does need to accurately reflect the sourcing there is, and also there is a better source at https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/anti-immigration-and-counter-protesters-to-rally-in-melbourne-s-cbd-20251019-p5n3k8.html (per the article talk discussion). TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{reply|TarnishedPath}} ? Okay, so I restored the text per your withdrawal at RSN. Then you reverted me, but now you are saying that the text is fine, but to add a source? Am I missing something? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::OK, I didn't withdraw. I refused to continue discussing around in circles with another editor who wouldn't recognise that WP:BETTERSOURCES ↗ is a thing. Also what you've just reverted back in fails WP:V ↗. The sourcing doesn't support the material. TarnishedPathtalk 10:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry, I see that 5225C has reverted, not you. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::(EC; Replying to both comments) If you say so, TP. (Though, you might want to clarify at RSN.) I will add the source to the edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::It's not just me saying so. @Peter Gulutzan, called out that what was edited into the article failed verification. They wrote {{tqq|However, Nightmares26's 5 May reverted addition has errors: "there" should be "their", and Sky News says that the clash near Spring Street was with a "smaller group of anti-mass migration demonstrators", not with the counter protesters or with the March for Australia rally"}}. No one disagreed with him.
::::I see no point further discussing at RS/N when there are editors who think that their numbers overcome Wikipedia policy and guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 10:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::None of the sourcing states that there was 800 counter-protestors, In fact police estimated that there was 1,000 protestors and counter-protestors in total. TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Actually the sourcing is all over the place. Which is partly why I objected to usage of Sky as a inferior source. 
:::::From The Age (community consensus of WP:GREL ↗) {{!tqq|The counter-protest was initially led by a procession of First Nations people who marched from Camp Sovereignty on Sunday morning}}.
:::::From Sky (community consensus that is less than WP:GREL) {{tqq|In response, counter demonstrators staged their own rallies, with activist group Campaign Against Racism and Fascism congregating at the State Library in Melbourne at 11am after marching from Camp Sovereignty}}. TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::(Replying to the last two indented sections) If you say you haven't withdrawn, then if you say so. There to their has been fixed as I missed it. The 800 counter-protestors is mentioned in one source, "The 800 strong group then began moving down Swanson Street at about 11:45am, before turning left onto Collins Street to meet the anti-mass migration demonstrators." Regarding the clash near Spring Street part, I have removed the street name since your source seems to confirm that there was a clash. TP, I wish you would just WP:REVONLY ↗ whichever parts were the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Okay. I am going to at least take a nap. If there is anything left unaddressed, please just address it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Why recheck my comment?

Can you explain what you meant? Thanks. Levivich (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Drats, I should have checked to see if you would reply. Sorry. You said {{tpq|I hold grudges}} which seems to be missing a word. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::No worries, and lol thanks for the heads up! I re-read it multiple times and ''still'' missed it (but then I'm tired today). Levivich (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)