User talk:Bugghost/Archive 1

Archive 1

testing testing

is this thing on Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

Hello, Bugghost. I have closed the discussion that you created. While I understand that there seems to be content issues involving another user, it isn't a good idea to create a discussion with the username of a person as the header. Additionally, as mentioned at DISPUTE, "Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages." As I mentioned in my edit summary, anyone can revert the closure, including yourself. However, it might be better to discuss the issue with the other user on their talk page or or ask an admin for advice: "However, administrators, or other experienced users, may be willing to informally offer an opinion if you ask them privately (for example, via user talk page)." Since you are a newer user I would recommend that you look at the Talk page guidelines for more understanding about what article talk pages are best for. --Sincerely, Super Goku V (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Hi Super, I appreciate the advice and feedback. I'll leave the topic closed as I don't think there is anything further that needs to be added and I think reopening would fuel further disputes. I'll look into contacting an admin when I get the chance, and will look at the guides you mentioned. Thanks again for the advice 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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

Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 restrictions

Please read and understand the notice at the top of the page. You may not edit within the areas it covers, you have nowhere near 500 edits. I realize that you think my actions have been "heavy-handed." Administrators hear that all the time, along with "too patient." In this case, I'm giving you the same benefit of doubt as the edit-warriors I blocked (who both at least had more than 500 edits - I checked). If you breach the editing restrictions again, you will be pageblocked from that talkpage and article. Please take this seriously. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion - I'm taking your feedback on board and will leave the contentious topics alone. The comment that used the phrase "heavy-handed" was largely just to show solidarity to the user because they "took a hit" while attempting to deal with (in my view) a consistently disruptive editor, while also receiving several personal attacks and antagonistic remarks from them. I understand your reasoning behind the pageblock and was not trying to relitigate it or continue any argument about the topic, and with this feedback I'll just leave the whole article and surrounding talk pages alone. As you point out I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing and this has been a learning experience, if a clumsy one. Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, just trying to keep everybody out of the way of problems. Administrators are used to having all parties be unhappy with outcomes at AN3, it goes with the territory. Since the Eurovision contest is such an odd candidate for sanctions, many editors are not familiar with editing restrictions or the more contentious parts of Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard

Hi Bugghost, thank you very much for your comments on the Dee Dee Blanchard talk page. Just to explain my rather short edit summary. Normally I would explain more, but with that edit Daniel Case was reintroducing problems that other editors have criticised since 2019. He has been told what's wrong with his edit, he knows what's wrong with his edit, and he refuses to accept it. I strongly believe that there exists no edit summary that would have avoided this response from him. I'm considering applying for a topic ban on him for that article to end this disruption. BoldGnome (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome I understand your frustrations, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. Squabbling about people editing their own comments isn't helping the article, or either of your stress levels. If you give him some leniency and not pick out minor things it'll make discussions easier for you two (and me to be honest), and if you ever do need to go to AN/I about the edits/interactions it will paint yourself in a better light. If you go to open an AN/I, I assume your case will be about repeated tone issues and ignoring feedback, not talk-page comment amendments. BugGhost🎤 07:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration clarification request

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate you taking the time to raise this. BugGhost🎤 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Bishonen. Now that someone has raised an objection, you may want to pause your typo correcting and make sure it has consensus before resuming. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler edit

Please why did my edit get reverted I know you gave an answer but I couldn't understand thanks. Just editors (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Just editors! I reverted your change because it seemed to have a couple of problems:

• It broke the link to AAA Mega Championship - links to other articles should have square brackets around them like this: [[AAA Mega Championship]] - your change removed the ]] portion, which broke the link and caused some incorrect formatting on the page
• A couple of spelling and grammatical errors ("wresstling", no full stop at the end, all lowercase, spacing issues)
• Seemed to be inaccurate - your edit said that he has won 17 championships, but in the Championships and Achievements section there's more than 20 championships listed (17 looks correct if you only include WWE, but they have won non-WWE events too, making the total higher)

I know you were intending to add useful information to the article so don't be too discouraged by this, we all get reverted every now and then. BugGhost🪲👻 13:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction clarification request has been archived

A clarification request you were involved in has been archived, you can view it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Minimum threads

I cannot see a logical reason for retaining old stale and no longer active discussions on a talk page. I don’t get the strange reasoning of ‘must not clear the talk page’. I cannot see a logical reason for such a position. If you can provide one I’ll be happy to entertain your position. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Picture - you are the one changing it, not me. The onus is on you to say why it's necessary to remove the contents of the talk page. The default value for the template is 5, recent Eurovision talk pages (Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2023, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2022, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019) all use 4. The talk page should keep recent discussions so that editors can see what other editors are discussing, and weigh in on them, because after 14 days the topic is hardly "stale", and users can still contribute in meaningful ways. The archiving bot is there to stop the talk page becoming overly bloated and hard to navigate - it is not there to just simply hide topics that are 2 weeks old. Can I ask why you recently want the content on the talk pages to be archived? BugGhost🪲👻 16:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You have just gone down the path of ‘it’s you, not me’ which is not helpful. Avoid that and you may get further. Behave with sugar not vinegar. Not everything is personal conflict. This is also hogwash as a statement ’The onus is on you to say why it's necessary to remove the contents of the talk page’ - archiving is not ‘remove the contents’ it is a way of ensuring pages don’t get stale and have topics which are clearly finished hanging around. The characterisation of archiving as ‘remove the contents’ treats the discussions on there are something akin to being sacred, which is clearly nonsense.

I also cannot see the logic of keeping discussions on a page as frequently happens, of discussions no one is participating in for months. That is just ridiculous. Also the default is there for some reason the creator decided but that’s in no way a precedence. As for ‘it is not there to just simply hide’ is an assumption of bad faith which needs to be stepped away from. Archiving is not ‘hiding’ and I am sorry you have such a low opinion of archiving, characterising it as ‘hiding’. Talk pages of all descriptions are not public walls of evidence, or shame, or pride or anything else. If someone sees a load of out of date, old, stale, conversations no one is contributing to what value does that have to anyone?

If you are that concerned over 14 days would you be happy with a longer archive time? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:PicturePerfect666, I just changed what you did on Talk:Post Office Limited: there is no good reason to start archiving after a week. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is what is the time frame? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Picture - I did not imply this was a personal conflict, nor do I think it is. I think it's just two people discussing the archive length of a talk page on Wikipedia. It's not something worth making personal remarks over.

Neither of us are in charge of the Eurovision talk page, and seeing as we disagree on this, I've set up a talk page discussion to gain a consensus on it. I've in the meantime set it to be the default value of 5. When a consensus has been reached, the value will be set to whatever the outcome is. In the meantime, please leave it as-is while any discussion is being had on it. BugGhost🪲👻 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for such a discussion on such a banal issue. I have asked if you would be happier with a longer time frame? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Lets have this discussion in on the Eurovision talk page rather than here, that way other people can hear your thoughts and opinions on this topic. I agree that the topic is banal and in an ideal world shouldn't warrant a discussion at all, but here we are on my talk page, discussing it anyway. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion on the talk page I can just link to this discussion here so people can read your opinions on the matter? BugGhost🪲👻 17:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is about as dry as paint and will attract no one but the most banal of contributors. This is all nonsense. Would you be happy with a longer timeframe. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with only attracting "the most banal of contributors", in fact they are my favourite kind of contributor. Please stop trying to discuss this here - I opened the EV24 talk section so that you would have a fair podium to say your opinion on archiving and it could be discussed openly. Again: please discuss it there, not here. BugGhost🪲👻 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you happy with a longer timeframe? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I have said multiple times - I'm not going to discuss it here. You clearly have a strong opinion on this matter, so say it on the talk page so everyone can read it, not just me. If you say anything further on my talk page about this, be aware that I will probably not reply to it. BugGhost🪲👻 19:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

For goodness sakes make a coherent proposal on what you want. I see nothing constructive in the discussion from you (or anyone else seemingly against 0 threads left). It’s very much just coming across as you don’t want what I am proposing. Nothing else. Actually make a proposal for how many threads you want left and how long you want the archive number of days to be, and why. Otherwise you are not entering the discussion in good faith or entering with any intention of concluding the issue. All you are actually doing by making no proposal is seemingly using the discussion to make a point that you don’t want changes by me which is an absurd carry on. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:TPO

Hey, Bug. Sorry for the trouble on this. While I don't get why they want the comments out of chronological order, they are allowed to object to it. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I am going to treat the revert as an objection in this case. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your view - I'm also going to not meddle with the ordering myself either considering the fact they moved it back. The point I was making was that PP was altering the discussion out of turn (by pushing Novem's down out of place, in order to get "the top spot" for themselves) - I was giving an objection myself. I won't push the ordering thing too much because despite it being annoying there's enough other things happening in that talk section already. Thanks for the heads up on this BugGhost🪲👻 10:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough and yeah. Kinda wishing that I had avoided checking the talk page during my mini-break as that led me to fixing the archiving issue that occurred, which significantly contributed to that discussion occurring. But it is what it is and it isn't your fault. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Haha yep I understand that feeling - I kind of wish I never went to the Eurovision page in the first place considering everything. I would have been happier oblivious. Oh well - apologies for the grief and for dragging you into this. BugGhost🪲👻 11:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No apologies needed. It was my choice to make the archiving edits and to participate in the discussion. Hopefully that will be the last problematic discussion on the Eurovision talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Serious discussion

Are you seriously just in opposition to anything I do because you have some how made up wild motives in your head about what I am doing? I find it concerning you are using Wikipedia in the way you are when you are clearly not making constructive proposals. You are not not providing reasoning. You are only providing opposition to what I do. It’s unhinged on your part. Why do you have such an obsession against me? and why are you vesting it with diatribes worse than sewage on what you have concluded my motives are? Seriously why? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Picture, I understand you think I'm coming after you, whatever you do - but I am not. I haven't just picked a random username out of a hat and decided to mess with them. I do not have an obsession with you. I opened the discussion and was deliberately hands-off because I know that me and you have a history of disagreeing - but you repeatedly posted on my usertalk page, and on the article's talk page, asking for my input, and then when I gave clarifications, you asked for me to rephrase them again and again.

Have you considered that you might have just been in the wrong here? Everyone on in that discussion page apart from you has said their preferred scenario would be at minthreadsleft=4 or 5. It's ok to be on the "losing side" sometimes, it happens to everyone, including me and you.

I'm not just saying this as a wikipedia cliche - I genuinely think you should read WP:STICK. The conversation is pretty much done, multiple people are chiming in and saying that it's lasted too long, and that it should end. You said before that it was banal. We don't need more discussion about it - and that's fine, discussions end.

My points about your assumed motive were based on your original edit summary, that said you deliberately changed the archive settings in order to quicken the archival of something you didn't want to see. You then said twice in your reasoning for archiving everything was because talk page shouldn't be "walls of evidence, or shame, or pride". I was trying to figure out what you meant by this, and the only thing I could think that you were referring to was the RFC's and related topics. This is how I got to that conclusion. If I am incorrect then I apologise, but that is the conclusion I drew from your comments - and to be honest I apologise for the way I said it, I was wound up about the whole thing. I won't repeat the assumptions again because they were just assumptions, and because it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Honestly 100% truthfully - I don't want to argue with you, I don't think either of us enjoy it, and I'm definitely not going out of my way to do it. I honestly do not mind that you have different opinions to me - everyone has different opinions, and that's how Wikipedia works, it would be useless if it was only written by a group of people who had one set opinion. I think where we butt heads is that I (and a few others) find it difficult to discuss changes with you, because you can make rational, boring conversations into ones that are tense and combative - for instance in our conversation earlier when you said Avoid that and you may get further. Behave with sugar not vinegar. - we're both adults - we don't need to talk to each other like that - we were having a straightforward, polite, boring conversation about archive settings. Not everyone is out to get you, and not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they dislike you - and if you accuse them of that, the usefulness of the conversation can grind to a halt.

This is an olive branch comment - I don't want to argue with you over everything. I think you have done helpful edits to other areas of wikipedia. I think the only reason why theres been so much friction is because when other people disagree with you you don't deal with it well. Its completely fine to disagree with people - but just let them have their opinions - you don't need to try to change their mind, or to accuse them of being out to get you. It's ok to lose an argument - our very first interaction was you telling me something and me backing down because you were correct, and that's fine - you were right, the source was bad and the info wasn't relevant. That time it was me, but sometimes it's you - it happens to everyone. If nobody on wikipedia was able to lose an argument then the whole website would blow up. BugGhost🪲👻 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Julie Inman Grant—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi - I think this might be a mix up here - I reverted the vandalism and I think you intended to do the same, but reverted my revert. Looks like it's all sorted now though! BugGhost🪲👻 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)