User talk:TurboSuperA+/Archive1#Warning: Assume good faith

Replacing a png with a jpg file as you did at Younger Dryas is the main reason for the reversion. Graphs certainly are a matter of perception and labelling x axis in years before 1950 as done in both cases, i.e. BP, is problematical for a general audience.ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:I simply used an image I found on wikimedia. I just don't see why it needed to be altered when the original, unaltered graph on the USGS website makes perfect sense as is.

:Why am I always expected to prove a negative on wikipedia? Shouldn't it be up to the person who made the change from the source material to argue for that change? "It's less confusing" is a poor argument, because it should be countered by "no, it's actually more confusing" as I have done.

:Why didn't the editor who made the change say specifically what it is that is confusing about the graph from USGS.gov? People over there (professional science communicators) thought the graph was good as-is. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::I am not responsible for the original editor not explaining actions that are a matter of guidance you were unaware of, including in this case consistency within individual articles to minimise confusion, which I had not brought up specifically although did so indirectly. All 4 images on the page had the same y axis convention before your edit as to which side of the graph was the present, and your addition of the jpg version destroyed this common convention in nontechnical time graphs. Only the y axis of the :File:Dryas Stadials.png is as they should really be labelled some would argue.

::

::There is nothing wrong with being bold as you were, as I certainty over the years have learnt from my many editing mistakes on this and other wikis, sometimes because of wikipedia specific conventions I was ignorant of. I would not have been aware of the ambiguous y axis labelling issue of the 4 graphs without your intervention, so thanks. I can not prioritise changing the image to svg format or editing the png file to correct the issue as it is far more important that all time graphs on a page have general consistency, but this issue may be addressed in the future as there are few timescales to wikipedia improvements to articles. ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your response. If it is a matter of consistency, that is fine.

:::Is it OK to edit the x-axis label and make the numbers negatibve? The unit would be ka (kiloanni) which is the unit commonly used/recommended by NIST and ISO, according to this https://www.sedgeochem.uni-bremen.de/kiloyears.html

:::Then the numbers left of 0 would be negative, but everything else would stay the same. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Of course. The process may be a bit confusing given your journey of discovery to date. You could have to upload your version separately to Wikimedia in many cases rather than over the top as licence terms vary. A possible scenario is you upload your improved picture, link to it in article but then ask the editor owner of the picture to upload over the top, if someone like me does not come along and revert because they do not like your improvement. This has worked for me several times, but of course you run the risk of no reply or a straight "my version is better" view and complete reversion by the other editor. Whatever other editors if they do not like your edited picture can pick and chose in the individual wikipedia's. Many wikipedia readers do not understand SI units like ka but this is fine if defined somewhere in article. All these images could be converted to svg using InkScape say and if any one does this the png versions become redundant as svg wins as long as conversion is done well (which can be time consuming). Seasons greetings. ChaseKiwi (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the tips! I will have a crack at it (probably in the new year) as I do think clarity in communicating scientific theories and findings is important. Many may not understand SI units, but I think there is a case to be made for standardisation (just like there is for consistency in visual graphs on an article page), especially since both ISO and NIST recommend/use ka for units for thousands of years. Besides, I think it is only US and two other countries that don't use SI units as standard in everyday life, representing some 6,25% of the world's population.

:::::A simple footnote on the graph that says ka (kiloanni) = thousands of years, should suffice as an explanation and be immediately understandable to anyone with a passing familiarity with km or kg. The negative numbers would denote years in the past with 0 being the current/present year (present at the time of collection of data). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia bless it is head-quartered in California and its guideline is a minimal of SI and American Imperial unless technical. Few English speakers understand the term kiloanni so it is convention to use {t|abbr}} in line as {{abbr|ka|thousand years}} in wikitext. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::"Few English speakers understand the term kiloanni so it is convention to use {{t|abbr}} in line as ka in wikitext."

:::::::I am saying the x-axis should be "ka", right now it is kybp (thousands years before present). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Yes you are saying "ka". The axis of graph is labelled without abbreviation in capitals without using abbreviation BP which has a specific often misused meaning. That perhaps means that it is not years before 1950 by C14 dating. The other graphs on the page have X axis labels of "kilo years before present" with negative signs, "age(ka) BP" with no negative signs and "years ago" with no negative signs. All a bit of a mess so if you relabel one you perhaps should do all. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, that is the plan. I agree with you that the graphs should be consistent. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Control copyright icon.svg Your additions in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolas_Margue&diff=1265749981&oldid=1265734768 here], have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.)

To see the possible source of the copyrighted text, look in the edit summary which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. There should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation, set off using the blockquote template. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks. My mistake. I often forget about copyright. I will paraphrase and use limited quotations. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to read wp:bludgeon, also wp:dropthestick. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I disagree. When was the last time there was an RfC on the inclusion of more than Belarus into the infobox? DPRK.

:WP:NPOV. I am simply trying to provide another perspective other than the Anglo-American one, as per WP:CSB.

:Furthermore, I have provided by now some 15-20 WP:RS that say NATO is on the side of Ukraine against Russia and that NATO countries have provided unique aid that goes above and beyond "just providing weapons".

:This is a case of you and other editors pushing an agenda and refusing to consider any other perspective than the Anglo-American one.

:Remember how long it took for wikipedia to write that Russia took Bakhmut? You seem to be of the impression that the wikipedia infobox can change the outcome of the war, when it can't. I am arguing for WP:NPOV regardless of what it is. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::All irrelevant, you have had you say, there is no point it saying it over and over again. If people reject what you say, accept that do not try and bludgeon the process to get your way. Also not dropping it, when you are (in fact) not even allowed to comment in any RFC can be seen as WP:GAMING. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Alright, I'll drop it (for now).

:::"when you are (in fact) not even allowed to comment in any RFC"

:::I thought that was for the Israeli Invasion of Syria discussion. Now I'm not allowed to comment on the Ukraine war talk page, either? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::::You can comment, just not in RFC's. WP:RUSUKR, which has already been explained to you, so you are either feigning ignorance or didn't read it. Either way it means wp:cir is also an issue here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::"You can comment, just not in RFC's."

:::::And have I? Why are you telling me not to do something I haven't done? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna urge you to listen to what you're being told about dropping the stick, and not bludgeoning a conversation once people have rejected your input. You're doing this now in two separate contentious topic areas. You're not off to a good start. Listen more, argue less, especially when you're not familiar with procedure or policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Slatersteven is talking about the discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Why are you disrupting the discussion with something unrelated? Stop it. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I give up, what happened next is up to you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have not made a comment on the Aeticle's talk page since you asked me not to. What are you talking about? Why the threats? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:You and SWATJester seemed to have ganged up on me... and for what? Please stop harrassing me. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi TurboSuperA+! I noticed your recent edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1269168773] to the "Circumcision" article where you added percentages for the reduction in HPV and HIV. I reviewed the three references already provided (Chikutsa & Maharaj, Bell, and Merson & Inrig), but I wasn't able to locate the specific values listed. As a result, I removed the percentages for now. If the information is located within those sources, please update the references to specify the page number or location where the data can be found. If you can find a different source supporting these claims, especially one meeting the WP:MEDRS criteria for biomedical information, feel free to re-add the information with the appropriate sourcing. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:That's really weird, the percentages were there. Now the cited source doesn't mention HPV at all, either. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:I just didn't like the word "significantly" because the word doesn't say anything. Significant for some can be 80% and for some 20%. I have added "by up to 60%" and cited the source that supports that figure. The source does have a number of 51-60% for Uganda, so perhaps the 31-38% for HPV was in a localised study. In any case, the literature supports "for up to 60%" for HIV and since my issue was with the word "significantly", I am happy to leave it as it is now. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw your post on the war talk page, sadly I’m unable to edit there myself. Since you brought up the topic of adding the US to the infobox/the fact they’re already in there with specific troops numbers, I wanted to add something.

Seems odd that the US is added with 100 troops, while they are operating a longer range anti-air launcher(anti-ballistic missiles), against missiles Hamas doesn’t really have. The AA is specifically intended to counter Iran. If defence against Iran is counted as participant, should Iran not also be added to the infobox?

or perhaps it would make more sense to both add Iran and US as supporters/belligerents instead of specific numbers. Nickolashed (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:If the US is in Israel to counter Iran, then why are US troop numbers included in the Israel-Hamas War infobox?

:Is Iran a participant in the Israel-Hamas War? If so, then they should be added to the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::The troops currently included in the infobox are a counter to Iran, after the two large rocket barrages from Iran on Israel a few months ago.

::I guess I mean including them (the 100 troops) in the current infobox implies that Iranian attacks are also part of said war, so they should be included as well OR the 100 troop count should be removed.

::Maybe a more ambiguous “support” USA on the belligerent section of the infobox makes more sense than specific troop counts. I agree though, contentious topic and choices made there can seem to imply political bias. Nickolashed (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@TurboSuperA+ I've explained to this new user that they must not post here again about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Do not bludgeon the RFC you launched, allow people to have thier say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:This sort of behaviour can get you a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::Stop threatening me. I have made 4 comments on the RFC, while @Slatersteven has made 6. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, my count was wrong. 4 is right but I’d normally count their last two sequential edit as one. Bit I don’t see “ if x then y” as a threat but a prediction. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Reply to|Doug Weller}} If you have the time, I would strongly suggest taking a look at their recent conduct on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (as well as on the article itself where they edit war to the point of WP:3RR, violating WP:ONUS to insert narratives about Western special forces military present in Ukraine despite the flaws in their edits and sources being pointed out to them by multiple editors.) I'm also being accused of ″owning″ the article for daring to disagree with them and not letting them brute force their edits in as they please by reverting them, amongst other personal attacks. All of this in a WP:CT. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@TylerBurden Sorry, 9. Pm here, in bed reading. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::No problem, will ask other admins to intervene if necessary, which is seeming increasingly likely by every edit they make. Enjoy the reading session. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Do you want me to write an ANI on myself? Because I'd rather have an impartial administrator look it over, rather than one you seem to have built a personal relationship with. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'd rather @TylerBurden write an ANI. Or should I do it?

::::::Him pinging you after you have already left a warning on my page in hopes of circumventing the ANI process and having a quick action done against me is an underhanded tactic. I'd welcome public scrutiny of our edits and discussions. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::So instead of writing an ANI, you ping an Administrator who you think will take your side. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, it's the administrator that has already seen the way you conduct yourself, would've pinged any other administrator, I don't have ″personal relationships″ with anyone on Wikipedia, but great job keeping up your streak of vioalting WP:AGF. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was wrong in saying it and it was an emotional evaluation rather than a reasoned one. I apologise. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that your edits to date also span the following contentious topics:

• Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed (WP:CT/AP)
• All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles (WP:CT/BLP)
• Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed (WP:CT/EE)

— Newslinger talk 05:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1270989672]. I replied on the noticeboard, but you said this is something extraordinary... How well are you familiar with this subject? No, it was just a minor episode. These guys have accomplished this, this and a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:WP:SYNTH. Just because they did one thing, doesn't mean they did everything. There's no reason for you to post on my Talk page, since we are discussing this on FTN and the article talk page. You should also look into WP:OWNERSHIP, as you are exhibiting ownership behaviour:

:{{tq|"An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."}}

:"How well are you familiar with this subject?"

:{{tq|" At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article"}} TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I was surprised by your comment and just gave you a couple of well-known examples/links to place this alleged minor hacking incident to a proper perspective. If you do not want to talk, that's fine. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative website; suspiciousness of the motives of other users and a battleground attitude, as exemplified by you on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and in the section Jan 25 above, is inappropriate here. Your notion, nastily expressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B#Jan_25 above], that Tyler Burden pinged {{u|Doug Weller}} because TB had {{tq|"built a personal relationship with"}} DW {{tq|"in hopes of circumventing the ANI process"}} is not only generally farfetched (at a minimum, you should provide some evidence of this supposed personal relationship), but ignores the more likely scenario that TB pinged DW in particular because DW was already part of the conversation here. You display a very similar attitude in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive#Bludgeon this section, now in your archive], where you accuse a different regular user ({{u|Slatersteven}}) and a different admin ({{u|Swatjester}}) of {{tq|"ganging up"}} on you. Apparently any criticism of your editing, especially if an admin is involved, is an example of "ganging up". This is a warning: it's none of my business what you think of your opponents or of admins in general, but you need to be civil in what you say here: civility is policy. Any more baseless nonsense about other users being underhanded or the like, and I will block you. Oh, and if you're interested in what other admins think of your attitude, I would definitely encourage you to take these 'underhanded' users to ANI, as you propose above. It may be eye-opening. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC).

:OK thanks. I appreciate your input. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• You have, on multiple occasions, asked that your conduct be scrutinised at ANI. I went to bed last night with the full intention of obliging you thismorning but found this on your TP. Is it still your desire for an ANI case to be raised? Courtesy ping - {{U|Bishonen}}. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I said that in regards to the edits/discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page. I don't think my edits should have been reverted and I think I provided enough WP:RS to justify inclusion as well as shown similar examples from the article that have been included without much opposition. Every argument against my edits could apply to several other paragraphs. Only reason they weren't is because the article is written in a way to paint Ukraine in a positive light, violating WP:NPOV.
• :So if you think that my edits for Russian Invasion of Ukraine were disruptive and that I was WP:BLUDGEON-ing the process by arguing why the edits should remain in the article, then start an ANI. I don't think I can stop you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The RfC you have just opened could very easily be seen as WP:POINTy and disruptive. I suggest you withdraw it immediately. There are ways to deal with the close at the previous RfC but this is not one of them. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Note the previous RfC Template talk:Gaza war infobox#RfC: Should the US and UK be added as allies to Israel in the infobox? closed 7 February 2025. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:But I am not trying to be WP:POINTY. I have clearly outlined the problems of the previous RfC, namely that the question changed half-way through and that it had "US/UK" implying that including one would be enough to include the other or that their foreign policies are exactly the same, when this is not the case. I think the previous RfC wasn't good, and instead of reopening it, on account of the problems, I thought it'd be better to start a new one. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:I made my complaint on the previous RfC closer's page. They said they stand by it. I dropped the stick and didn't want to bludgeon them. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::While you may no be wishing to be POINTy, it nonetheless has that appearance. Approaching the closer is the first step - not the last. Did you read my comment at the closer's TP? Your RfC is just asking the same question as before. Why should there be a different outcome? It has not recognised the changed situation that I identified. Think hard on what I have said. If you withdraw it now, you can always reopen it in the future after giving it better thought. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"Your RfC is just asking the same question as before."

:::It is not, because the RfC's question was should US/UK be added as an ally in other theatres. The question is different in two ways: 1) it asked about US/UK, whereas my RfC asks only about the US; 2) it asked to include "US/UK" as allies in other theatres, whereas my RfC asks to include US into the Gaza war theatre. Those are two very significant differences.

:::"Why should there be a different outcome?"

:::The outcome can be different because the question is different. I also think the previous RfC was bad because the person who started it changed the question half-way through, making for a very confusing mess of replies.

:::"Approaching the closer is the first step - not the last."

:::I have reconsidered and decided I do not wish to reopen the previous RfC, because I think it was a bad one (as I have already explained). Reopening it would just add to the confusion. That's why I think opening a new one is the better course of action.

:::"It has not recognised the changed situation that I identified."

:::But it has. In my rationale for the RfC I mention the change of question. You said: "However, as allies of Hamas in other theatres has been removed (after discussion about the scope of the article) and would appear to have consensus, a key premise of this RfC has changed effectively rendering the question posed redundant."

:::I agree, the question posed was redundant as there are no "allies in other theatres" listed for Hamas. The RfC I started asks to include the US in the Gaza war theatre. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Your options are ill-conceived and not reasonably defined. You are attempting to add nuance to the infobox for which it is not suited - in much the same way that "supported by" is deprecated. The proposition (as before) violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. You do not appear to have learnt from the previous discussion. You are only moving the goal posts a fraction to the left but the question is so wide, it will still miss. If you don't get WP:POINTy then try WP:FORUMSHOP. At the very least, you should start with WP:RFCBEFORE starting a new one. You appear to me to be like a dog with a bone on this and that is the point of WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Your options are ill-conceived and not reasonably defined."

:I don't think so. Since the "supported by" was deprecated and the "allies in other theatres" was removed from the Hamas side then the only two ways a country can be added to the infobox are as an "ally" (Hamas has a "Palestinian allies" section, for example) or as a belligerent (adding the country under Israel without a qualifier). The two yes options cover both of those possibilities.

:"You are attempting to add nuance to the infobox for which it is not suited - in much the same way that "supported by" is deprecated. The proposition (as before) violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE."

:Not at all, I am simply giving two options to cover the two ways a country may be added to the infobox. Can you expand on how it is violated? Simply saying it is violated and that the options are ill-conceived doesn't do much for your case.

:"You do not appear to have learnt from the previous discussion."

:The RfC ended in a no consensus, what was there to learn?

:"You are only moving the goal posts a fraction to the left but the question is so wide, it will still miss."

:I don't understand what that metaphor means or is trying to say.

:"If you don't get WP:POINTy then try WP:FORUMSHOP."

:WP:FORUMSHOP doesn't apply here because I haven't gone around linking or talking about the RfC on any other page except the Gaza_war talk page, where it belongs.

:"At the very least, you should start with WP:RFCBEFORE starting a new one."

:Can you expand on that? I am not in dispute with another editor and since the previous RfC received over 200 replies, I think it goes beyond the purpose of the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

:"You appear to be like a dog with a bone on this"

:I think you can get your point across without resorting to insults.

:"that is the point of WP:DROPTHESTICK"

:WP:DROPTHESTICK doesn't apply here because the debate didn't reach a "natural end", the last RfC ended in a no consensus, and several editors had problems with the close (including you). I think the previous RfC was a bad one and I don't think anything can be gained by reopening it.

:Rather than link wikipedia policiies at me, why don't you engage with my rationale for starting the new RfC. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

{{U|Bishonen}}, given your previous warning to TurboSuperA+, I am very concerned that this RfC is disruptive and needs to be extinguished before it catches. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Ironic that the warning Bishonen gave was to assume good faith. Perhaps you should do the same and assume good faith on my part? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I want to do that, Cinderella157. Perhaps you'd better take it to ANI. ANI of course isn't for content disputes, but it seems to me that it's a reasonable question for ANI to ask whether or not an RFC is pointy and misbegotten (considering the recent earlier RFC). I could be wrong. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC).

:::{{U|Bishonen}}, given the GS applicable, I had hoped you might suspend the RfC - at least until the merits of proceeding with it weighed against disruption could be considered by more eyes. A major issue lies with the close of the previous RfC. While the result might be correct, the reasoning has not put the issue to rest as it should have. I have raised the matter at ANI. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wondered if you might clarify what you meant by your closing summary at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_9#Category:International_airports_by_country]:

:'"While the consensus of the RfC is to merge the categories in question, it should not be understood as a deprecation of a category."'

Its not clear to me if this means the categories will be merged or not? I see they are still active. And will the primary category "International Airports by Country" also be deleted per the nomination? Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Nobody mentioned deleting the main category (except one editor who said to keep it). The consensus seemed to be to merge, with at least one editor suggesting that the airports should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That is why I wrote it's not a deprecation, because there wasn't a consensus to delete the category outright.

:The RfC was strange because it was about the merger of a lot of categories with a delete thrown in, I think that's why people didn't discuss the deletion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Please review WP:BADNAC, specifically: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question." Contested XfDs should generally not be closed by non-administrators. Additionally, this discussion wasn't an RfC, it was a WP:CfD. The fact that you don't know the difference means you shouldn't be closing CfDs. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"The fact that you don't know the difference means you shouldn't be closing CfDs."

:::Now you're complaining about semantics... There was no consensus to delete the category or any page for that matter, therefore a NAC is possible. Point 3 says "If admin action is required" and in this case it isn't. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not semantics. We expect editors closing discussions to know the appropriate policies and guidelines. I shared the relevant portion of BADNAC with you (see the quoted part above). The fact that you have no CfD experience means you should not be closing CfDs. I didn't start doing non-admin closes at AfD until I was experienced there. I didn't close a CfD until I was an admin, and I still don't close very many because I lack experience there. It's fine that you want to close discussions, but you've now got several editors at your talk page complaining about three separate closes you did. Instead of arguing that you're right, you might want to consider that you're wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::The way I read nomination itself WAS to delete the main category. The flow on effect of which would be be that the national sub-categories would then need to be merged as the parent category would no longer exist. An outcome of merge here doesnt make much sense because it doesnt address the question of whether the category "International Airports by Country" will be deleted, per the nom. I appreciate it is a confusing nomination that is unnecessarily complicated, which is why I asked an admin to relist the discussion (which was originally an admin closure) and argued for the nomination itself to be reviewed and each of the sub-categories discussed individually. Dfadden (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"An outcome of merge here doesnt make much sense because it doesnt address the question of whether the category "International Airports by Country" will be deleted, per the nom."}}

:::There didn't seem to be a consensus to delete the category, despite there being a consensus to merge most of the categories mentioned.

:::{{tq|"argued for the nomination itself to be reviewed and each of the sub-categories discussed individually"}}

:::Yes, that is what I meant by "it should not be understood as a deprecation of a category", to allow for some categories to remain after they have been discussed on an individual basis.

:::Since you want an Admin to close the discussion, I have reverted my close and relisted the request at WP:CR. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I am indifferent as to who closes it, I was simply seeking to understand your rationale, which you have explained and I thank you for that. I would support you requesting an admin review this however, as the replies above by voorts suggest that others may have strong opinions. Thanks again for the reply! Dfadden (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't care who closes it either. I'm an uninvolved editor, I have no strong feelings about the result either way. :) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hi I was wondering if you could accept the edit request on the battle of the toretsk page. As well why did you make fun of my comment about Ukraine holding positions in the city there is clearly still fighting going on in the city. Stop watching Sebastain sas and go look at decent sources. 2607:FEA8:C3C0:30C0:1E96:CFBB:5148:32C9 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey mate, I'm not an expert myself, but you seem to have messed up both of your recent CfD closures. I fixed them for you. Be careful and looking forward to working with you in the future, it's lio! | talk | work 14:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:What did I mess up? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::You put the "archive" templates which I believe are for RfCs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Either way they're the wrong templates. Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 14:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I think both the {{archive}} and {{closed rfc}} templates can be used. If the discussion doesn't have an {{rfc}} tag then I use the archive template, if it does or it's called an "RFC" then I use the closed rfc template.

:::I don't know all the rules regarding the templates but that way seems logical to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, I think the bot archives them the same in both cases. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I dunno, see WP:CFDAI. Guess it's best to keep things standardized. Not my call though. Have a great day, it's lio! | talk | work 14:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh right, I see now. Thanks! I will do that from now on. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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

I know you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL in Battle of Toretsk. Do you think it's alright to add it now? The question's been raised twice more. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 15:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:When I made that comment, WP:RS were not saying Russia has captured Toretsk (or that they claimed so), in fact, they were saying Ukraine is contesting the town. I just looked at the news and it seems that today many WP:RS (Reuters, APnews stories syndicated to Yahoo!, MSN, Hindustan Times, and so on) are relating that Russia has claimed taking Toretsk and that Ukraine has not commented. I changed the infobox to reflect the new information.

:Thanks for bringing it to my attention. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::No problem! (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm dissatisfied, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name] Looks like you didn't overview all of the comments, as there were also examples of some other cities where "formerly" is being readily used. The sources presented further attest the notion. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:True, but like with WP:RS I didn't want the matter to become dependent on numerical advantage, because then the question is decided by those who have the best web search skills. I thought it was enough to show that there is a precedent. I can amend my closing statement to reflect that, if you wish.

:In these kinds of debates, the bar to show that a name/term is still in use is quite low, as the use doesn't have to be more frequent or as frequent as the formal name. The formerly proponents have a tougher job if they want to show that a name is no longer used (how to prove a negative?) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{green|The formerly proponents have a tougher job}}, how? "formerly" was already long standing there before it was recently contested [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prayagraj&diff=prev&oldid=1272575305] claiming a non-existent "per talk" consensus. So by default the WP:ONUS was on the proponents of "synonyms" not on "formerly" side. Even so, the latter presented more academic & media sources. Therefore I'm displeased by your closure. You can overturn/revert your closure if you think this was done in haste or you overlooked the history of the proposal. – Garuda ^Talk! 10:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"the latter presented more academic & media sources."

:::The RfC wasn't a move or rename discussion, having more sources isn't relevant when talking about whether the name "Allahabad" is still in use.

:::To that end, editors agreed that there are WP:RS that still use it and showed there's Wikipedia precedent for the change.

:::One discussion that was missing from the RfC (and therefore played no part in my close) is English Wikipedia's role when it comes to changes in foreign language and naming conventions. Should English Wikipedia follow English language WP:RS only and is the region that WP:RS comes from important?

:::Another missing discussion was whether a name being mentioned in an article as "formerly" is enough to say that the name is in use? WP:RS may use "formerly" not as a descriptor of the name's status but following official name status.

:::But a closer is not a judge (if I were I'd judge the discussion inadequate) and the decision has to be made based on arguments in the RfC.

:::Since this is about language, one should be aware that words and their meaning are decided by the users of the language, and it is not something prescribed "top-down". From the RfC discussion it became clear that "Allahabad" is still in use.

:::If you think the RfC should be re-opened and re-closed, you can start a topic on WP:ANI. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::"The RfC wasn't a move or rename discussion. Having more sources isn't relevant when determining whether the name 'Allahabad' is still in use." Pardon me? Then on what basis should the argument be made? Media outlets rarely use any synonym adjunct, as shown in the RfC, and I still haven't received your response to the ONUS part. The burden of proof was on the other side, but you seem to outrightly want the 'formerly' side to bear it. I'm sorry but I have to say that this closure was poorly executed. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::"you seem to outrightly want the 'formerly' side to bear it."

:::::No, I simply said that it is hard to prove that a name is no longer in use. How do you prove a negative? How do you show that something is not in use?

:::::Because that is what it boils down to: is "Allahabad" still in use to justify an "also known as" (like Mumbai) or has it passed completely from use so that it can be "formerly" (like Constantinople is for Istanbul). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::We prove a negative by presenting putative academic sources/outlets. If the other side has them too, even in a lesser amount, if not the same, then you should have closed it as no consensus. In this instance, you can see that the proponents of 'synonyms' haven't established why using the term 'formerly' is unjustified when sources tend to frequently use this notion. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@TurboSuperA+ Please overturn/undo your closure in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prayagraj#Allahabad_should_be_a_synonym_not_a_former_name this] and other RfCs. If you step back from your closures then you might not face a topic ban. Take it as a friendly advice. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I reverted my close. I hope that is the end of that. Good luck and happy editing! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for taking the time to close the discussion on VP about AI images in BLP/medical articles. It looks like you have forgotten to sign the closing message - it's standard practice and allows readers know when something closed and who it was closed by. Do you mind adding your signature and timestamp to it? BugGhost 🦗👻 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know. I'm so used to wikipedia signing my comments for me, that I forget to add them myself when necessary. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::No worries, happens to everyone :) Thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 15:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for letting me know! I went back and added the signature where it was missing. I need to be more careful in the future, because sometimes the signature is added automatically and sometimes it isn't. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Was this an RfC? There was very low participation in this discussion for what is usually a heated topic here. I don't think a regular discussion can be closed to establish such a broad consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I see that it was now. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Additionally, your close didn't really explain what the arguments were on both sides, which I would expect from a closure on such a major issue. Thank you for taking a crack at closing, but I'd ask that you reopen the discussion and let someone else close it. If you're interested in closing discussions, I recommend starting in less controversial areas and discussions with narrower scope (e.g., an RfC about what to include in an article lead). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I normally write the arguments out, but in this case the consensus was quite clear. Some people objected to a ban on images that were created with AI-assisted software, and the closing statement reflects that. Others voted on and discussed a site-wide ban on AI images, but that is beyond the scope of the RfC (and the closing statement reflects that).

:::If you had volounteered yourself to close the RfC, I'd self-revert my close and let you do it, but I don't want to just reopen it in hopes of someone coming along and doing it.

:::Which arguments do you think I have missed and why are they important? To me, it seems quite a few editors would like to discuss a blanket ban on AI-images site-wide (the closing statement reflects this too), and closing this RfC is the first step towards that. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The issue is that I don't know what arguments you missed or didn't because you didn't summarize them and evaluate which ones had consensus, as a closer is supposed to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::"The issue is that I don't know what arguments you missed or didn't because you didn't summarize them"

:::::That makes no sense. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because you didn't explain what the arguments were (above you stated positions, not arguments), I can't possibly know how you evaluated the arguments. I'm not a mind reader. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Anyways, if you're not going to overturn your close, that's fine, but I'm probably going to bring a closure review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you had mentioned one or two arguments that are important to mention and why, I would have reverted it.

:::::::The closing guidelines state that if consensus is clear, a formal close is not necessary. What's the point of writing out the arguments when it is unlikely the consensus will be overturned and in fact looks like it might turn into a site-wide ban? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::(Didn't see this thread earlier, so pasting my new section below):
Hi, thanks for your close, though I am rather perplexed by a few things. Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general, rather than just in medical and BLP articles (the latter of which was already addressed and closed in the sub-RfC earlier)? AFAICT there were 34 editors who weighed in on specifically the total ban, of which a supermajority of 23 were clear supports. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Voorts, are you going to bring this to close review? I would support that if nothing comes of this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm going to be real with y'all -- given the number of controversial closes in such a short time period, and the stated intention from TurboSuperA+ not to reverse their closes and a seeming lack of awareness that they're causing a problem, I'd suspect that the appropriate venue is WP:AN for discussing whether a TBAN from conducting closures is appropriate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think this can be brought to close review first. I can do that this evening. My hope is that Turbo will take any feedback there into account and avoid controversial closes short of a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Nevermind. I just saw the thread below on the Nazi salute RfC. Turbo's recent closes should go to AN/I. I can do that tonight as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Weighing in in that discussion as the person who started the original thread, I do agree that the close is puzzling. While my original proposal did talk about BLPs and medical articles (having things like WP:MEDRS in mind), relatively few comments actually discussed medical articles as a separate issue from blanket use of AI images. At least one of them stated that medical articles illustrations weren't all of the "anatomical diagram" kind where inaccuracies could be critical, but could be simpler concepts like molecular diagrams that an AI could reproduce more safely.{{pb}}While I don't necessarily think the close should be overturned, it could be good to see a more in-depth evaluation of the arguments to explain how you found a consensus for a ban from both BLPs and medical articles, but not for a blanket ban. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have reverted my close and the discussion has been closed by an admin. I think that concludes this matter. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ Hello! Thanks for giving your opinion in the RfC on the Gaza bombardment. We will soon reach a point in which we will seek to find consensus. If you have time it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly where you wound up, most especially on the topic of if this comparison should be in the lead, or if it should simply remain unchanged (Option 1). When I read the present edit, I am not entirely sure. Or of course just leave it as is. In any case, thanks for joining the conversation. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I thought I did make my position clear. I am against the inclusion of the WP:OR calculation of the death toll, because I think it is an arbitrary comparison. Why compare it to bombings of London, Dresden and Hamburg and not Pyongyang, Baghdad and Belgrade for example? I like VR's suggestion in the thread, that if we're going to add a comparison it should compare the amount of explosives dropped rather than the death toll.

:I am against option 2 as formulated, but would support option 2 if it were reformulated to include amount of explosives in addition to/instead of the death toll. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::@TurboSuperA+ Good morning. I'm thankful I asked, because you now make me think option 2 is unclear. The point of option 2 is that this metric (casualties) would be ADDED to the tonnage and destruction metrics, so that the comparison is complete. I tried to use the word "addition" in the title, but I suppose the option should have been more clear. As you might read in my own comment, it is the cherry-picked nature of the comparisons (on many levels) that drives my interest. Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could change the info box to stop say ukraine admits loss of the city. For one every ukraine source say they position in the city and have even done a counterattack. Finally why do you guys keep getting your info on this from Sebastian sas and not better sorceress? Chasiv 25 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:1) I am not the only EC editor that can make the change.

:2) I don't know who "Sebastian sas" is.

:3) We do go by "better sources". I changed the status of the battle because WP:RS reported on the Russian claim and Ukraine did not deny it at the time.

:4) After I had said I won't change the status again, you accused me of pushing Russian propaganda and listening to "sebastain sas".

:5) According to WP:RS, Russia does control most of Toretsk and Ukraine is fighting on the outskirts.

:{{tq|"every ukraine source say they position in the city"}}

:Ukrainian sources aren't very reliable when it comes to battles, because they are both an involved party in the war and the Ukrainian media is under strict government control, meaning they are not an independent source of information. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. No one should proxy for an editor who can't edit an article themselves. "editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages." Doug Weller talk 12:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::The same can be used for russia as they are a dictatorship also I am not denying Russia controlls most of the city I am denying the where it says Ukraine admits the loss of urban area as no Ukraine source has said. Finally you might not watch Sebastian sas but still probably watch like history legends or weeb union for info instead of more credible sources like denys davydov. Chasiv 25 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing your close[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_salute&oldid=1277917724], I'm curious how your looked at the survey of comments and got no consensus when the survey is is around 3 to 1 against inclusion. For you to close this as no consensus you need to dismiss a lot of votes opposed to inclusion on some basis. You haven't done that, so I'm curious if you just misworded the close, because it seems like a pretty clear consensus to not include. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Because closing an RFC is not about counting votes, WP:NHC, it is about arguments, WP:!VOTE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::While consensus is not determined by a simple vote count, proper weight should be given to the strength of arguments per WP:CONSENSUS. Could the closer clarify how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? Nemov (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I gave an overview of the arguments, did I miss any? A "no consensus" in this case means no inclusion. If you're afraid that it might be brought up again in the future, you should know that no RFC is the final say on any issue. Even if it were a "consensus not to include" the issue can still be discussed and reconsidered later. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I would like for you to answer my question. You haven't clarified how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? I don't really care about this topic, the issue is more procedural. It's a poor close as currently worded. Nemov (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The arguments were assessed by their strengths in light of Wikipedia policy. The "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes. For example, WP:RECENTISM is not actual Wikipedia policy, but it was given its due consideration since so many people mentioned it.

:::::Unless you can tell me what arguments I missed, I am afraid we will keep going in circles. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your answer here doesn't make sense and I'm not sure you should be closing RFCs if the best answer you can come up with is {{tq|the "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes.}} Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy and based on your reasoning here it doesn't seem you like even understand it clearly. You still haven't properly addressed why the majority opinion was dismissed. We're not going in circles, you're not making a logical argument for your close. Nemov (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|"Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy"}}

:::::::Did I say it does?

:::::::{{tq|"you're not making a logical argument for your close."}}

:::::::And you're not making a logical argument why it is lacking. Your only complaint is that I didn't count the votes. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I do agree with Nemov that the closure was not ideal: WP:RECENTISM, while not a policy itself, is an explanatory essay on policies and should have been given due weight as an argument (even if I don't necessarily agree with the argument itself in this case).{{pb}}Your statement of {{tq|While it does seem pertinent in this case, I don't think it can be used to categorically deny inclusion of this information.}} was clearly adding your own personal opinion rather than evaluating whether the argument was in line with P&G, and would come closer to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But the vote was not on removal of something, does a "consensus for no inclusion" make a material difference here? A "no consensus" is for the status quo, i.e. no inclusion.

::::::::Regarding SUPERVOTE, it says {{tq|"Supervote is a term used on Wikipedia, often in a deletion review or move review"}}. I don't see how it is useful in this case. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There is no material difference regarding the content itself – both "no consensus" and "consensus against inclusion" mean that the content wouldn't be added – but the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future, which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns.{{pb}}Supervotes are more often a concern in deletion or move reviews, as deletions/moves are the most common kind of closures and have formal channels dedicated to reviewing them, but the matter also applies to other type of closure reviews. While WP:NACPIT is also an essay, it does mention supervotes as a pitfall to avoid in closing discussions in general. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|"the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future,"}}

::::::::::I don't see how.

::::::::::{{tq|"which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns."}}

::::::::::Recentism doesn't mean you can't add recent information, it says to be careful when creating articles on something that has recently happened because WP:RS may discuss the topic differently than historians or someone looking back at the event. It isn't a blanket ban on adding information about recent events to articles.

::::::::::I don't think I am going to revert my close in this case, because reopening/reclosing it isn't going to change the outcome. In my closing statement I mentioned the recentism argument, so it's not like whomever reads it won't know about it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Reviewing your TALK it appears you're closing a few RFCs that have puzzling logic. I strongly encourage you to refrain from closing more RFCs until you have a better understanding of policy. Your questions about “why does it matter” indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of why properly closing an RFC is important. I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time, but your feedback here does not inspire confidence that you are open to learning. Please don't let this escalate to a behavioral problem that has to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your close, though I am rather perplexed by a few things. Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general, rather than just in medical and BLP articles (the latter of which was already addressed and closed in the sub-RfC earlier)? AFAICT there were 34 editors who weighed in on specifically the total ban, of which a supermajority of 23 were clear supports.

Best, JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|"Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general"}}

:But that is beyond the scope of the RfC. While I agree with you that a lot of people wanted a general ban, I am unsure if that RfC's discussion can do it. I also wonder about WP:CONLEVEL, shouldn't such a ban involve and get input from editors in other Wikiprojects and sections of Wikipedia? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::The scope of an RfC can change if enough participants address that scope. In this case, the original RfC opened on Dec 30, and then by Dec 31 the narrower RfC on BLPs was opened, after which the comments in the original RfC largely switched to addressing the broader ban. I think if 34+ editors decided to weigh in on that topic, that's a large enough consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Anyway, as more personal advice, I will say that I was extremely surprised an account that was only three months old was closing anything—even for easy keep closures at AfD, we typically expect closers to have already participated in hundreds of AfDs. For larger RfCs, especially those in central locations like VP and in contentious topics, the norm is for an admin or an "admin-without-the-tools" (extremely experienced editor involved in many major discussions) to close. I know this is not super obvious to new editors, so I don't doubt you're acting in good faith, but I think the best course of action here would be to revert your contested closes and let someone more experienced assess the consensus, rather than going through the headache of close reviews and potential sanctions as suggested above by @Voorts et al. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I reverted my close and the discussion was re-closed by an admin. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TurboSuperA+ closes. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have also started a closure review for the VPP discussion, here voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you change the info box where it says Russia captures most of the city as Ukraine holds the southern part of the town as well as parts in central and northern Chasiv Yar. Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:Which is more of the City than Russia controlls Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Please leave me alone. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the whole ANI thing that has vaguely stemmed from my post on your talk page. I think its fair that people have questioned your closes, but I don't think the thread at ANI is a proportionate reaction to it. I hope this horrible part of wikipedia doesn't stop you from continuing from being an editor here. If I were you, I'd just mute the notifications there and continue editing as normal and not respond further. I hope disproportionate sanctions do not come from this, and again sorry that you've been put through this as a newish editor. A similar thing happened to me a couple of months after I joined and I know first hand that it sucks - I hope you'll come out the other side relatively unscathed and keep editing. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from closing discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think the consensus was clear cut, as I showed why four of the participants didn't vote in good faith.

:I also complied with @Voorts request from the OP: both reverted the close in question and said I wasn't going to close any more discussions.

:My good faith efforts and admitting I was wrong was not recognised and I wasn't even given the benefit of having all my comments read.

:I ask kindly that you read my comments in the ANI thread and re-evaluate the close. I have done everything that was asked of me, I endured insults and false accusations, yet I wasn't given the courtesy of having my comments considered. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Your comments were read and there is nothing to re-evaulate; the consensus was very clear. And if you aren't going to close any more discussions, then there's no need to worry about the tban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not worried about the TBAN, my concerns are with the way the ANI was carried out and evaluated. At the very least you could have written that despite all my good faith efforts to rectify the situation, admitting my mistakes and complying with the OP of the ANI, I was still given a TBAN.

:::You also seem to have missed that 5 of the votes came from editors from the same topic area, 3 of whom participated in one of the RfCs. That is at least 5 questionable votes, and signs of potential brigading, so I don't know if you can claim "consensus" without looking deeper into those editors.

:::I think it is important to mention those things. You can keep the TBAN, but I'd like you to amend the closing statement to reflect the discussion, rather than relying on a simple WP:NHC to judge consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::"Editors who are familiar with the subject opine on it" is not evidence of a cabal. There is no cabal, and continuing to imply there somehow is one reflects poorly on you. Your {{tqq|good faith efforts to rectify the situation}} are a large part of why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned. You're in a hole right now. I'd strongly suggest you stop digging by dropping the stick (or shovel, as it were), and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being in a "cabal". Tag-teaming and coordination are frowned upon on wikipedia, WP:TAGTEAM.

:::::{{tq|"why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned."}}

:::::Site banned for what? And if that is the case, why didn't you write it in the closing statement? In fact, you gave a temporary TBAN, but then Voorts convinced you to change it to an indefinite one. So I am not convinced by your statement and don't appreciate the veiled threat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Voorts {{tqq|convinced}} me of nothing. They pointed out, rightly, that I had - in the utter mess that thread became, largely because of your constant lengthy replies to nearly everything - misread that part of the consensus. And there was no {{tqq|veiled threat}}, it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban, and your efforts mitigated that for others - the fact you chose to interpret that as a threat and are {{tqq|not convinced by your statement}} is indicitive of the fact, apparent throughout that thread and continuing here, that you have a battleground mentality which is not how Wikipedia works. The fact you still don't seem to understand the situation after it has been explained to you multiple times and are still beating the dead horse is only proving the fact that the tban is absolutely correct.

::::::A wise person, upon seeing that everybody else holds the opposite viewpoint to themselves on what they have done, considers that maybe it's them, not everybody else, who is in the wrong. Drop the stick, stop digging yourself deeper in the hole, and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::While your links to Wikipedia policies are certainly impressive, merely mentioning them does not prove that I am in violation of them.

:::::::{{tq|"it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban,"}}

:::::::Yes, and Voorts replied that that is probably inappropriate saying that my edits in main space could be fine since they haven't looked. This leads me to believe that you may not have read the thread in full. Furthermore, my actions do not justify a site ban or threats of it, I kindly ask you to drop that line of argumentation.

:::::::You also participated in the discussion of the ANI before closing it, which makes me wonder how "uninvolved" you are. This point is further driven home by your hostile attitude on display right here on my Talk page. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I made one reply to answer one concern of yours. I did in fact read the thread in full. As I have this thread where you refuse to listen, maintain a combatitve attitude, and continue to assume bad faith; any {{tqq|hostile attitude on display right here}} is 100% a result of your actions on this page and your actions alone. I came into this neutral. I'm now fairly certain that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. Good day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Are you threatening me with a block? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Turbo: Wikipedia is a collaborative project built on consensus. The consensus is that you are not equipped to close discussions. You are allowed to disagree with that consensus, but continuing to argue about it and casting aspersions on the editors who participated in the discussion is disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think the consensus is as clear-cut as you present it. That's my personal observation (supported by diffs) I have not accused anyone of violating a policy.

::Here's another observation: You wrote in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1279192713#TurboSuperA+_closes| OP of the ANI]: {{tq|"I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it."}}

::Two days later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1278395223| I said]: {{tq|"TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again."}}

::Then the next day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1278656830| I wrote]: {{tq|"As I said, I'm not going to be doing any more closes,"}}

::Then the day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1278825780| I wrote]: {{tq|"I have agreed not to close any more discussions"}} and left a message on your talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1278825780| saying]: {{tq|"I have agreed not to close any more discussions, so that is a self-imposed TBAN from closing, as you have asked for in the ANI and you can hold me to that."}}

::Yet despite showing willingness to listen to the community, despite agreeing with you, you still went out of your way to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&diff=prev&oldid=1279190148| petition] that I be indefinitely banned, when the closer originally gave a time-limited TBAN.

::I think you can stop beating the dead horse now. You got what you wanted and I have moved on and resumed my efforts of improving Wikipedia. All the best and happy editing! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm just letting you know that the "addendum" you wrote is not supported by consensus. Also, it will add unnecessary bureaucratic work over non-controversial closes, it is going to be a waste of editor's time that can be better used elsewhere.

:But you do you, champ! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you acting like I am harassing you all I did was ask you to was edit 2 Wikipedia articles. Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false as you know he spreads Russian propaganda and just claim not to know him. You obviously know him and probably watch his vedios for factual information. Chasiv 25 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|"Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false"}}

:{{tq|"You obviously know him"}}

:Now you're telling me what I know...

:You're wasting time, time you could be spending making good faith edits to Wikipeda to reach extended-confirmed status and then edit the two articles in question yourself. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As the war has been paused for 30 days according to a cease fire, that America accepted, the war will resume on April 10th, after the temporary cease fire that lasts for 30 days ends. Djdjfjfjfnfn012 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|"pending Moscow's acceptance"}}https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/11/ukraine-agrees-to-us-proposed-30-days-ceasefire-in-war-with-russia

:WP:CRYSTALBALL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. link Special:PermanentLink/1280093358#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It'd be best to move (cut and paste) the whole Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#c-TurboSuperA+-20250311081600-Worrying_trend_on_articles_about_Croatian_coastal_cities_that_were_under_occupat discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia, IMO, so we don't annoy our technical people. Also, feel free to join the project and contribute in other discussions. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we be making a seprate article for Russian gains west of the oskil river? Please let me know your opinion Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)