User talk:Supercopone

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I have a disruptive editor who keeps doing AfD's just because they are pornography. An example is [1] It seems odd that one user can be so destructive just because they do not like a subject.Super (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that an editor is abusively nominating articles for deletion, you should bring that to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

Hi, you backed the wrong horse in this argument. Please take some time to read WP:GNG and WP:BLP before jumping to conclusions. And then look at Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Attacking my motives as a substitute to finding sources to counter arguments is a dick move and makes you look stupid. Then have a look at my recent nominations and see how the community backs them to an overwhelming degree. Its not disruptive to nominate badly sourced BLPs. You have completely failed to assume good faith. Sad.

@Bbb23: you haven’t done this user any favours casting him into the bearpit of ANI without checking on the validity of his allegation and linking him to the appropriate policies first. Please take more care in future. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its nothing personal or anything like that. Someone said to do this in the Devon article thread plus here here. What should I do? User:Spartaz You do seem to have a grudge against pornography related articles. Super (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop casting aspersions as to my motivations. You don’t know me, don’t know my history and have made no effort to talkmto me but suddenly you are an expert in my thinking. Knock it off!

you should do what you should have done in the first place. Read the policy, understand the rules and find some sources. You are clearly a new user and didn’t know better but I don’t appreciate you shopping my account round various admin pages and accusing me of hatred. Not only is that an inappropriately strong term but, shock horror, all those articles are getting deleted. Why? Because they do not meet our standards for inclusion and other editors agree with me.

What I’d like is for you to remove your allegations, or evidence them because it not satisfactory where things are now.

You also need to pick your targets better. I have been here 15 years have been an active at afd for most of that time. I have been an admin since 2007 and at one time my grasp of deletion policy and consensus was considered sound enough that I closed most of the DRVs for over a year. This is not the kind of editor that you want to be picking fights with unless your evidence is well founded and solidly sourced. I’m not grumpy with you, its obviously over enthusiasm and you didn’t know better but I hope you can learn from this and start to understand our policies better so you can make afd votes that actually count because they are grounded in evidence and policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have lost perspective on all this. If you are a hammer, everything is a nail.Super (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and you are clearly a troll now I look at your edit history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User_talk:Subtropical-man&type=revision&diff=1058651072&oldid=1056667499. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Canvassing plain and simple. Please stop doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a lie. I was clear that he held an opinion on the matter that I believe added information to the discussion and that is allowed. Please stop abusing your privileges. Super (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what privilege have I misused please? Spartaz ^Humbug!

Linking to wikipedia pages

Hej Supercopone, You can (should) link to wikipedia articles like so:

Accrediting Commission International (in markup: [[Accrediting_Commission_International|Accrediting Commission International]] )

and not like this: [Commission International] (in markup: [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Accrediting_Commission_International|Accrediting Commission International]])

In the first example you can simply type Accrediting Commission International [[Accrediting Commission International]] - and wikipedia will resolve the spaces automatically. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can get wonky sometimes on mobile. I will correct those issues. Please do not undo my revisions. Everything I readded has previously been added and students keep attempting to alter the content. Nothing about what I added was poorly sourced. Those facts were supported by LBU own page on the way back machine and by a leading authority on education. I have been editing this page for 13 years now. Its a mess due to people wanting to pretending the school is something its not. Oh and your reverted false information and deleted facts so that is suspicious. User:Mvbaron Super (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you at the talk page. :) Mvbaron (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MvbaronOk so if I improve the sources can we gain a consensus? Super (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Hi - per the community consensus at this discussion, I am informing you that you are now subject to a topic ban related to the AfD process. This means that you may no longer contribute towards discussions at AfD, but also that you may not contribute towards discussions about AfD, or comment on contributors to AfD discussions. Essentially, you should pretend that AfD doesn't exist. You may appeal this topic ban in six months time by making a request at WP:AN. If you have any questions about this, drop me a note at my talk page - WP:BANEX allows for limited discussion about the ban itself, to allow you to understand what it means for you. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 22:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]