User talk:Bugghost

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. 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)

Removal of In Other Media edit
Hi, I added a line on Hadouken - Wikipedia

It had a brief description and a link, specifically about the web comic "Oglaf," both of which were removed. Is the issue the link itself, because of the adult nature of the comic? The info appears to be no less notable than some of the other references. Would it be permitted without the link?

Thank you. Grendel205 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi - the adult nature isn't strictly an issue, Wikipedia isn't age restricted. It being external link is bad, but not that bad (it can just be turned into a citation). The problem is that it's not notable. I agree that it is not less notable than what is already there - but the problem is that that stuff isn't notable either - there's a header at the top of that section that points out this pre-existing problem: "This section may contain irrelevant references to popular culture. Please remove the content or add citations to reliable and independent sources." - Check out the popular culture link, which specifies the rough guidelines for what really should and shouldn't be in the "In popular culture" sections. Really, the whole "Hadouken in popular culture" needs a clearout, which I'll do now. BugGhost 🪲👻 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand now, thanks. Admittedly, I was going by what was already there. And I had no idea what "hadouken" was until I saw the strip and then needed to look it up, which took me right to this page. At least I finally understand the joke! Grendel205 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries - the "in popular culture" sections are always a bit confusing about what counts as notable or not. You haven't done anything wrong and you were trying to help the article, so it's all good :) Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! BugGhost 🪲👻 13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for the barnstar (my first!) BugGhost 🦗👻 08:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course! It's important to recognize editors who help others, and you were right about potentially biting a new user. In that particular case, while the CSD's were appropriate, sending to AIV wasn't, so I'm grateful that you called me on that! retaining new editors is something I've tried to emphasize recently and it's easy to forget that, especially when I'm on autopilot :) SPF121188  (talk this way) (my edits) 16:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)