User talk:Bugghost/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
 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 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 Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the 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 Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. 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 Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127. For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster  (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)