User talk:SquidHomme

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Can't Help It (If I'm Still in Love With You), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Wade. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. LOL.— Squid Homme  (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of video games in development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. LOL. — Squid Homme  (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Tim Kaine
When I reversed your edit on Tim Kaine I commented "on emails?" There was no problem with the source. What you wrote isn't English. "on Twitter and emails" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virtual reality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kink. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, bot! I know you're a bot but what the hell... I'd like to tell "you" that it's fixed! Thanks! — Squid Homme  (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Hillary Clinton are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Conan Exiles and Denuvo
Hi. I've corrected this edit a couple of times recently. The source is transparently clear - "shortcomings with Denuvo's Anti-Tamper technology are not to blame" - the developers accidentally released an update to the game without Denuvo. The Denuvo antitamper on Conan Exiles has not been cracked. Please don't changed the cracked column back to yes. – Steel 18:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from Chinese
Hello SquidHomme,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Chinese to English Wikipedia?



This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Chinese article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Chinese, using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Chinese. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great.

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Chinese article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates Pass and Fail may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion
Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Coronavirus and "Kung Flu"
That's nothing more than the Boaty McBoatface phenomenon applied to disease naming. Please stop adding it. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic Edits
Hi SquidHomme, You recently reverted an edit regarding the WHO no longer applying the six-phase scale discussed in the Pandemic topic. Can you provide some context for the removal? - Wikmoz (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikmoz, I don't remember if I ever edited/removed those six-phase scale. In fact I don't know if it got removed. I think it accidentally removed by me or anyone after me. Feel free to re-add it. And I'm sorry for the mess I've made.— Squid Homme  (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. No worries at all and definitely not a mess. I was worried that maybe I misunderstood or misrepresented the WHO spokesperson's statement. I've restored the edit. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for fixing my mess. lol — Squid Homme  (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:President and Minister of Health&#39;s coronavirus announcement.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:President and Minister of Health&. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:President and Minister of Health&#39;s coronavirus announcement.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:President and Minister of Health&. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Source
Did not say this Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Take a look at this, dude. I thought it's a reliable source. (P.S. it's 1,025 now).— Squid Homme  (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure but that was not the source used. If you change the content make sure you also provide the source that supports it and remove sources that do not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you take a closer look, the source is already there, in the references section.— Squid Homme  (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure but it needs to be attached to the numbers in question, not just in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It will contradict this. Is this source reliable? To me it looks just like BNO News.— Squid Homme  (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not care which one you use. Just make sure if you change the number you reference a source that supports that number. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Message for you
At Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_Vatican_City. Thanks! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Admanny (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

NPA warning
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please mind your own business. You don't even have a hint about the background, the history and the problem we're discussing. And it clearly does not attack, involve or mention you. If you have a problem or disagree with it, just ignore it. It's not that hard to do.— Squid Homme  (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SquidHomme, I was dismayed to see your attitude at that article. You began by saying "So anyone opposes the inclusion is biased, not neutral, not so bright, not so smart, in my opinion. Or maybe they cannot bear the defeat of their dear president and accept reality." That smear of "anyone who opposes" your viewpoint violated the basic talk page requirement: to "discuss the content, not other editors." I had assumed that when you were called on it, you would strike or otherwise take back your false characterization of anyone who disagreed with you, but instead you doubled down on it. As you are doing here again. Someone has now, thankfully, shut down that extended discussion, but I have come here to warn you: if I again see you say that kind of thing about people who disagree with you, I will block you from editing that article. Discussion there has up to now been calm and respectful, and it needs to stay that way. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that when you were called on it, you would strike or otherwise take back your false characterization of anyone who disagreed with you, but instead you doubled down on it. Have you seen that I've striked my comment down? As to "doubling it down," can you point which part of it is personal attack? I thought there's a voting underway and each of the personal opinion must be respected, not just theirs, but mine also. That smear of "anyone who opposes" your viewpoint violated the basic talk page requirement: to "discuss the content, not other editors Please don't misunderstand: it's not just for editors here! I said that to everyone, on Planet Earth, regardless they're Wikipedian or not, that cannot accept the result in GA and oppose all media effort to call it. Is that too hard for you to understand? I will block you from editing that article. You said that, you can't block "anyone who opposes" your viewpoint :) — Squid Homme  (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen that I've striked my comment down? You struck a couple of words, but left the rest, while doubling down on and adding to your accusations. For heavens sake, in the same edit where you struck “not so bright” you added “not so smart”! You went on to accuse Super Goku V personally of partisan bias, twice. Not to mention your rudeness here to Nil Einne, who was just giving you a standard and well-deserved warning.

As to "doubling it down," can you point which part of it is personal attack? I thought there's a voting underway and each of the personal opinion must be respected, not just theirs, but mine also. Please don't misunderstand: it's not just for editors here! I said that to everyone, on Planet Earth, regardless they're Wikipedian or not, that cannot accept the result in GA and oppose all media effort to call it. Is that too hard for you to understand? It doesn’t have to be a personal attack against a named individual to be against the rules. You have been commenting on the motivation of the people who disagree with you; just don’t do that, OK? Say what you have to say about the content and let it go at that. Or else continue to disrupt the board with your opinions about people on the other side of the argument, and get blocked. Your choice.

You said that, you can't block "anyone who opposes" your viewpoint :) I guess you didn’t notice that you and I are on the same side of that discussion; we both support adding Georgia as “called” rather than waiting for unanimous support. I don’t care what side you are on. I just want you to obey the rules about talk page discussions: don’t make assumptions about other people’s motives or what they believe. Whether you are talking about a specific person or about editors in general, don’t do it. Just discuss what the article should say and leave personalities out of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "You struck a couple of words, but left the rest, while doubling down on and adding to your accusations. For heavens sake, in the same edit where you struck “not so bright” you added “not so smart”! You went on to accuse Super Goku V personally of partisan bias, twice. FYI those words aren't even offensive! I just suggest them not to be "biased!" It's a criticism and suggestion! Please. Or else continue to disrupt the board with your opinions about people on the other side of the argument, and get blocked. Your choice. I don't know why, but you seem to be like throwing tantrums and threats to me. Are you sure you're okay? I guess you didn’t notice that you and I are on the same side of that discussion; we both support adding Georgia as “called” rather than waiting for unanimous support. I don’t care what side you are on. I just want you to obey the rules about talk page discussions: don’t make assumptions about other people’s motives or what they believe. Whether you are talking about a specific person or about editors in general, don’t do it. Just discuss what the article should say and leave personalities out of it. I don't care about any of those as I only intended to take the straw poll and leave, but, as you can see, some agitated and deranged users started to attack me for my opinion that they misunderstood! That forced me to reply to them, and so on. Anyway, I won't be participating in that RfC anymore as I have already taken the straw poll/vote/whatever you call it, and expressed my opinion about it.— Squid Homme  (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would note that although I opposed making Georgia blue in the infobox and map, I also argued vehemently against changing the lead to say Biden was the projected (overall) winner or declared winner or something else, instead of just saying he was the (overall) winner. The discussion is still there Talk:2020 United States presidential election. I may have gotten a little carried away, one of the reasons why I withdrew from that discussion, but still as I recall, I did not claim any other editor was not very bright, or anything of that sort. I've never been to the US, and am fairly sure I'm probably further from a Trump supporter than most Wikipedians, or even I suspect most people on that talk page. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if I'm further than a Trump support than you (SquidHomme). I'm actually not sure whether there's anyone in that discussion who is a Trump supporter.  Regardless, calling your fellow editors "Not so bright" or "not so smart" etc is simply not how we work here. You are allowed to express opinions, within reason, of how or whether our article should change and why it should/n't. You aren't allowed to express opinions on the intelligence of other contributors, and you shouldn't generally be commenting on their motives on the the article talk page. Likewise, it's generally inappropriate to make general personal comments on some group of people. While there's some leeway, e.g. people are generally unlikely to blink an eye if you say 'neo-Nazis are horrible people', it depends on circumstance and situation.  Remember there is no WP:free speech on Wikipedia. Your comments, especially on article talk pages, should be focused on improving Wikipedia rather than you personal opinions of any sundry matters.  BTW, as a contributor here I will not ignore personal attacks. It is my belief that personal attacks harm Wikipedia, and contributors who persist in making them should be blocked. This belief is support by policy. It doesn't matter if generally agree with the editor. In my opinion, every editor here has a duty to speak up about personal attacks, and indeed it's incredibly harmful if we just wait for the editor who was attacked to deal with it. In any case, since I opposed the change, AFAICT, I was covered by your personal attack even if my opposition only came after. (Which demonstrates one of the problems with your attack. How can you comment on editor's proposals if you haven't even read their reasoning?) Although I'll admit, I didn't (and won't) try to properly understand what you were saying beyond understanding it was inappropriate.  Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, stop bothering me! I don't even read your essay above about me. I don't know who you are, I didn't attack you in any ways. Anything I did, it has nothing to do with you. I don't care what you say. But please, just go away, scram, whatever. Leave me alone. — Squid Homme  (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(What you said here) FYI those words aren't even offensive! I just suggest them not to be "biased!" It's a criticism and suggestion! Please. (What you said to me with my emphasis) And what any of that has to do with this topic? Not so bright, eh? & Have you seen why all my 19 previous edits got reverted? It's because of biased user like you! The first was an attack as an insult and the second was an attack by blaming me for your edits being reverted. The fact that you did not remove your attacks against me is a disappointment. I hope that you will consider the other side in the future. Ping me if you want to talk. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not attack me first if you don't want to be attacked. Pointing out irrelevant case (which has not even decided yet!) and suggesting a new AN discussion, to what end? What's your intent? Leading an opinion about me commiting a misconduct? FYI I felt offended by your comment there. Also, FYI, I was at the beginning of striking out my previous comment that you misunderstood (I don't need to re-iterate it to you because you seem not to care and something kept you from understanding it, just read my conversation with MelanieN here) at the time your abhorrent opinion about me, came in. Ping me if you want to talk. In your dreams! I don't want further word with you. Hell, I don't even want to reply to you after this one. Thanks, I don't need this kind of negativity in my life.— Squid Homme  (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I pointed out your behavior to an admin and made a suggestion, then backtracked when I found that my suggestion was moot. (You phrased my actions the other way around.) Regardless, if you don't want to talk then please refrain from pinging me in the future.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

SquidHomme, I don’t intend to argue with you. I see that you haven’t gotten the message; you are still throwing around insults in all directions. Final warning: this is not an internet forum, it is an encyclopedia. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia through a process of collaboration and consensus. The talk page is for developing that collaboration and consensus. Your opinions of other editors are disruptive and out of place. If you keep this up, I predict it will not be long before you are blocked from editing. If not by me, then by someone else. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you are still throwing around insults in all directions. Final warning Can you point out what insult? Am I still "throwing insults in all directions" now, huh? You got proof? Look, I'm getting tired over this. You and your "friends" here, are distracting me for negligible matter, when I can be productive somewhere else. So, whatever your argument is, fine, you're right, and I hope that you're happy now. I won't be replying to you after this. Anyway, thanks, a lot.— Squid Homme  (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Union of Notaries, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Civil law, Portuguese and Norman. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, bot! OK, I'll look into it! Thanks! Good bot!— Squid Homme  (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation request
Hi, I was wondering if you could please translate the page The Base (political party) from English into Dutch for a page on the Dutch language Wikipedia page? The page currently has no other language versions other than English and as it is a Dutch political party it seems highly relevant that it should have a Dutch language page. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Helper201 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:A tooth of mine.png


The file File:A tooth of mine.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "don't see how this is useful"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions notice
Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)