User talk:Super Goku V/Archive 2

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Ebola virus disease in Nigeria


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Ebola virus disease in Nigeria, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Not sure what happened, but I am going to contest why you think my redirect is "introducing inappropriate pages" as stated in the notice. This seems to be in very bad faith and I would like an explanation on your actions to understand.  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mike Priefer has been accepted
 Mike Priefer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Mike_Priefer help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olympic Games scandals and controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Jenkins. 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, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eighth generation game handhelds
Template:Eighth generation game handhelds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice
A redirect you recently nominated for deletion is now an AFD. You can comment here. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: The controversy regarding Billy Mitchell
I'm not saying that he isn't controversial, just that Billy Mitchell himself isn't a "controversy." Trivialist (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's probably no good way to categorize them properly without creating lots of categories that only have a few items ("Games involved in video game controversies," "People involved with video game controversies," etc.), so unless someone creates a page specifically about Mitchell's controversies, keeping his article (and the others) in Category:Video game controversies is probably the best solution for now. Trivialist (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josh Hader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Josh_Hader check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Josh_Hader?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Do your research before you edit.
You recently undid the john singleton death date when there were MULTIPLE stories about his death and they had scheduled the memorial service. Do your research. You do more harm than good. Jeffery Thomas 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk Page Blanking
Hi Super Goku V, I wanted to let you know that our WP:BLANKING policy says that editors—including anonymous/IP editors—are able to remove almost anything on their Talk pages. You should not reinstate messages as you did here. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. I was under the incorrect presumption that Talk page comments and warnings could not be removed, except for in specific circumstances like a rare redaction edit.  Regardless, thank you for the correction.  --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Restoring talk page comments
Your understanding of talk page policy is as absurd as your other comments. Users may remove comments on their own talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. Try something like that again and we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. This is your only warning. You may not be capable of understanding this, but I know more about Wikipedia policies than you do. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC) I accept you warning on talk page policy and apologize for what ended up being an assumption. Though, I am not too surprised that you know quite a bit about Wikipedia policies. Regardless, I do have a question for you: What are you referring to by "is as absurd as your other comments?" Are you referring to an edit summary or something? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm 75.191.40.148. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2019 in American music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have those two albums specifically cited, then we should be good now. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Inside the Actors Studio, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What needs sources is that Sheen and Sutherland are "first ever" and "second ever". Please read WP:V. Since you seem to have a deficient understanding of Wikipedia policies, let me suggest that you read WP:HARASS before you continue following me around making nitpicking and inappropriate reverts of my edits. Your edit history has plenty of evidence of harassment (and remember, harassment doesn't have to be making inflammatory comments directly at someone; it can be as subtle as following someone around making inappropriate reverts just so you can let the other person know "I'm following you"). Inappropriately restoring talk page comments; reverting removal of unsourced information without providing a source; removing legitimate tags. You're on record stating that you're "looking into" my edits. Looking at others edits is acceptable. Following someone around as if you're the self-appointed wikipolice so you can make inappropriate reverts is entirely unacceptable. You've been around for five years, so maybe you do understand the policies but can't resist harassing me. That's two strikes for you. Once again, the next time this happens we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. I'm sure both of us have better things to do. I certainly do, but if your top priority is harassing IPs because of some sort of vendetta, then you seriously need to rethink why you are here. Let me suggest that you walk away and stay away from me. And that includes not arguing with me or making excuses on this talk page, my talk page, or any other talk page or edit summary. I'll do the same for you, unless you continue the harassment. Just stay away from me, and I'll not pursue this matter any further. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * - Hello, 75.191.40.148. I see that you are not seeing things from the other side, which is completely my fault for not saying something sooner, so I would like to begin to amend that by walking you through the issues and the timeline of this series of events from my side.  I went to the article, 2019 American League Division Series to see the composite line score prior to Game 5 of the Astros and the   as I was nervous over the Astros being knocked out of the series.  Sadly, the composite was not even there, so I decided that it would likely be better if it had one through the first four games.  I never got to start it as when I looked into history to see if it had been removed for any reason, I saw your edit and the edit summary "Unnecessary spam that adds nothing to the article. And it's not in previous ALDS articles."  Now that stung as odd, because the 2017 series was notable for being the first year that sponsors could buy the naming rights to the postseason series, and also the Astros winning the series which helped me to remember that, except the Wild Card Games which started in 2018.  So, I checked and all of the 2017 and 2018 MLB postseason articles still had the sponsor name listed right in the lead.  (Except the 2017 Wild Card Games for what I said prior.)  Additionally, there are various articles across the Wiki that have the sponsor in the lede or even directly in the article name.  So I decided to repair the removed content by researching the official sponsorships and, after finding some sources, I went to the 2019 NLDS article to get the proper formatting for the lede so that the articles would match.  And I found that it was removed from the NLDS article as well with nearly the same edit summary.  Now realizing that this is going to be multiple edits, I just clicked on your contributions to see what else needed to be fixed, which ended up being just the 2019 World Series article as the 2019 Wild Card Game articles were not touched and the 2019 ALCS and 2019 NLCS lacked the sponsorship details due to not being announced on the same day as the others.  So, I was finally ready to edit the articles, but I saw what I thought was a problem when I saw your contributions, which was that you had remove content from your talk page, which I mistakenly believe to be against Wiki rules as it was on more smaller, independent wikis.  Additionally, I also saw that you had made two separate replies to an IP address with warning templates, one of which was using the highest level for that template message while also reverting one of their edits with the summary "unsourced and botched formatting." (Emphasis mine)  The problems with the revert were easy for me to see as you only removed the content that they added without sources, despite the fact that the number of albums for all of the months well exceeds 100 and that there was no actual formatting issues with their edit.  So, I ended up looking at the edits made by both yourself and the other IP address to find that there was a common thread to all of this; the sponsorship portion in the lead of the MLB Playoff articles.  The August edits by the other IP address had added the YouTube TV sponsorship for the 2019 World Series among other improvements to the article.  Your edits removed them with the similar edit summary to the ones noted above and was followed up with a somewhat strict warning.  Then, on the next edit by the other IP, you removed their edit and gave them the most serious edit warning possible for an unsourced template.  As you yourself have pointed out above, I followed that IP's edits to User talk:Oshwah where they seemed to honestly believe that they were going to get blocked from editing the Wiki and was calling on another user for help.  So, I tried to let the IP user know that they were not in actual trouble given the circumstances.
 * So far from my perspective, I see more that a few edits that have removed content that has been accepted on other articles, excessive warning of another IP user, and multiple misleading edit summaries. Thus, I first mostly undid your revision to 2019 in American music.  Mostly, as I fixed the spelling mistake and moved it to the October section as I did not realize that night that there was an October vinyl release and a December CD release.  (Additionally, this is why I said that the only mistakes were minor.)  Then, I went through most of the 2019 MLB postseason articles and made edits to them to get them to conform.  (Of which, a few are a little off in format, but that is for another day.)  On the 10th, I found that I had goofed with regards to your talk page and replied to User:Woodroar to apologize.  I also went to reply to you as well with an apology and with my concerns, but I regretfully decided against doing so since I figured that all should have been settled.  At least up until the next day, when you reverted the changes to 2019 in American music with a complaint about the edit summary.  I decided to just give up on the issue despite the above and made the edit with a very specific edit summary so that there would be no confusion this time.  Again, that should have been the end of it, but I made my edit on the 12th and had seen your edits to the David Cross and Angela Gots articles from the 11th which also looked similarly problematic, but I decided to review them later.  So, for the fifth day of this sequence, I check both and saw more problems.  For the Angela Gots article, you claimed that the IP user had made a "nonsense edit."  However, that was false as the IP user was trying to added a role for Angela Gots to the article and misunderstood how to do so.  I undid the edit and amended it with the proper formatting and required episode so that they could get credit for their edit.  As for the David Cross article, you added the Template:criticism section to the article without explaining what concern that you have over the section.  In fact, you only edited the main article with an edit summary of just "crit sec" and never addressed any potential issues with the article on the talk page.  I was currently waiting to see if you would add a reason to the talk page on your own, but since you have not, I have decided to pointed it out here so that you will hopefully do so within the next week or two.  At this point, with multiple issues, I decided to check out your edits the next day to see if there were more issues and I saw your edit to the Inside the Actors Studio article, which had no explanation over what citations were needed.  I ended up agreeing with your first two tags, but I could not figure out the issue with the last two, especially in light of the fact that all of the guests had been linked to their respective articles and that the proof on those articles should have been enough to not warrant a citation.  In the end, you disagreed and clarified the issue along with starting this section and bring us here.  (While which we are to here; to my understand the CN tags should be directly after the "first guest ever" and "second guest ever" and are still questionably needed for a note.)
 * Honestly, I should have talked to you about all of this back on either the 9th or the 10th so that you would see how your edits were being viewed. However, I decided to give you time to see if the issues with the edits went away; to which I found that they still occurred in a few of your edits.  I will note that there does seem to be a positive change in that your warnings to other users is starting from the lowest level warning templates, which is a plus.  At the least, I do hope that by pointing out how other editors are seeing your actions will help you to understand why I felt the need to first do the wait and see approach regarding these issues before I intervened with your edits.  Going forward, since you view my reversions as inappropriate, I will refrain from making edits to your edits when possible, but I would like to let you know if there are problems on your talk page about an edit, just as you have to mine, because I do feel that you deserve at least a chance to make a change, especially given that this is the first time I have address these issues from my viewpoint.  If you wish to disagree with this in part or in whole, or even go in a different direction, then feel free to let me know below or to ping me on your talk page instead if you wish.  Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You apparently don't agree with me that the best thing for you to do is walk away and leave me alone without trying to make excuses for yourself. You were harassing me, and there's plenty of evidence that will always be in your edit history; and your attempts to make excuses doesn't mitigate that inappropriate behavior and policy violation, especially trying to shift the blame to me. Accordingly, this is my last message to you on your talk page, and my last communication with you unless/until we take up any further harassment at WP:ANI. Editors like you are the most dangerous kind of editor on Wikipedia, and exactly why editors like me decide not to register. Outright vandals are easily detected and dealt with you. Editors like you, on the other hand, pose as constructive editors so you can fly under the radar undetected for a while, all the while dispensing damage to the project because of your self-righteous attitude that you have some sort of God-given right to police IPs without regard to policy, I suppose for some sort of misguided ego boost. BTW, feel free to restore a version of the external link in the Carroll article that you found. Otherwise stay away from me and never message me on my talk page; that includes not responding to this message. Final warning. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 75.191.40.148, denying me the ability to reply is considered inappropriate to me. I am not going to silence myself regarding the situation and I am not going to silence yourself either.  Users should be free to talk about things and admit what went right and what went wrong.  I have shown you what has occurred from my side and I disagree with harassing you.  The reason I have made my edits to those article is because of the errors that I saw in them and their edit summaries.  Now, have I made mistakes?  Yes, I have.  I did not know that you could blank a talk page, I should have talked to you sooner about this, I should have just asked you why you felt that the CN tags were needed on your talk page regardless of if it would be removed or not, and I have apparently caused you some distress in all of this for which I do apologize for.  75.191.40.148, you do make good edits to the Wiki.  The only reason we have gotten here is because of mistakes on both sides.  To my knowledge, you are the first IP user that I have had to directly communicate with in years and I seem to   So, I apologize if the mistakes I have made with regards to this have caused you to believe that I am trying to police you.  I have only been trying to correct what I saw were errors on the various articles.  But, I do see that you view what I have done negatively, so I will refrain from interactions with yourself outside of talk pages per your concerns.   If you wish to continue to talk then that is ok and if you wish not to, then that is ok as well.  I do hope that you will consider my points just as I have considered yours.  Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not silencing you. I'm telling you to stay off my talk page and stop making inappropriate reverts of my edits. If you want to violate those policies, go right ahead; I'll sett you at ANI. I've done that with arrogant editors before, and I want hesitate a second to do it with you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

June 2020 WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. 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) 06:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 WikiProject NASCAR newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Goku, thanks for editing the timeline pages. --Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you need help in the future, feel free to ask me and I can try to help.  (Admittedly, I likely have a below-average understanding of Tennis, though I do have some understanding of technical edits like how that timeline works.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. yeah, it's hard for me to edit this complicated charts, coz I'm not good at it. Thanks for help in the future. Happy cooperation.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest looking at Template:Simple horizontal timeline for the documentation of the template. It helps explain how the timeline is being created and might help give a bit of understanding at what is specifically going on.  In addition, feel free to make a small change to Template:Novak Djokovic 2019 career timeline and then just hit the preview button to see what changed.  Repeatedly doing that will likely give more understanding to what each line does and how it functions.  (Though, make sure not to save the edits or else they will need to be reverted.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Template:Novak Djokovic 2019 career timeline had edit accomplished at the end of last year, and I did the wrong edit several days ago, but I didn't know how to udo the previous version. It's very good that you shared the template, I'll check and learn, that's great.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the image on Kenosha protests
Since you seemed to have missed it, there were extensive discussions that plainly failed to reach a consensus for the image Lightburst recently added to the article (you acted as though it was removed without discussion, which was untrue.) The discussions you participated in were a much smaller spin-off from that discussion. Unless you want to argue that that older discussion reached a consensus to add Lightburst's image, you should stop adding it to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link as I was starting to wind down my edits to the subject as a whole and only resumed because of your edits last night. (No one had mentioned the Failed verification tag according to my search bar until I created a new subject.)  I see that it is the one where Ergo Sum thought that the image was used elsewhere and I had asked if they were sure as if it was, there was a copyright problem.  (Ergo Sum's response reassured me that it was likely that similar pictures or footage used by other organizations and not a 1:1 picture.)  After my concerns were addressed, I can see now that the conversation continued on afterwards and did reach a conclusion.  --Super Goku V (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for having to ping you a second time, but I do feel that it is warranted after reviewing things and I would rather talk here where it is a bit more private that there where it is public before I resume discussing things on the talk page. In regards to this edit, you said that it appears to originate on blogs and similar unreliable sources, so we can't really use it despite specifically mentioning that the user who uploaded it was the one who added it.  From my Point of View, you made a claim whether you wanted to or not that the image came from elsewhere before Lightburst added it to Wikimedia Commons, despite evidence existing that Lightburst took the photos and had not stolen them from somewhere else.  If you believed that to have been true, then you should have tagged the images for speedy deletion as that would be a copyright violation.  There was also a prior discussion to the above that talked about the photos that Lightburst took and Lightburst even asked Dlthewave, a reviewer, for their opinion and Dlthewave gave an example and said the example they gave would work or a similar image.  (Lightburst ended up going the similar image route, which seems to have set off the debate.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would like to say that the route you took to remove the image wasn't proper in my view. Yes, that is a harsh choice of words, but I believe it is needed because of the edit yesterday where you added the failed verification tag.  If the discussion you referred to had a consensus to remove the image, then you should have removed the image instead of claiming that the image had failed verification.  By doing that, it set off a different discussion because I could not figure out how the tag applied and I deferred to you because you are a reviewer.  Lightburst ended up replying first and removing the tag, though you ended up responding to that by then removing the image.  If the image had been removed at that point, then it could have been discussed better on the talk page over why it was done and the consensus point could have been discussed, but instead there was confusion over first the tag and then your edits.  That is why I dislike editing consensus pages; it is somewhat exhausting to do and sometimes mistakes are made like I did by reverting Guettarda as from my Point of View, they were expressing their opinion on the just started discussion and then enforcing it on the article.  (And yes, I know that Guettarda has a sysop permission which should be above a reviewer, but it did feel that they were stating their opinion on the talk page and then editing the article.  That felt wrong to me due to my mistaken Point of View and so I reverted them despite being a normal user.)  I do get that you have an issue with the image and the reasoning for why.  I also know that things have been contentious on the article, not helped by the brigading that Dr-Bracket thankfully discovered the location from during the move request.  But, I do not feel that the right steps nor words were used to have the image be replaced with a better one that does represents the protests better and that is why I writing this second message.  I hope that these words help clarify things from my viewpoint.  (Note: Feel free to respond to this, I just didn't want to continue over there before writing this out over here.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is so complicated. My concerns over the accuracy / providence of the image were separate from the larger discussion over whether it was an appropriate image for the lead.  I was quicker to add the tag (as soon as I noticed there might be a problem) because adding such tags is a relatively lightweight action as opposed to reverting a prominent addition to the lead, but I always intended to remove the image unless the direction of the other discussions drastically changed direction to show consensus for it - adding the tag was just "this will also be something that has to be addressed, if we end up keeping it." I wouldn't have created a separate talk page section to discuss that concern, but someone else did. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess part of this stems from my confusion over the order of events. I thought that you had consensus against using the image first, then tagged it before removing it, but it was the other way around and two separate events.  Sorry for that bit of confusion as well.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it is somewhat difficult to be clear over text, I created that separate talk page section because my browser did not find a mention of "Failed verification" when I searched. Checking the talk page daily is something that gets exhausting quickly while managing things outside Wikipedia and I didn't realize that conversation when farther than it did.  (At the time I last commented, most of the discussion was in support and my involvement was limited to double checking with Ergo Sum on if the image came from somewhere else or not, as I was concerned that there might have been a copyrighted image on the article despite the two conversations from August 28th to September 1st implying that they were personally taken.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I do have a question now since you did not respond to it and I have tried to figure it out. According to WP:OI, there is support for editors to upload their own images to Commons and that it isn't original research unless they illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments.  When we were talking about the image (or both the image and caption) as failing verification, I was confused why you brought up WP:OR given the prior two discussions and that the issue was due to the failed verification tag.  Was bring up WP:OR more the reasoning for the tag and that looking at the cited articles was the issue or was it more regarding the image itself?  I ask because you comment never really touched upon the reasoning for the tag.  (If this doesn't make sense I am trying to ask which part of the image (or both image and caption) failed Template:Failed verification as the only real thing that is mentioned their is the source does not support what is contained in the article and I am unsure if it original research to say that the video did provide support and was a free use version of what was shown in the source.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't worry about reverting someone just because they have access to a few extra tools. That's not the way this community is supposed to work - you should feel comfortable going toe-to-toe with anyone, as long as you're civil and abide by policy. I know it doesn't always work that way, and we sometimes tolerate too much from the people who we're supposed to hold to a higher standard, but I'm not ok with that, and if someone thinks I'm overstepping, I would prefer if they called me out. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the notification; I thought Template:Ping was the only way to ping a user) Maybe, but those with extra permissions earned them for a reason and are more experienced editors.  Not to mention that this technically proved my point in that you both were in the right and I was in the wrong as I failed to fully understand the order of events until recently, which meant that I was breaking talk page consensus.  Thank you for the advice regardless.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I would prefer that my Pending Changes Reviewer status be ignored. I got a rubber stamp that allows me to clean up messes, and there are many wiser and more experienced editors who didn't request this minor permission, presumably because they have better things to do with their time. I think you'll find that we listen to good ideas regardless of who they come from. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding as I was taking a small break. I will say that I was in the wrong in this situation as I didn't understand all of the changes going on and didn't understand Aquillion's point of view.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR September 2020 newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR October 2020 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020)  755  21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see request

 * Please see Requested moves/Technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)