User talk:TurboSuperA+

Archives

[CTOPs] • [1] • [2] • [3] • [4]

Active talk page discussions

Draft:The Council on Spiritual Practices

Thanks for your comment. I've added a Criticism section to the Draft:The Council on Spiritual Practices. EchoMontane (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

That's an improvement. I am going to leave it for another AfC reviewer to take a look. I'm still learning the AfC ropes. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Interpretation

In regards to one of the quotes used, wanted to say that your interpretation would be generally considered the correct one. However, I do disagree about WP:libel specifically. I acknowledge that point 10 should not have been used in the argument. That quote would be usually associated with BLP, and many would not take a loose interpretation of it. Additionally, I want to clarify that I do respect other editors and that we are part of a collaborative project. Wukuendo (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I just wanted to give you a heads up that focusing on a single article or issue is not looked on kindly by editors. It really doesn't matter whether you have an actual conflict of interest if your behaviour is exactly the same as someone who does have a conflict of interest. It is not necessary to respond right away to comments, it is OK to wait for other editors to give their opinion. It is not the end of the world if a sentence from an article gets deleted now or in two days, because there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Will take your good advice under consideration. Perhaps I'm being overly enthusiastic to engage, though a tremendous amount of the editing is not on the actual article content, but is in talk and related discussions. In many situations, being directly asked a question or for a response, or was being talked about by name. Often on Wikipedia, not responding when asked, also has various kinds of consequences. Certain articles also get more attention and contention than others, edits to Red (for example) don't generate lots of back and forth or talk comments.

I also took the advice, to ask teahouse about the libel question, because it can be interpreted differently. Was told that WP:Libel, including WP:BLP, applies to more than just biographies and is for any (living) person (referred to) on Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the relevant policies. I have revised the draft accordingly and ensured it follows WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

I will be careful to avoid unsourced or promotional content, and I appreciate the guidance from experienced editors. "Articalwr" (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Royal Ark

You are right, I thought this was a book that Royal Ark had uploaded. Nonetheless, Royal; Ark is a personal blog and is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) Guy (help! - typo?) 10:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad it's sorted out. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on Huns topic

I have reverted the recent edit that removed sourced information about the Huns. The claim that they were “not Turkic” is unsourced and falls under WP:OR, whereas reliable research and sources have been provided to support the opposite. Archaeological evidence, including the Slab Grave and Ulaanzuukh cultures, as well as genetic studies, demonstrate that Hunnic burials overwhelmingly show Y-DNA haplogroups R1b and Q1a1a1, both of which are widely associated with early Turkic populations. By contrast, haplogroup C2, commonly linked with later Mongolic groups, is not present in the majority of these contexts. This genetic and archaeological data strongly supports the view that the Huns had a Proto-Turkic foundation. Beyond genetics, cultural and historical continuity is clear: the Huns’ values, military strategies, nomadic traditions, and political structures were carried forward most directly by the Turkic peoples. While the Hunnic language itself remains debated, its similarities with Proto-Turkic are noted in comparative linguistics, Yeniseian features overlap significantly with early Turkic, and even the surviving Jie language materials remain broadly intelligible to modern Turkic speakers. These points demonstrate that the Huns were not only a steppe confederation of multiple nomadic groups, but also that their dominant cultural and genetic legacy was Proto-Turkic. The information provided here is based on peer-reviewed studies and reliable academic work, and additional details have already been explained on this talk page for transparency. For these reasons, the removal of sourced material and its replacement with an unsourced categorical claim is inappropriate. Please do not continue to vandalize the article; if you disagree with this content, you are welcome to present credible sources here on the talk page for discussion. Repeated unsourced removals will be treated as disruptive editing.

AsianTiele (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all, accusing others of vandalism when it isn't is considered a personal attack.

Second, you were the one who removed long-standing, and as far as I can tell, sourced content that cites secondary sources. You did not provide a reliable source to support your edit, instead, you based the edit on your own reasoning.

Third, after an edit has been reverted, you have to start a talk page discussion and gain consensus for your edit. Alternatively, you can provide a secondary reliable source that directly supports the edit.

I checked the first source, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe and it is hardly conclusive on the topic. In fact, the author says that they consider "Huns" as a primarily political and ethnic category, while "Turkic" they consider to be a broad linguistic term referring to speakers of groups of languages (belonging to language families and not specific ethnic appellations (p.7).

All the other sources, other than Chinese Architecture, are primary sources so I doubt they directly say Huns are Turkic, but if they do you should quote the relevant part. I am going to revert your edit again and you shouldn't reinstate it until you have gained consensus on the talk page. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page which is good. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It is deeply concerning to see yet another manipulative and obstructive response to well-sourced contributions. The archaeogenetic evidence from excavated graves and tombs has been clear and consistent, showing that the dominant paternal lineages in these populations are Y-DNA haplogroups Q and R1b. These results are not speculative interpretations but the outcome of peer-reviewed genetic studies published in respected scientific journals. They provide direct and verifiable insight into the ancestry of these groups and therefore must be treated with the same weight as any other academic source. Unfortunately, contributions based on this body of evidence are being reverted, not due to any methodological weakness or lack of reliability, but seemingly because they do not conform to certain entrenched editorial preferences. This practice is widely recognized within the Wikipedia community and is incompatible with the platform’s stated principles of neutrality and verifiability. To disregard established genetic data in favor of subjective narratives undermines the credibility of the article, misinforms readers, and erodes trust in Wikipedia as a neutral resource. I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue. The scientific record is transparent, reproducible, and unambiguous; to dismiss or obscure it because of personal agendas or ideological motives sets a harmful precedent for the treatment of all scholarly research on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to remain a reliable and trustworthy source of knowledge, neutrality and respect for peer-reviewed academic work must be upheld without exception. AsianTiele (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about genetics.

I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue.

The place for that is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—they are the very foundation of identity, heritage, and historical continuity. Ignoring this aspect leaves the discussion incomplete and misleading. I’ve already clarified my position thoroughly, and at this point, I will not be making further edits until the administrators review this matter. AsianTiele (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Administrators aren't going to "review this matter", that is not how Wikipedia works. I posted a notice at WP:NOR/N and editors are going to see the discussion and weigh in on it with their opinion.

I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—

Relying on primary sources to form a conclusion is considered synthesis. Please read WP:RS. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This matter has also been raised at the Administrator’s Noticeboard for wider review. I have already provided the relevant research and made my position clear. Since the response was to dismiss genetics outright rather than address the sources, I will not be making further edits or comments until uninvolved editors weigh in. AsianTiele (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Please block these accounts

These accounts removes information and butting other thinks 154.115.222.6 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Decarlos Brown Jr.

Hello TurboSuperA+. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Decarlos Brown Jr., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: BLPCRIME is not a valid CSD criteria; you will need to take this to RFD. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 20:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

AE

Only Admins should post in the Result section. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My bad. Fixed (I hope). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

User talk page CSD

We typically don't nominate user talk pages for WP:SPEEDY (like User talk:Berima K Asabeng), since that's the primary location where we communicate with the users. If there's promotional content, I would just remove it and leave a {{uw-usertalk}} notice in its place. Of course, if the username is also promotional, they can be listed at WP:UAA to be blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know about that notice. I will do that from now on. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Aaantonio

Hi, you declined this draft. Isn't enough to have Billboard Music Award nominations to qualify? Meningreen (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure Billboard Music counts as a major award to satisfy criterion nr.8 for WP:NMUSIC. I could be wrong. You can always ask for help at WP:AFCHELP or resubmit the article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

chasiv yar

Why do you think the military jet photo is fake? It looks pretty real and conclusive to me. Also do you watch history legends 144.125.54.202 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I replaced the image with a video of it being shot down. Why do you think an image is better? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

If you think video is good then I am fine with that I was just wondering if you thought an image along with the video would be better? Also do you watch history legends 2607:FEA8:C3C0:30C0:885E:88B4:D51D:2676 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC Reminder

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to reach out because I recently came across Open International Geography Olympiad, an article you had accepted through AfC. However, I noticed that the article contained copyright violations, which were present at the time of acceptance. I have gone ahead and removed the offending text, but I wanted to remind you to make sure you check all articles for potential copyright violations before accepting at AfC. If you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns on this matter, please let me know. Thanks again! Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That's my mistake, I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for letting me know. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Langley (2006), p. 30

In an RFC, you asked to provide a quote from [1]. It's off-topic and extra noise for the participats, so I provide it on your talk page: [Stalin] secretly ordered his agents to establish communist governments in these states. They did this slowly, through a gradual takeover of the police, armed forces, and the economy. <...> In this way, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and later Czechoslovakia became satellite states. This meant they were outside the Soviet Union but actually ruled by the Soviet government. There are more references, but keep in mind that we're talking about a brief period (only a few years) after the war. Excluding that period, Yugoslavia was not considered a Soviet satellite state. I am well aware of the Non-Aligned Movement. -- Mindaur (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Mindaur, that's not what our article says. Did you leave out a word there? See Satellite state#Post-World War II. I'm old enough to remember when Yugoslavia had a communist government and was considered a very close ally of the USSR, but with a bit more freedom, even allowing western tourists to visit the country without fear. In the 1970s, I remember waves of Yugoslavs fleeing the country and seeking political asylum in the USA. They did not want to have anything to do with Communism or the USSR, and they lived in fear of complete domination by the USSR and a completely closed border, like other USSR controlled satellite nations. I'm not an expert on the terminologies used here, but those are my recollections of the situation then. Our article is no doubt much more procise in its choice of words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean: I think you might be confused:

• Not sure what is "our article" you are referencing. If you are talking about the "Satellite state" article on Wikipedia, then it has the following sentence: The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is considered an early Soviet satellite,[11][12] <...> (disclaimer: I didn't write this sentence). Anyway, what matters is what WP:RS say.
• I provided another source below. You mentioned 1970s, but we are talking about the brief period before the Tito–Stalin split in 1948. Nobody questions that Tito's Yugoslavia broke with USSR and was unique in this regard (until Albania's split in late 1950s). It's not a discussion whether Yugoslavia was generally a satellite state during the Cold War; it was not.

-- Mindaur (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That's quite an extraordinary claim. I can't find any academic review of the book, nor Andrew Langley's credentials. It is a 96-page book aimed at teens. As far as I know, no other historian has made the claim that Yugoslavia was a Soviet satellite state.

There are more references,

Such as?

but keep in mind that we're talking about a brief period (only a few years) after the war.

Yugoslavia was never a Soviet satellite state, not even for a short while after WWII. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You can easily find more sources yourself, e.g. an article by Bogdan Raditsa – [2], where the early relationship is described in detail. From the beginning, the Yugoslav Communists have advocated complete subjugation of their own and other nations to the Soviet Union. (p. 122); On May 21, 1945 Tito himself defined the position of a satellite toward the Kremlin: <...> (p. 123); This "gratitude" according to Mr. Kardelj, was more than an emotion: it was the Yugoslav Communists’ desire to become part of the Soviet Union as soon as the international situation permitted. (p. 123); and so on. After all, the Soviet army participated in Belgrade offensive as well as other operations and had very considerable influence (and I am phrasing this rather gently) over the Yugoslav partisans. Wherever the Soviet army advanced in Europe, so did their political objectives, system and ideology.

Even if you don't like this author, you can find others. Perhaps this is controversial in former Yugoslavia. I don't see why would it be. Moreover, the 1948 split (and it was a complete break with the USSR) is a much more defining moment in history.

-- Mindaur (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

BLPs are a CTOP; please edit them carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a sourced statement made by the BLP subject themselves. You have now reinstated my edit with slight changes. I am going to take that as tacit admission that you were wrong to revert my edit (and post this CTOP notice). These kind of actions can be considered uncivil. You're "coming in hot" as they say. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you slow down and read, and understand, before inserting content, and before responding, your editing experience might be different. You're asking questions and making accusations, without having understood the proper attribution on the hundred days (sic) hours. "Coming in hot" applies to reinstating a problematic edit without discussion, and on a CTOP. When you are reverted on a BLP, understand before you edit war. I've partially fixed your insertion; it's still sub-optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Duplicated content is not a WP:BLP issue. How can it be? If it is duplicated then that means it is already included in the article.

Adding a statement made by the BLP subject themselves falls under WP:ABOUTSELF and can be added even if it comes from a source that isn't good for factual statements.

You reverted me, only to then reinstate the edit albeit in a different location. This means that there was nothing wrong with the edit. Positioning in the article is not a WP:BLP issue either.

Furthermore, I have written several biographies, including a BLP, showing that I do understand Wikipedia's policy on BLPs. So you posting a CTOP notice and then patronising me about the policy is uncivil.

You've been an editor for 20 years, do I really need to remind you that civility is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a battleground, which means we're not here to try to win arguments or prove who's right or wtong; on BLPs, we have to get it right. When you're reverted, if you attempt to understand why before re-inserting the content, that will save time for everyone. If you didn't realize the hundred hours issue was already in the article, properly attributed to a high quality source, and you couldn't find it right away (maybe because the hundred was spelled out rather than 100 in digits), then had you simply asked on talk about the revert before re-inserting, we'd have been done an hour ago, without the unnecessary lobbing of charges. Also, I find that many editors don't know that Latin Times is part of IBT. Hope this helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

When you're reverted, if you attempt to understand why before re-inserting the content

I literally did. I asked you which article you're referring to and you answered If you don't yet know which NYT article I'm referring to, you haven't yet understood the issue. How is that helpful?

maybe because the hundred was spelled out rather than 100 in digits

Yes, because when you reverted me in the edit summary you also wrote "100" in digits, which led me to search for "100" in the text (and find nothing).

I find that many editors don't know that Latin Times is part of IBT

I certainly didn't. Which is another thing you could have written at the beginning, because I searched RSN for "The Latin Times" and came up with nothing. Again, I did so because your edit summary only mentioned Latin Times, not IBT.

Rather than being direct and clear, you chose to be imprecise and cryptic, and then you accused me of not trying to understand the issue, even after I have made reasonable attempts to do so based on the information given.

Now you're accusing me of battleground behaviour in form of "advice".

Please be more clear when communicating with editors to avoid these unneccessary back and forths. Hope that helps. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand the 100 vs. hundred added understandable confusion and made it hard for you to find the content already present. I understand you might not have thought to look at our article on Latin Times. A kind and experienced editor told me, when I was new, that a simple rule to live by is always stick to one revert and never edit war ... inquire on talk and be sure to understand before re-instating. You asked after you re-instated, and after I started a talk discussion. A lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided had you asked before escalating to charges of incivility. Water under the bridge; I'm off for the night, and happy to drop this stick. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It also could have been avoided if you just edited "days" to "hours" (or removed that part altogether). Just because someone reverts an edit that doesn't mean they had good reason to do so. You reinstated my edit, so that tells me that it was in fact a good edit that should not have been reverted. Edit warring is 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, and I only reverted your reversion once, so the accusation of edit warring is premature.

During the course of our discussion you have accused me of: 1) breaking BLP rules, 2) edit warring, 3) not looking up information, 4) not understanding BLP, 5) battleground behaviour, 6) making an edit with "so much wrong", 7) making a mess ("all the clean up"). And for what? For making an edit that you yourself have reinstated. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

And yes, I made a mistake regarding the 100 days when I wrote that she said she had a plan vs. her advisor saying she had a plan. But only that part could have been removed (and I wouldn't have reinstated it) rather than the whole edit.

These discussions where we're really in agreement yet behaving like we're not take a toll on me. After making my comment last night I immediately fell asleep. Which is a good thing, cause I was only editing because I couldn't fall asleep in the first place.

I really don't want to argue. I felt attacked for an edit that wasn't as bad as you made it seem with the "all the clean up" comment and I have been on the defensive since. I'm not going to edit that section further and it will probably be a long while before I edit that article again (if ever). When an edit causes all this I tend to not touch the article again, because I really do wish to avoid arguments on Wikipedia (I just have a knack for inviting them, it seems).

As far as I'm concerned I have said everything I wished to say. I am not going to dispute whatever edits you wish to make to the article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It can only be wrong to post a CTOP notice if the editor has not edited in the area of the notice. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Except the CTOP notice was unnecessary, because my edit did not infringe on P&G's regarding BLPs. From WP:CIVIL: Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

CTOP notices are alerts, NOT warning templates. I see nothing in [[Template:Contentious topics/alert]] about being involved. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

TSA+, I was tired last night, and I'm sorry that my edit summary referred to WP:RSP, when it takes an extra step to get from Latin Times to IBT. But, there was too much in that edit that needed repair for a simple fix, and I was surprised to see you reinstate what is actually a BLP vio. Please consider the impact on a living person of the implications in how you misstated even what the non-RS said, with was the only way to oust Nicolas Maduro and effect a peaceful transition. She added that she had a plan for the first 100 days following the potential removal of Maduro from power.

Now, in the light of a new day, and having reviewed a) your talk page, which evidences an WP:IDHT issue, and b) the actual edit you made, yes, it has a serious BLP issue, which you reinstated, and now are still arguing as if there was nothing wrong with it. It's more than the hours/days typo; I could not have repaired that edit by changing days to hours. Not even the Latin Times claims that MCM added that statement in the interview.

You're arguing, not listening, as if you aren't able to take critique on board, and being able to accept advice and criticism goes with the territory on Wikipedia. Yes, you edit warred on a BLP (3RR is not a license to revert three times, and when you've been told you are using a non-RS on a BLP, you should not reinstate it even once without discussion), and yes, you breached BLP by using a non-RS and then mis-stating even what it said. If you aren't able to take on board the difference between what you twice inserted and what I've corrected it to, then you might consider staying away from BLPs.

As a result of this discussion, I'll be more careful to point out the extra step needed to get from Latin Times to IBT in the future. At minimum, I hope you'll accept two pieces of advice. 1) Never edit war -- always take it to talk before re-instating. 2) Always check the quality of any source you are using to add content to a BLP before you use that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am never going to edit the Maria Corina Machado article again. I hope that that ends this matter. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Be well, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How much of this kerfuffle could have been prevented by a strict adherence to WP:BRD? See Wikipedia:Short BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything particularly bold about the edit. It was literally what she said in a Bloomberg interview. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

BRD is activated by the revert, not by the bold edit. What happens after another editor objects by reverting is where problems can be prevented or caused. I suspect this whole mess could have been prevented. That's my point. I'm glad to see this has been resolved now, so carry on and have a good day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)