User talk:GoingBatty

This user prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024

WikiProject Scouting | May 2024 Notes for May: Looking for something to work on? Try looking at, Category:Scouting articles needing attention. Some important articles that need help: The Scout Association, NAYLE, Philmont Training Center, BSA Leadership Training, COPE We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on Aids to Scoutmastership Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) May 22, 2024

Question from JonathanCarty410 (12:58, 22 August 2024)

Is my page okay right now? --JonathanCarty410 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JonathanCarty410: Hi there! If you’re referring to the page Draft:JonathanCarty, then no - it was deleted for “Unambiguous advertising or promotion”. GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Evibeforpoli (15:35, 23 August 2024)

I've been dealing with an editor who has been dismissive and condescending, accusing me of lying and even calling association football a "silly game." They insist that a tiebreaker must always involve additional gameplay, despite the lack of clear evidence supporting this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1241789728

The Oxford dictionary defines a tiebreaker as "a means of deciding a winner out of two or more contestants who have tied," without specifying that extra gameplay is necessary. https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=tiebreaker

Established sports like golf and FIFA football use ranking-based tiebreakers without additional play, yet this editor dismisses the FIFA valid example that disproves his rigid view, in a abrasive manner, that makes me not want to reason with them further if they can't discuss respectfully. https://www.fifa.com/en/articles/world-cup-qatar-2022-tiebreakers-group-stage-last-16-goal-difference-goals-scored-cards

This situation feels like more than merely a content disagreement—it's becoming increasingly frustrating and unproductive. I'm seeking help from a neutral party or mentor to resolve this issue fairly. Your help would be greatly appreciated. --Evibeforpoli (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli: Hi there! I see some other editors jumped in, so I won't participate in the discussion. I skimmed the discussion, and agree that the goal of the discussion should be to come to a consensus on the wording of the article. Instead of citing the OED or FIFA, I suggest using reliable sources that refer specifically to the United States at the 2024 Olympics. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope it's not too much trouble to ask one more question where I could really use wise experienced insight. You know the movie when a team of ethnic Mexican golfers beat some white kids in the 50s, this was also when the Texas golf club suddenly decided not to host an award ceremony for that particular year.[1] And that was obviously petty and biased and people notice what is too obvious and remember that odd break from pattern.

Similarly, when China for the first time tied with USA on gold medals for this year's Olympics. I get that certain people really despise to see that being acknowledged and don't want it be mentioned in lead at all.[2] But in the past 5 Olympic articles from 2004 to 2020, we have always consistently shown the top 3 medal winning countries. To suddenly go out of their way to make a new change for this year and break from pattern and only show the top country and not the second or third place country, would be noticeable and people will question why. This Olympics is special where for the first time, USA tied with China on golds and some unhappy editors wants to find any excuse to remove this completely from lead. But the way they are going about it, is obviously wrong and phony.

I really prefer not to discuss with them at lengths as i don't see the discussion going anywhere. But what rule did they violate? Are they removing info just because they don't like it or against wp:MOS. How do I best address them efficiently? Evibeforpoli (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli: I'm not familiar with the golf film. Although I haven't read the entire talk page discussion, here is my generic suggestion for any talk page discussion:

1. Keep it brief. For some reason, the longer the post, the less likely people will be to read it.
2. Assume good faith - Focus on the content of the article, and don't speculate on the motives why other editors may be making changes.
3. Suggest the exact text you want in the article, including references to published reliable sources.
4. Briefly explain why you think your suggestion is preferable. (e.g. consistency with similar articles)
5. You can ask for assistance from WikiProjects (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, but keep the request neutral (e.g. Your participation in the discussion at Talk:United States at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Tiebreaker definiton would be appreciated.)
6. Your idea won't always be the one that everyone else agrees upon. There are plenty of other ways to improve Wikipedia.

Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request BattyBot 81

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 81 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Replied there. GoingBatty (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Praeterintention

hi. Can you check if there is anything else to correct on the form?: the content is 100% correct. regards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Praeterintention Joseph77237 (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joseph77237: Thank you for fixing those red reference errors. Other comments:

• I don't understand why your draft uses both "Praeterintention" and "Praeter intentionem" and "preterintention" instead of one consistent spelling.
• Similarly, I don't understand why it uses both "preterintentional" and "preterintencional" instead of one consistent spelling.
• Should "punineed" be changed to "punished" or something else?
• Please fix the author names for reference #52
• I fixed some typos and references.

Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Muradmomi12 (17:45, 3 September 2024)

Hi Dear How Are You --Muradmomi12 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muradmomi12: Fabulous. Hope you're also doing well. GoingBatty (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

dear I wrote some article can wikipedia collected but some one move that article to Draft can you please hlep me to imporve that Muradmomi12 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muradmomi12: What is the name of the draft? GoingBatty (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Atif Munsif Khan Muradmomi12 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muradmomi12: I made some tweaks to Draft:Atif Munsif Khan and created Draft talk:Atif Munsif Khan so you can discuss it with the editors who moved the article to draftspace and declined the draft. In addition to adding more reliable sources, I suggest you update the draft per WP:SURNAME. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

ok i try Muradmomi12 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Question and Clarification

Hi, @GoingBatty,

I want to thank you for contributing to this page Draft:Paul Oluikpe. Quite several other editors had contributed and improved this article, but someone suddenly moved it to draft from the mainspace, citing insufficient sources(which I tend to disagree with, even though I respect his opinion). Given that quite some contributions had gone into this article from other editors (especially, editors who had clocked up loads of editing work and experience on wikipedia like yourself), I should have thought that this particular editor could have seen the history of edits and then raised issues for discussion amongst these contributors first, to provoke some discussion and maybe other perspectives might emerge.

Can I ask you a favour, that you go through the article again and if possible, give me feedback.

Kind regards

Cfaso2000 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cfaso2000: Hi there! I've updated some of the reference formats for the draft. There doesn't seem to be a policy that requires discussion before moving a new article from mainspace to draftspace - see WP:ATD-I. User blogs (e.g. references 1,4) interviews (e.g. references 7,8,9), and self-written works (e.g. reference 16, maybe 10) are not usually considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. I'm glad that you started a discussion on Draft talk:Paul Oluikpe, and I pinged the other editor so they'll know you're talking to them. GoingBatty (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @GoingBatty for having a look. I am very grateful for your objectivity and thanks for improving my work.

Most appreciated. Cfaso2000 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)