User talk:SuperFastSpellChecker

Hi SuperFastSpellChecker! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism – if you'd like to get more involved, you may want to check out some anti-vandalism tools or enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Unit's training academy. I hope you stick around and feel free to let me know if you've got any questions!

Thanks for sweeping up after vandals!

- Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll be sure to look over these links. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Shades of pink. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's a multiple-account vandal, I'm afraid. I'll step away and let admins deal with the socks. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why it's vandalism? If you are right then I'll be willing to consider whether any action is justified, but it isn't obvious that it's vandalism. JBW (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Check the other temp accounts on the same article in between the periodic protections over the past month or so, and the same on Shades of Yellow. Many bans for evasion, vandalism and general tomfoolery, all the same edits and edit summaries. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the problem has been taken care of: User talk:~2026-46187-35, it was indeed a sock. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. I noticed that you recently removed content from Royal Observatory, Greenwich without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The coordinates are properly cited at footnote 27. It is not necessary to repeat the citation at every instance where the coordinates are mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

and furthermore, Royal Observatory, Greenwich#Greenwich Meridian explains clearly that the Observatory (specifically the Airy Transit) is not at 0°00′00″. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion seems to be over here instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Observatory,_Greenwich#Removal_of_precision_in_coordinates SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Kam Dev Rao. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 15:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is an open discussion on the talk page, which I started. I am not an interested party in the outcome of the discussion, only that the edit war between the parties should stop and that they should come to a consensus. They have not done so, so the next step is to escalate to ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents which I will now do. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_Kam_Dev_Rao_unable_to_find_consensus_on_talk_page SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You made a mistake by removing the link I added on the Spark Networks page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-42860-12#c-SuperFastSpellChecker-20260830125500-August_2026 ~2026-42860-12 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at our guidelines about external links at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Thanks

SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

In fact, now that you have drawn my attention to it more closely: I see that (1) Spark Networks itself is defunct, and (2) the "CROSSPATHS" referred to in the article has no connection to the site you incorrectly linked in the body of the article at all. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for spotting that. The use of an entire domain name just to pump up a subject's notability seems extremely concerning. I think we might want to bring this mess (socky editors that seemingly know enough about Wikipedia to just start a new account without getting rejected by edit filter on CSD removal first, UPE, etc..) on both COIN and Meta Blocklist? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 10:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

All its other new draft pages bar this one last one have been speedily removed, the evidence is vanishing quickly. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries / I think admins can view them anyways.

At least, I think the SPI may be somewhere to document these stuff... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chra52794 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 10:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Black Kite blocklisted the URL. Hope it didn't cost them too much to buy the domain name, but I'd be glad if it did. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Probably pennies, I expect, but good result. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Heyo, why did you immediately give the above temporary account a Level 4 warning immediately? I understand they were clearly a vandal (and they were blocked as I'm writing this) but still, they didn't receive any warning beforehand. Thanks, pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Compare:

~2026-51809-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IngleburgerUU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

oh i didn't see that keep cooking twin pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SuperFastSpellChecker, and thanks for your contributions. I noticed that you have used user warning templates like {{uw-mos1}} to advise or warn users about MOS issues, such as at this user Talk page—thanks very much for that. The {{uw-mos1}} template has always suffered from vagueness; if you look at that example on the user's talk page, you'll notice it doesn't say anything about what MOS rule they broke, making it nearly impossible for the user to understand: 1) what they did wrong, 2) how to fix it, or 3) how to avoid making the exact same error next time. In brief, if used without additional wording, the uw-mos1 template assigns blame without explanation or remedy, and is virtually useless to help a willing user improve.

But, good news! The template has been revamped with new features, in particular, a couple of different ways to signal exactly what MOS rule was broken. There are two new parameters you can use for this: |issue=, and |longissue=. Please take a minute to go over the new doc at {{uw-mos1}} about how to use the new params; see especially sections §§ Notes​ and Examples. Next time you need to advise a user about a MOS style issue, please try out the new features to help the user understand better what they are being templated for.

Once again, many thanks for using {{uw-mos1}} to advise editors about MOS issues; I hope you'll find the new features helpful. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I use Twinkle to select and format user page messages; I assume if I would like to use these new parameters I'd need to manually edit the page after creating the initial message, since Twinkle doesn't expose the parameters for editors? Have you considered liaising with the Twinkle devs to see if that's something they'd be interested in? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:SDAVOID - you should avoid using descriptions like "Former" in article short descriptions. So "Scottish low cost airline" is sufficient, but nobody is going to object if you changed it to, for example, "Scottish low cost airline (2002{{ndash}}2009)". Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understood, I'll watch out for that in future. It looked like an accidental word removal at the time because of the leading space. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have issued that user a create-4 user warning for sealioning and moving the piece of advert twice into the mainspace. I don't think we need to spend any more time for someone that doesn't even care to read the policies and guidelines. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 17:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't see this, the article in question is already under discussion: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Atomesus SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know. I G11ed it because I find it to be quite uncontroversial. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 17:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It was G11ed. Would you like me to move that queue-jumping on the top of this page down to this thread? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 18:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll probably purge it in a day or two, after the dust settles. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please stop removing alt text from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kite (geometry). The usage of alt text is strongly encouraged by MOS:ALTTEXT and required by the Good Article rules, which apply to the kite article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

PS one of your removals was ok. It is the other one, from the infobox image, that was problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand the use of alt for accessibility. However when previewing my other lint fixes I was warned:

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox polygon with unknown parameter "alt"

which matched the image lint errors I had already looked at. Admittedly, I haven't come across this template before but I trusted the source editor. The warning is there again after your revert. I don't know who to contact about getting a warning corrected. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

And, also PS:

WTF what are you doing automatically removing alt text from images??

doesn't sound like WP:AGF to me. My edits were manual and in good faith. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand the errors you think you see, and don't understand how to fix them, then maybe you should find something you do understand to work on here instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Very collegiate, thanks for that. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello SuperHelloFastSpellChecker the Club de Fútbol Fraigcomar wiki page hasnt been updated for awhile with some outdated information and status of the club. The new informations about Club de Fútbol Fraigcomar joining Liga Puerto Rico is very relevant to their history. With proof that they did particitpate in the league. Adding this new information with relevant sources, will help update the status of the Wiki page.

67brainriot (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I replied to your first message on your Talk page. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this an alternate account of yours? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is not, I use one account only. I don't recognise the titles of the articles it edited, but I'll take a closer look later and see if I can throw any light on it. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If those keep spawning I guess we'd just CU them. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Likely the fan club from Joe Moran (social historian), there were blocks but not all of them. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Streisand effect you say? Target article watched and added to my COI tracker page. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good hunting, but they can surface anywhere SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

On one hand, it looks to be a clear attempt at impersonating you, but on the other, the account was cleaning up some of that BS. Go figure. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe one of the gang had doubts about vandalizing outside the main article and tried to make amends, who knows? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @SuperFastSpellChecker you mentioned me and say you revised my edit about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearpop&gesuggestededit=1&veaction=edit&action=edit article. After your edit wiki suggestion appeared to me as newcomer task and want me to edit and revise the marketing tone again.

My edit removed promotional wording, including “amassed the largest known,” “most consistent,” and “market leader in providing high quality brand deals.” It also removed the 2023 community figure, which is not supported by the cited 2021 article. I acknowledge that deleting individual phrases left grammatical issues, so I propose a complete, neutral rewrite rather than restoring the original wording.

Thank you and happy editing. Omer EVREY (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Even if an article is presented to you via the newcomer task list you are not obliged to edit it. It can be safely left to someone else to address, especially if you are not confident in English. There are plenty of other tasks to look into. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your guidance however, my question was about the promotional wording, not whether I was obliged the article. Also wikipedia's tools are tasking us to make those edits. So wikipedia did not approve your wording in there. Could we discuss a neutral rewrite of phrases such as “amassed the largest known” and “market leader in providing high quality brand deals”? Omer EVREY (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what "wikipedia did not approve your wording" means. The newcomer tools suggest simple and optional starter tasks, not orders that must be obeyed without thought. That's what "Suggested edits" means.

When a task suggests "Make articles more factual by removing promotional words" you can skip to the next article. It doesn't mean remove every word that looks promotional leaving the text meaningless. Please don't edit an article to leave it in a state that is less understandable than you found it. If you are unsure how to do that for a particular article, please just click the "Next suggested edit" button. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply