User talk:SuperFastSpellChecker

Hey there!

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)

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

Please do not delete this article. I would be grateful if you could guide me on how I can improve it. We are a self-funded start-up of Gen Z founders, trying to do something different, and we provide free AI to Indian schools. Your help would be very much appreciated. I will follow your guidance and Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you. Ethos6 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Especially consider this sentence:

If you are being paid, we expect you to put in the time to understand this encyclopedia's policies. Be well advised: normal, non-paid Wikipedia editors do not hand-hold paid editors. The value of the community's donated unpaid time far exceeds the value of your paid time. If you do not have the time to understand how Wikipedia works, you are invited to go back to the first section and tell your boss it cannot be done.

海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 20:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and for sharing that page. I understand that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and I should take the time to learn the policies rather than expect others to do the work for me.

I want to clarify that I don’t have a boss directing me to edit the article. I’m the company’s CEO and founder, and I wrote it myself. I’m 24 and trying to build something meaningful, but I understand that this doesn’t give me any special consideration. My connection to the company creates a conflict of interest, and I’m sorry I didn’t understand the rules clearly before.

I couldn’t find an option to submit or publish an article as a founder. Could you please point me to the right process for disclosing my connection and requesting an independent review, if the subject meets Wikipedia’s requirements? I would be very grateful for your guidance, and I understand the article may not be accepted. Ethos6 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason you could not find such an article is because you are not supposed to create or edit an article on a topic with which you have a close relationship; at the very least it should be checked for neutrality by other editors and anything promotional removed before being made public. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your guidance. I understand that, because I’m closely connected to the company, I should not directly create or edit its article in the public encyclopedia. I’m sorry I didn’t understand that earlier.

We are four students who developed the project from scratch and have faced many challenges along the way. I mention this only to explain why the article matters to us, not as a reason it should be included on Wikipedia. I understand that any article must be neutral and supported by reliable, independent sources.

If you’re able, could you please point me toward the right way to prepare a neutral draft for independent review, or suggest what needs improving? Your guidance would be very helpful to us, and I will never forget your help.

Thank you for your time. Ethos6 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

My first and last advice: stop using AI to write for you. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for being direct. I want to clarify that I used AI only to ask how to publish a Wikipedia article without making procedural mistakes. I’ll read the relevant guidance and follow the proper review process.

If you’re willing, please guide us like a big brother on how to improve the draft and submit it for review. Your help would mean a lot to us. I understand that publication depends on Wikipedia’s policies and independent review. Ethos6 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit war

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

August 2026

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your thread has been archived

Hello SuperFastSpellChecker! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Promotional article about a restaurant chain, one recent editor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Mistake about Spark Networks

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)

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)

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)

Guardian/com.ng

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Warning on ~2026-51809-89's talk page

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)

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)

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

Introducing the revamped uw-mos1 template

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)

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)

Short descriptions

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)

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)

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