User talk:ConanHighwoods

Hello, ConanHighwoods, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Chatpage for Conan, me.

A tag has been placed on Category:Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You say you are a "noob"; creating categories is not something a new user should be doing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories is a good place to learn about them and specifically learn about where work is needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, reverting someone in an article more than 3 times in 24 hours is a definite sign of edit warring and is worthy of being blocked. If someone is to revert you and you revert them again within this day, you are likely to be blocked from editing temporarily. This is not a threat but a simple warning as I expect you'll follow this policy and engage in cordial discussion rather than repeated reverts. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at the same time, reverting an edit that is easily confirmed is waring behavior too. This is easily verified stuff. I will keep my edit as it is, and hope you will too. I will not remove the wiki, I will leave that up to others more qualified. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at the same time, reverting an edit that is easily confirmed is waring behavior too. That is not true. Edit warring is clearly defined in WP:WAR. Content on Wikipedia is verified when it is sourced to a reliable source, not through original research, so it is justified by policy for me to revert you. I suggest then though you should be WP:BOLD, you should actually take a step back and learn how your edits violate policy rather than refusing to accept someone's advice. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I will drop this soon as a war/block/ban over a tag would be stupid, but I am curious why is it you want 'solid proof' of this game having tentacle monsters but are fine with "Predators range from camouflaged carnivorous plants to vultures and Komodo dragon-like lizards...". None of those have citations...not that they need them as their presence in the game can easily be confirmed. If you do not accept citations from the official wiki...then where would you get info on it? ConanHighwoods (talk) ConanHighwoods (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You can look at the citations covered throughout the article. Reliable sources include reviews from video game journalists listed at WP:VGRS. That claim is cited in the next sentence. They cover those two sentences. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Rosario + Vampire, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Okuto Kotsubo (小壷 奥人, Kotsubo Okuto) is the physical education teacher. Like Ginei, he has a perverted interest in the girls; he restrains himself, but hates that they "develop way too fast".[S1 ep 7] When Mizore confesses her attraction to him, he tries to take advantage of her but gets frozen and has her suspended. He pins the injuries of two students on Mizore to have her expelled and then tries to kill her by transforming into a kraken.[S1 v5] In the anime, Mizore does not have feelings for Kotsubo, but he takes advantage of her when she cries over Tsukune;[S1 ep 7] He is voiced by Yasuyuki Kase in the Japanese anime, and by Christopher Sabat in the English dub.[S1 ep 7]

He is a kraken, hence he is a tentacle monster. He tried to kill a MC, so is significant enough to receive a tag.

ConanHighwoods (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

But what part of "backed up in the same article" don't you understand? What you're mentioning is something that's in the article about characters in the series, not in the article about the series itself. WP:CATDEF clearly states: Articles should normally be included in the categories that are most closely related to the subject's defining characteristics. Categories should not group subjects by trivial characteristics that have little relevance to the topics, unless it can be shown that such a characteristic or grouping is notable. If a reader unfamiliar with the series reads the article and sees no mention of tentacles in the body of the article, they might wonder why it is included in the category you insist on adding. Therefore, it is not a defining category of the series and should not be included. Categories are not added solely because of specific events that occur in a work. Xexerss (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please understand how categories work once and for all. If a bear appears in one episode of a 12-episode series, that doesn't mean the entire series should be included in the category Category:Works about bears. Are you doing this just to have more articles in the category you created? Xexerss (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ConanHighwoods As an alternative viewpoint: I'm currently playing The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. I'm currently playing a very short quest involving sheep.

If I clicked on a category called "Video games about sheep" and found this game, I'd be really confused (and a little annoyed). This game is hundreds of hours long and only fifteen minutes are about sheep! Sheep aren't even mentioned in the article, why did you send me here?

Think of your audience and respect their time. If this game had a category for every quest, it'd be bigger than the rest of the article.

We have to draw the line somewhere, and the line is limited to core concepts for the subject as a whole.

Those core concepts should be in the article - if something isn't in the article, then it shouldn't be a category either. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. So if sheep where seen throughout the game even if they had little to no influence on the plot, should I tag it? I mean like sheeps as pets, statues of sheep, sheep themed items, etc.? What if in a tv show with 12 episodes, a single episode contains a plot where a sheep pushes on the over archinig plot? Should I tag it? What about and 100+ episode show? Like if a ram killed a MC or hurt them bad enough it was relavent to the rest of the show? ConanHighwoods (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You've given a lot examples and there are too many to really respond to, but you can ask in the Article Talk page if you're unsure. Overall I'd say no to the examples you've been given. The last one, maybe if they were scared of sheep and they showed up regularly in the majority of episodes as a major plot point.

• If you had to describe the game/show to someone in thirty seconds, would you mention sheep?
• Is it a major, recurring plot point?
• Is it in the main body of the article (not an episode synopsis)?

If yes to all three, I'd categorise. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

IDK why you reported me, we could have settled it here, I was getting better with the tagging. Hopefully this will not lead to an edit block. ConanHighwoods (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Xexerss (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, i was reverting the ones that were correct. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice from someone who doesn't want to see you blocked, because I think you can do some good here.

Please read Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough. It doesn't matter if you're right, if you're being disruptive whilst doing it. Even if you think you're being "tempted" into edit warring, be the better person and just don't do it.

There are appropriate forums for dispute resolution if you've tried and failed to come to a consensus on the article Talk page.

ANI is highly visible and known internally as a "drama board", so there will be more eyes on your edits than usual and more people scrutinising your edits. That doesn't mean they're the same user.

If you genuinely think someone is sockpuppeting, you should open an Wikipedia:SPI report with clear evidence (diffs). Just accusing people on a noticeboard could be considered a personal attack and make others less receptive to your point of view. BTW I don't think this is a good time to try that, this is just for your future reference.

You know what I think would be a really good idea, before this escalates? Agree to stay away from categorisation for a bit - this seems to be your weakest area.

Volunteer to do this yourself, that way that you're showing goodwill and the rare ability to be critical of your own actions.

Accept that you might need to learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works before you return to it. It's also a good way to build up your knowledge base of different types of editing, something we should all try to do from time to time.

You'd be surprised how few people are able to step back and go "yep, I probably shouldn't be here right now, I'll come back later when I've learned a bit more."

You'd be even more surprised to see not only how effective that tactic is, but also the respect it can earn you from others. It's admirable behaviour IMO and should happen more often at ANI.

Turn this situation around in your favour & treat it as an opportunity to learn and grow. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I should have let it go. My gut was telling me not to make certain edits that i meade anyways because they seemed obviously correct, i.e Tentacles/Tentacle monsters in fiction on Splatoon articles. I guess it was more so that users were reverting obviously correct ones(reverting the tentacle tag on Ursula and Sharktopus). Should I revert if it is obviously correct. Like if I tag a work with a dinosaur tag because a MC is a dinosaur or the work is filled with dinosaurs, and an user reverts it for whatever reason, should I just revert it?

Yeah, guess I will just go back to reading articles for a while. ConanHighwoods (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can also do simpler things, the Wikipedia:Typo Team always has stuff to do and would be a great way to build up knowledge and confidence? It's interesting to go into an article to swap a non-neutral word to a better one, then read through the random article you've never seen before!

Reading articles builds up your general knowledge, but if you want to improve as an editor I highly recommend going back to basics and build up a really good foundation first. Categorisation is surprisingly popular, so everything will get sorted out by other editors - focus on building your skillset first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I just did an edit of Username:666; a misdated event fixed, new source for the new date added, and a link to a relevant article on on here. Is this fine for someone like me? I was not gonna edit today(or anytime soon), but I saw a wrong date on an article I was kinda interested in. ConanHighwoods (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this too much. Should i just have changed the date? I would have if it was unsourced, but i was worried it would be a conflict in article information and source information. ConanHighwoods (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the citation says 2025, not 2024? If you're changing a date like you did here, you need to check the existing source or find a new, reliable source that backs up what you're changing. I'd revert that back until you can find a reliable source that says 2024, then you'd need to replace the existing citation. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ~2025-37197-04. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The attack was an accusation of sock puppetry on my talk page. This is disruptive. ~2025-37197-04 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack, it was a suspension I had. You correctly told me not to disrupt my ANI page so left a message in your talk page. But you deleted it instead of interacting and countering the claims ConanHighwoods (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Technically speaking, deleting a Talk page comment is considered acknowledging & confirming it has been read.

Suspicions of socking are usually best dealt with at Wikipedia:SPI, not least because of Wikipedia:BEANS and to make sure a proper investigation is performed.

• If someone is a sock they'll probably deny it and get defensive.
• If someone isn't a sock then they'll definitely deny it and get annoyed.
• Ergo, telling someone you think they're a sock is seldom helpful.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)