User talk:Endwise/Archive 1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Michel de Montaigne have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Michel de Montaigne was changed by Endwise (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.942128 on 2022-02-02T10:24:22+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Endwise! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Small text on talk page, 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 create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking your current BLP/nationalist discussion to BLPN. I think it's clear this is a violation but not enough people are weighing and you are stuck with a consensus that appears to violate policy. Springee (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see a BLP violation in the lead of this version, Springee, I think you are squinting too hard. It seems pretty scrupulous to me. Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springee. I think we are working towards a compromise. If there is an intractable disagreement which remains I will take up your advice, but for the moment I think progress is being made. Endwise (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NI, that does have a BLP violation. The sourcing is not sufficient to put white nationalist in wiki voice. Endwise and others have clearly explained the issue. Springee (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking too far back in the page history. The article uses in-text attribution now. Endwise (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was looking at the link NI provided which still included "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian alt-right[a] political activist, white nationalist[b]" as the lead sentence. Putting "white nationalist" anywhere in the opening paragraph could be debated but I think the current lead, not the one NI linked to, addressed the red flag BLP issue. Springee (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been the version NI was thinking of? [1] Springee (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all good. BTW personally I think it's fine in the opening paragraph. If you disagree that's okay but I think the talk page for her article would be a better place for that discussion. Endwise (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm brand new to Wikipedia. I joined because I thought Wikipedia's Azov article was influenced by Russian propaganda. I see that you recently reverted the article back from a more neutral version. I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to claim in an authorial voice that the Azov Battalion is a Neo-Nazi group. They have publicly stated that they are not a Neo-Nazi group and reliable sources back this up. Russia is committing genocide in the Ukraine right now based on false claims that Ukraine is a Neo-Nazi country. I think that in this situation it might be a good idea not to insist on keeping poorly-supported authorial-voiced claims that support the propaganda of a country currently committing genocide based on that propaganda. I just wanted to throw my hat in the ring, if it will move consensus, but I don't really understand how to do that yet. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Disconnected Phrases: your point of view is an entirely reasonable one. The issue is that there was previously a request for comment on including the "neo-nazi" descriptor in the lead for the article: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. That RfC was closed in the affirmative for the article including the label, and we try to ensure that articles reflect the consensus of editors, which that request for comment was assessing.

That was in June/July 2021 though, so some months have gone past and there has been increased interest in the article after the invasion of Ukraine. There's currently discussion going on at Talk:Azov Battalion about the "neo-nazi" descriptor, and there are editors there who share your opinion. I would suggest you participate in those discussions, and if consensus is found to be in your favour, then the article will no longer describe them authoritatively as "neo-nazis" in Wikipedia's own voice. The wheels of bureaucracy at Wikipedia can (unfortunately) sometimes grind slowly. Endwise (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, friend. You said that sources are crummy here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marina_Ovsyannikova&type=revision&diff=1080401544&oldid=1080369589. What sources are needed? --Tsans2 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at the talk page, one second. Endwise (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise why would you delete Elon Musk's minor update which was done for good reason only IndianVenture (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this: [2], it was not in the cited source and did not make sense grammatically. Endwise (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new editor

Can I ask for your help editing and submitting this draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Collaboration_with_Russia_During_Russo-Ukranian_War

I believe timely publication can help nudge countries and companies away from collaborationism behaviour, hence the sense of urgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I0ving (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't have much interest in expanding that draft. Hope you are able to find other editors to help you out! Endwise (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have removed 'center' from the Dodds article for the Barrett sentence, but you have left it there for the Kavanaugh-Gorsuch sentence just before it. Did you mean to use 'center' only in the context of Kavanuagh and Gorsuch, but to exclude it from Barrett? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence before it's quoting from the WaPo article which was using "center of gravity" as a metaphor, it's odd to just trim that down to "center". In your edit I thought you were using it to mean the center of the left-right political spectrum, I see now you were just continuing the language in the previous sentence. I'll remove it from the previous sentence too, one sec. Endwise (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @ErnestKrause: thanks for alerting me to that! Endwise (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hillary Clinton. The article is on a 24-hr BRD cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Oh, I didn't see that, my bad. What does a 24-hour BRD cycle mean though? From what I'm reading I didn't violate it? If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours. It was X-Editor's change that was reverted. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. So they would be in violation if they restore it within 24 hours. You would also be in violation if you restore it again, now that you know about the restrictions. I was just starting to draft a talk page section about this content. This needs to be discussed to establish a consensus to include if it is to be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were saying I was in violation of it. I was already planning on not reinstating it, so I think all these fireworks didn't really change much. Endwise (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not in violation, as noted by the template, It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. But it is a notice for you to keep in mind regarding BLPs in general and post-1992 US politics articles specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Endwise

Thank you for creating We Can't Consent To This campaign.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the redirect!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: It was a redirect created automatically via a page move, not really my doing Endwise (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but the Curation Tool send the thanks your way. But how do you put smiling face? That's the question :) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{smiley}} Endwise (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This will really help in defusing situations. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the emo-revival album Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright contains samples from Malcolm in the Middle on three of its songs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3.5k views! -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, people do actually click DYK links! Endwise (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you put "See talk" in your edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaneFar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to the discussion I was having at Talk:Jane's Revenge#Some problems with this article. Regarding "far-left", the TLDR is that reliable sources don't tend to call them that, so Wikipedia shouldn't either; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Endwise (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd normally agree if not for the fact that far-right is perversely used to describe anything considered evil. Those supposedly reputable sources never once provide an actual explanation behind the terminology of "far-right", yet the term is abused anyway. LaneFar (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a tendency for the media to use the term "far-right" perversely as a buzzword or whatever, I think Wikipedia has an obligation to reflect the bias of the mainstream media, to an extent. Both because if we stop relying on these sources we'd have little to go off but the opinions and biases of ourselves as editors (making political Wikipedia articles little different than culture war twitter threads), and because we have an obligation to our readers that they can check that whatever we're saying is just coming from the sources we have on the matter are saying. Wikipedia does get this wrong, and use terms like "far-right" even where the media/reliable sources tend not to, but I don't think that's a good reason to get it even more wrong by inserting "far-left" into places where reliable sources don't. Endwise (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There’s an IP whose only edits are adding the word “terrorist” to the description of Jane’s Revenge. I’m not familiar with some of Wikipedia’s policies, but you cited this when you reverted this IP’s edit before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TERRORIST

I just thought that I should follow your lead with the IP’s most recent actions (which are exactly the same as all of this IP’s previous actions). But it seems to me like this IP needs to be blocked, and I don’t know how to do that, so I’m coming to you hoping that you’ll know how to handle this according to Wikipedia policies, since you seem to be a bit more familiar with them than I am. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VictimOfEntropy. Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing have some good information. In general, the way vandalism is handled is that you post warnings on their talk page, and if they keep vandalising articles despite your warnings, you report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so an administrator can block them. This specific case looks to be a bit more like disruptive editing, which you can still warn the user for on their talk page (see the full list of warning templates here). If they continue that disruption after warning them, they next thing to do would be to report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so an administrator can block them. In the case of an IP though, another thing you can do is to request the page be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, so the IP will be unable to edit the page anyway.

So TLDR, if it's vandalism warn them on their talk page and report them to WP:AIV if they won't stop. If it's disruptive editing, warn them on their talk page and report them to WP:ANI. But you could also request the page be protected at WP:RFPP. P.S., in doing any of this, installing Wikipedia:Twinkle will make things easier for you. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Avica1998. Thank you. The discussion is not about your conduct at all, but the editor in question has kept quoting you in edit summaries and has now pasted your name into the ANI discussion a couple times. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment, but this is not something I can really be bothered dealing with, TBH. Endwise (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one stood the heat for around eight months. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: Now researchers know that while the flames disappeared, some embers remained smoldering throughout the winter. The fire inside the tree discovered this week was sheltered inside the tree for months, even through the winter’s rain and snowfall. WTH. I guess there's a reason they live for thousands of years. Endwise (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands have burned to death in the last decade, don't get me wrong. Leaves light up like Christmas and their carefree sun-munching days are over. But they don't call them "stands" of destroyed trees for nothing. Anyway, if you found this fact fun, pass it on. And stay hydrated! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't specifically mentioned but this does involve edits you were involved with [3] Springee (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any more to add to what you've already written. Endwise (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with that polygamy discussion, so I have nothing to add to that AN thread. Endwise (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this. I just did it because you risk your !vote not getting noticed and because that is the default format we always use. The bold !vote should be at the very left side. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but anyone who closes the discussion will (or at least should) have read all the comments, so will understand what my preference was. I think people can get too bureaucratic around here sometimes, so if something reads better to me written in natural language I'm okay with sticking to it. I fully accept the risks that come with my dangerous and antisocial behaviour. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your response was reasonable but I removed that IP's comment because they had previously demonstrated they are trolling, by yesterday demanding we change her "occupation" to "drug addict and former basketball player". It is best to WP:DENY. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: Oh, I hadn't seen the prior comment, so I just assumed they were asking it in good faith (even though it strained my credulity). But yeah, it's clear they're just trolling, so thanks for removing it. Endwise (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. Schierbecker (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would've thought there was something preventing two people from moving the same page at the same time 🤔. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker: also, do you know if it's meant to be a hyphen or an en dash? I see you moved it to an en dash, but I have no idea what's correct. Endwise (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be an en dash like Braves–Mets rivalry. Schierbecker (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the case for other articles like Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident too. I'll go ahead and move it. Edit: nevermind, you beat me to it. Endwise (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Someone, i guess (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve this. Endwise (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you have undisclosed other previous accounts/ It's very unusual for a brand new account to have request for protection as their very first edit. Am I missing something? Volunteer Marek 15:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPs yes, accounts no. Couldn't tell you what those IPs were though (I think my IP address moves around a lot). Endwise (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, that's not a request for protection, it's an edit request, which pops up when you try and edit a protected page). Endwise (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get why you changed removed the "distracting" color of the MMI template, however, you still have the JMA, PEIS, MSK-64 and EMS-98 scales (which are like MMI) to remove color. You should remove these templates' colors as well, otherwise, i might have to give color back to the MMI for consistency Quake1234 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quake1234: I see, thanks. I didn't realise how many of these there were, so I think it would be best to have some central discussion about it rather than me going in and unilaterally changing all the rest. Do you know a good place to do that? Maybe somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management? WikiProject Tropical cyclones or WikiProject Earthquakes are I think more active but they're less "general". Endwise (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the WP:Earthquakes folks that use those. Dawnseeker2000 19:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think another RFC is going to be inevitable, concerning H. Biden's laptop or former laptop. Otherwise, sanctions may soon come into play. Wish folks would wait until January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such is life. Endwise (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on it. A six-month moratorium should've been placed on the topic being brought up, once the RFC closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endwise, we do not use headlines or titles of published articles as RS. The consensus of that thread is clearly that the NY Mag piece, drawing on deprecated Daily Mail sourcing, is not enough to satisfly NPOV (weight) or Verification. Therefore we should not be promoting that language on the article talk page, per BLP policy relating to poorly sourced statements on this site. You should undo your change, or you could archive the whole thread, which is not going to establish that the content goes in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use a headline, even from a reliable source like NYMag, as a direct source for article content. But for the title of a talk page section about that article? I really don't think it's a big deal at all. If you do think it's a big deal feel free to change the header to whatever else you want though, and I won't challenge you on it; I don't think it's that important. Don't think it needs archiving though. Endwise (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illhan Omar's article and the discussion of it both reek of anti-Israel bias. Accusations of dual loyalty, hypnotizing the world, controlling money - this isn't just "criticism of Israel" and if you're a decent person from whatever side of the aisle you know it. It's antisemitism, pure and simple, and it should be mentioned in the lead. 2A02:ED0:42F8:D400:9C4E:A201:D90D:1B38 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't conflate issues. Criticism of Israel's (and America's) treatment of Palestinians is not antisemitism. Israel doesn't get a free pass from all criticism just because Jews have been, and are, a persecuted people. They don't get to persecute Palestinians and then be protected from criticism for those actions, especially when their lebensraum policies mirror the motivations (though not the genocidal gas chambers and attacks on other nations) of the Germans in their treatment of neighboring European countries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the narrative doesn't stand up to the facts:https://www.camera.org/article/the-anti-semitic-rhetoric-of-anti-zionists/

There is plenty of intersectionality with antisemitism and criticism of Israel, and Illhan Omar demonstrated exactly that. You've been deceived, Valjean. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Record (Boygenius album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Enhanced_Games#Recent_edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Destiny Deacon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nate Silver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Axios and Semafor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steele_dossier&diff=prev&oldid=1250268634

I won't revert you, but you did write and sign that comment (no "signature attached to it"), and I had responded to it, so you shouldn't have deleted it. That is not allowed. I copied your comment and responded to it in its own section. Regardless of its original context, it's framed as a "general" concern that can be answered independently of its original context.

I'd still appreciate help on that matter. No one, least of all me, wants to see any OR or "quoting opinions as facts" in that article. That can happen, and it should be fixed. It's a frequent issue in most articles as we are all fallible humans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]