User talk:Nubzor/Archive 3

I'm proof an people i know also. It's an old remedy I was taught when I was a kid an I've always done it since then an when I'm around anyone that gets stung that ain't allergic I do the tobacco an its worked every single time an I'm almost 40!!! 2603:6081:8B3C:7FC:660:1CBC:9F69:DA1D (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC) I actually just left the park an when i was there is got stung an did my tobacco remedy like I've always done an within a few minutes the sting, itch an humped up red spot it made was gone. I can send a picture if you'd like!![reply]

That's wonderful to hear. However, information on Wikipedia should be verifiable and properly cited. Personal anecdotes don't fall into that, unfortunately! Nubzor (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just discovered (helped by a few anon editors) that the big summary of the plot that was in here actually WAS describing the wrong film. Joyous! Noise! 02:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, it looks like it was originally added here. That user has a lot of plot summary additions. I tried looking through a few to see if they were accurate or fabricated but nothing sticks out. But that's a bit concerning if the entire thing was made up. Nubzor (T | C) 14:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was made up. I think it's a summary of a show called "Helix." Maybe the user just got their tabs mixed up. Joyous! Noise! 15:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nubzor. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Aoidh (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate you having taken the time to review my contributions/edits for this request. Nubzor (T | C) 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nubzor,

Would you be able to explain or articulate the evidence suggesting the singer Rebekah Del Rio has passed away as edited onto her Wikipedia page. The citation used comes from the LA County Medical Examiner's Office but this isn't evidence it is the same individual.

Is there any additional confirmation of this artist's passing? (Genuinely asking). Thanks. Willowwhsiper (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willowwhsiper Just that information from the medical examiner's office. In searching now, I came across this, but I am unfamiliar with this website and could not vouch for its credibility.

I saw that she does live in LA and matched the exact name and age of the reported deceased. You are correct though--that could indeed be someone else without additional confirmation, so perhaps I made a mistake without there being any additional sources at this time. Feel free to remove the information for now if you would like. Nubzor (T | C) 23:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WillowwhsiperLooks like there are multiple sources reporting now. Variety, Yahoo, Independent. Nubzor (T | C) 12:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nubzor,

You stated I did not provide "credible citations" when I did. I included another citation that provides one example of the citation for speculation which I believe is important to include since it is history. I would like to state my case. Including the common speculation that the meaning behind the specificity of the height of the flagpoles being 88 suggest there it is a dog-whistle between the current administration and Neo-Nazis within the history of the White House flagpoles records the public's reaction and the public discourse of the flagpoles accurately which is often left out of historical records therefore should be included to more thoroughly throughout the records we have online. If I did not reference them correctly then please help me fix my mistake. I had edited it several weeks ago to be more accurate and provided a citation which was not removed but there was an edit saying that there was only one flagpole and that it was 100 ft tall, which is inaccurate. This time I edited the page to include the public's reaction and included two extra citations for my reasoning. Please let me know if you believe it is not unbiased enough or if I simply did not cite/reference correctly.

My official edits are below:

On June 18, 2025, President Donald Trump installed two 88-foot flagpoles on each of the White House lawns, each flying a large American flag, reportedly spending $100,000 as a personal contribution to the White House.[1] It is speculated that the specificity of the 88-foot flagpoles is a dog-whistle for Neo-Nazis according to the Anti-defamation League (ADL). The number 88 represents "Heil Hitler" for being the 8th letter in the alphabet.[2] [3] [4]

@209.16.117.54 The current linked references state 100 feet and the official White House website has references to 100 feet. That was why I reverted your edit as unsourced. If you'd like to make the 88ft claim, and connections to Nazi dog-whistles, you can try. But you'll want to find reliable sources that state 88ft and add those to the article before you try to make the Nazi dog-whistle claim. Though you might want to discuss on the talk page first, as I imagine it there will be some disagreements. Best of luck! Nubzor (T | C) 18:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that my information was not credible. However, I live in St. Louis and know my stuff. I would argue that you likely DON'T live in St. Louis and should reconsider before editing things you don't know about. Piss off, mate. 12.87.184.218 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris_(Deltarune) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this? when it is on record that they have both cis- (male + female), plus singular theys and non-binaries, and it is in two sources, the OFSTED which applauds the school on its approach, and the school website. 92.40.205.187 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring at this point. Rather than continue to go back and forth on what gender-related language to use, I feel my edit solves the issue without compromising any of the information contained within the article. It seems unnecessary to even mention gender in the lead. I'm not sure what either your edit--or the others' edits--contribute to the article.

If you'd like to re-add your specific language, go for it. But I would recommend adding the 2 sources you mention to prevent further frustrations on your end. Nubzor [T][C] 20:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nubzor. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]