User talk:Hodgdon's secret garden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clarice Phelps has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden. Clarice Phelps, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"deletionist at heart"

Hey, sorry to contact you on your talk page, but I wanted to point something out while also ensuring that there were no hard feelings about any prior interactions we may have had regarding the article in question.

FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to avoid using the word "deletionist" in an unironic fashion to refer to other editors, as you did here. I don't doubt that it was not your intention to cause offense, which is why I'm pointing this out here rather than calling you out "publicly" on the article talk page. Thing is, the word is something of a slur, frequently used in bad faith by people who are not interested in combating systemic anti-feminist (or anti-Asian, or anti-whatever) bias either on-wiki or in the world at large, but are rather treating the encyclopedia as a "battlefield" and trying to get one up on their "opponents" and using (I would say "attempting to hijack") causes like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red in pursuit of that goal.

Indeed, it could be argued that it was the "deletionists" who drew attention to the fact that Phelps wasn't credited or even mentioned in the majority of third-party sources that ultimately caused said sources to amend that oversight. (And don't get me wrong -- I am thrilled that she now has an article and that that oversight has been corrected.) It's highly doubtful that the majority of the "keepist" editors who had commented in the first AFD or DRV did anything meaningful to address this problem. (And I'm not talking about you or Jess Wade, but about the people who would have !voted keep regardless of whether the subject was a Black woman whose contribution was being overlooked because of systemic bias or a white man who simply hadn't made such a contribution but would like us to think he had -- note that the "Warden" in that AFD is the same person who filed the current DYK and was one of the only "overturn" !votes in the first DRV.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comparing other editors to neonazis

I'm not sure your intent in bringing up The Daily Stormer out of the blue, as you did here, was to draw a link between editors you disagree with and despicable scum who happen to hold antifeminist views you (apparently?) also attribute to said editors, but you should know that doing anything that could be reasonably interpreted as that is never acceptable.

And FWIW, I signed on to this, but I don't see anywhere either you or Andrew have endorsed it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Run-on sentences

Hello HSG. I have a very minor criticism of your editing, and I hope you won't take it personally... I've noticed that you have a habit of condensing multiple sentences into single, longer sentences, perhaps in an effort to make content more concise. Unfortunately, this sometimes has the effect of making content more difficult to read as it creates complicated run-on sentences. This is a very common pattern on Wikipedia, but I'm hoping that folks will consider the virtues of using discrete short sentences, as research has consistently shown that sentence length is strongly tied to reader comprehension.[1] Anyway, sorry to bug you and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Clarice Phelps

On 22 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clarice Phelps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nuclear scientist Clarice Phelps has been recognized as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarice Phelps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clarice Phelps), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious

U.S. culture and science

Thank you for quality articles such as Shooting of Hosie Miller in 2010, Mormon studies, Jon Huntsman 2012 presidential campaign, Fellowships of the remnants in 2018, and now Clarice Phelps, performed in collaboration, for "Here she is", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2366 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mormon studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Biden assault allegation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Biden assault allegation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

Please don't use edit summaries to conduct debates as you did here. Use the talkpage for any comments you have on other edits. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:John G. Turner

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John G. Turner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tech4Good awards

The article Tech4Good awards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing what makes this award pass WP:GNG. BEFORE does not reveal much coverage about the award itself, through there are some passing mentions in articles about the winners. But WP:NOTINHERITED and notable winners do not make each award they win notable as well. Btw, [2] (first hit in GNews) is written by one of the award judges (not independent), and other sources either have similar COI, or as I noted, are passing mentions only.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tara Reade

The article Tara Reade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article seems to run foul of WP:ONEEVENT. Ms. Reade's allegations are already detailed at length in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. There is no need to restate them here. This article should be deleted or merged into that article. This page was a redirect until today, that should be restored.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have converted this to a regular deletion discussion, as it should have been at the beginning. Its nomination page is here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"J word" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect J word. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#J word until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Y word" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Y word. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Y word until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"O word" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect O word. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#O word until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tara Reade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congressional intern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for catching that Reade told WaPo in 2019: "I want to emphasize: It’s not him [Biden]. It's the people around him."" That article further quotes Reade: "Looking back now, that’s my criticism. Maybe he could have been a little more in touch with his own staff." What do you think about that last line? starship.paint (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Keepapitchinin

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Keepapitchinin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden accusation

Hi. Isn't this a 1RR violation? [3]. Please revert and check the source. Maybe it's unnecessary anyway. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intercept (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

File:AlexandraTaraReade.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AlexandraTaraReade.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"W word" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect W word. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#W-word until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited You Are My Sunshine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earl Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Reade

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

I'm asking you to strike your personal comments you posted about me at the Biden allegations article. They violate the Arbcom American Politics decision, and you may be blocked or topci banned for such conduct. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal rescue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue shift (politics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ensign College.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ensign College.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ensign College.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ensign College.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessica Krug academic scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minstrelsy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with Files

I want to upload the Russian logo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Russian Wikipedia, but I don't know exactly how and I'm new to wikipedia. I don't want to do it wrong and risk getting people mad at me. Basically, the entire Russian Wikipedia page for the church is a mess and says it's a cult, and I'd just like to update it to look like the modern English version. Any advice? MihaelMaxenglish1 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Word of God (community)

The article cites "Thigpen 2002" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: @Hodgdon's secret garden: You are looking for... Thigpen, T. Paul. "Catholic Charismatic Renewal, " International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Mass: 460-467. Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 2002 dont ask...

Thanks for weighing in on Coral Thiell question

On Talk:People of Praise. One of the other editors suggested I create an WP:RFC to get outside opinions beyond those looking at the page, so I plan to work on that over the next several days. Novellasyes (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate your wordsmithing on Reimers. Very hard to get it exactly right and precise, without taking 10 pages to do it! Novellasyes (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I finally got the RfC constructed on the "People of Praise" article relative to the Coral Thiell situation. Novellasyes (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're the best for fixing my mess! Novellasyes (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Gottlieb Duttweiler Prize has been nominated for listification

Category:Recipients of the Gottlieb Duttweiler Prize has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Printer's manuscript" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Printer's manuscript. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Printer's manuscript until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tara Reade

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tara Reade, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tara Reade

Hello, Hodgdon's secret garden. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tara Reade".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to CRT!

Thank you for your edits to Critical Race Theory. I see that several of your edits have been reverted. I hope you don't feel discouraged by this. It's common on pages where some authors strong ideological perspectives. Your numerous citations and lists of references speak volumes to your dedication to accuracy! We need more editors like you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

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.

Yearly reminder. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Woke

Greetings. I am watching the talk page; there's no need to WP:PING me with every reply. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please only include essential information in your talk page posts. Lengthy messages are difficult to read and risk being misunderstood or ignored; see Good practices for talk pages. Please also avoid copying lengthy primary sources per WP:NOFULLTEXT. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:woke for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article could be tagged —

(refactored from Talk: Woke)

 ... {{Unbalanced}}. Not that it will be.

A contributor couldn't drag nuanced critique of the current tumult for change into our wikiarticle on Woke to save his or her life: The only content that is allowed must be as completely-slanted pro. Interpreting guidelines in pro hoc fashion to do so. ... ... ... Oh no! The word woke is being used sometimes as a derogatory epithet!: Aw c'mon; get out of here: This just means that change is being effected! Eg: I'll quote Britannica on the word: hippie. "The term hippie was soon applied by local journalists to this new subculture, and the word gained national (and soon international) recognition in 1967 thanks in large part to the frequent use of the epithet by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen. The term can be descriptive or derogatory and was not initially used by the youths to describe themselves."

In the sixties, in reality most folks were more conservative than those of its cultural avant-garde, yeah? Yet: Who represents, in our historical imagination, this decade's cultural impact? Daresay: hippies – (plus the V-for-victory sign rebranded for "peace"; the Briton Gerald Holtom-invented monogram of /n/ and /d/ for "nuclear disarmament" in semaphore of central vertical for /d/ and downward lines on both sides for /n/]; etc.) Yet, yes, Who'll end up considered avatars for the present decade and its pro-equality effervescence?: the woke!; even so, our wikiarticle oughtn't to be subtly pro nor con this present opinion surge.

Although I'm subtly thus myself, I still believe that WP actually should bend over backward in service of the elusive quality of neutrality; hence, I'm I'm somebody who really wishes Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources were THE N^o ONE policy and not some mere "essay." ... Barring that, I dig when periodicals simply are up and front about their across-the-board editorial slant: My favorite example of which being reporting in the Economist, whose editorial stance (according to WP, not a reliable source) is supportive of "radical centrism, favouring policies and governments that maintain centrist politics." (Oddly enough – or, not really! – if we look up WP viewership vs. even mag subscription/viewership statistics, they'll see that our own Wiki article is going to get exponentially more page views than anything in even subscription and online viewership of even such an influential a mag as the Economist, articles such as ours on WP win hands down! Even more of an impetus for super neutrality, IMHO!)

Tomorrow's – as it's dated! – Economist "says" (which mag, also, btw, is still un-bylined: so that, it says, its journalists can continue speaking in a collective voice; thus, an expression like "the Economist says" really means just that!) — anyway, tomorrow's Economist[4] includes material about the Brits' current premier that's in a tone so refreshingly neither particularly pro nor con! For a subtly "pro" portion thereof, take the piece's 3rd graf, talking about Boris's likenesses to Benjamin Disraeli, reading, "Disraeli could never resist the temptation to poke fun at the priggish and pompous, who were hardly in short supply in Victorian England. He mocked his first patron, Peel, for long-windedness ('he traces the steam engine always back to the tea-kettle'), and his great rival, Gladstone, for self-righteousness. Mr Johnson loves taking a pop at neo-Victorians, whether the great and the good spouting platitudes or woke warriors itching to take offence."

Just imagine our WP article's having gumption enough to include a reference, no matter how oblique, to one instance from among the reams and reams and reams of observers' reports about often-overzealous Jacobins within the current tumult [Wikipedia: "Jacobin is sometimes used in the Anglosphere as a pejorative for radical, left-wing revolutionary politics.[3]"] such as the Economist so-gently skewers as "the great and the good spouting platitudes or woke warriors itching to take offence." I can dream, can't I!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this comment here because Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. There are ongoing discussions for improvements on the talk page already, based on existing policies and guidelines. These lengthy messages of yours are becoming disruptive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Le weekend.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Page blocks

You have been blocked indefinitely from Woke and Talk:Woke. Please compare my AE comment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 13:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hodgdon's secret garden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I really and truly will avoid anything like casting aspersions on any other editors in talk page discussions and do commit never so to do in the future and I ask for the chance to prove that I understand that going forward I cannot do anything interpretable as such. In fact, were I to slip up and again were to do so, I'd be extremely dissatisfied with myself, with my submitting to my being re-banned without even contesting it. If such a request cannot be granted, I request that some definite time period instead be imposed.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may prove what you say by demonstrating it through your work on other articles. Once that is done sufficiently, this can be revisited. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• ? HSG, did you go to my AE comment, as I asked you to in the block notice, to see my specific block reason, which was wasting other editors' time? Did you not hear that? I don't understand why you don't address it in your unblock request. I didn't block you for casting aspersions. That was not the problem I saw. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello garden, this is a comment in response to the request at Clpo13's page. Topic bans, even if indefinite, are not necessarily forever. After some time of constructive editing in other areas, an appeal may be credible and pass (i.e. 3-6 months). As they said, "you should demonstrate this in other topic areas" is a common expectation. —PaleoNeonate – 09:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KrugMediumpost.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KrugMediumpost.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Binger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Miranda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Religious exemption (U.S.)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious exemption (U.S.) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Religious exemption (U.S.) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lone star flag

Regarding your recent changes to the Lone star flag disambiguation page, please see the following Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to the use of references on Wikipedia disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References. Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Cut/paste move from a while ago

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give H bar a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into H-bar. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. HouseBlaster^talk 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rio Virgen County, Utah Territory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Twittergate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Twittergate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 5#Twittergate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Crotch bulge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Crotch bulge and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 17 § Crotch bulge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)