User talk:Thinker78

Thinker78 is offline

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi Thinker78,

Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD. Thank you, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jessewaugh I don't understand what's your request if it's been deleted for a year. I looked for sources and, at least in the news, I failed to find practically anything. I usually put the threshold for notability in at least three reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and cover the subject in detail. Thinker78 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:BIO

There is no discussion going on re "notable" verses "notability" in this guideline. Please start one per WP:BRD. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Srich32977, the WP:BRD explanatory supplement says that the person reverting may begin a discussion, it doesn't say "should". But it does state, "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." In addition, WP:WPEDIT states, "Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change." Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

YOU referred to a "pending discussion". But no discussion ensued, even after I extended an invitation to open one, so I reverted your Bold edit. In any event, a discussion is now open. I look forward to your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Srich32977 Yes, "pending discussion" because a discussion was due by the initiating editor because the edit was contentious. When you make an edit to a policy or guideline, if someone reverts you, that means your edit was and is contentious, and it needs to be discussed before being added again. Editors making edits in policies and guidelines should not revert a revert, but instead discuss it in the talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The BRD supplement suggests discussing the concern on the article talk page, which is why I asked you to open the discussion. At that point you could have opened the discussion (in which case I would have responded). OR – the other choice – you could leave my edit as-is, without discussion (and all would be fine and dandy). When you did not accept my invitation I hoped you'd allow me to re-revert without discussion. Since Eppstein has reverted I've opened the discussion about this serious editing issue. (Please join in.) BTW: I don't know what you mean by "contentious edit". We improve WP via WP:CONSENSUS and these discussions are part of the process. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

accusations re: "common sense"

With regards to your edit summary that says, "Fourthords, have some common sense", the English Wikipedia policy on personal attacks instructs all editors to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. I was instead simply asking you to have some common sense before removing content that is obviously relevant. Didn't intend to offend. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions renewal

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-1932 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 12:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Honeywell Lead section

Hello Thinker78, I've been working on factual updates to the Honeywell article, and I'd like to get another pair of eyes on it. I have a COI with Honeywell, so I'm refraining from editing directly, but I saw you have helped my former colleague FacultiesIntact, with Honeywell in the past. If you have time, could you check out my proposed updates for the lead? I'd really appreciate it.--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting your reversions

Your reversion on the page Marc Dutroux was this morning reverted and lots more was also removed. This was done by the user Toddy1. I don't know why it was reverted because all the information had sources backing it up. I came across this article early this morning and decided to read it later but when I came to it, the majority of the article had been removed. I figured I shouldn't go and revert it back myself because I don't have a lot of edits. I'm also wondering why this guy would do that? It seems strange to remove so much of an article that has been there for a while, especially after so little discussion on the talk page. The article is a pretty controversial subject. TagPro129 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@TagPro129: Thanks for the tip. You can watch previous versions in the "view history" tab.--Thinker78 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux

Hello, could you please reinstate the section "deaths of potential witnesses" in the Marc Dutroux article? Also all of the rest of the article before the revision of Toddy1 was all sourced. I put a lot of time into gathering sources in French, German, Dutch and English (reliable ones) in order to paint the whole picture of the trial. Please help me to reinstate my work. Marc Dutroux was officially in court convited not only with his wife but also with Michel Lièvre and at least one other accomplice was officially named in court documents (Bernard Weinstein) but was already dead at the trial so not convicted with Dutroux. It is horrid that Dutroux is constantly painted as a lone serial killer even though he was clearly involved in the crime scene of Belgium. The people in Belgium know that he was part of a network but outside of Belgium there is near to no knowledge on the case. This must be changed. Especially considering that Dutroux will be eligible for parole soon. Thanks, --Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 09:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I did manually revert it and saved the code so that it won't take as much time the next time around. Nevermind so. And thanks for editing to keep the list of dead witnesses in the article...--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 10:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sparrow (麻雀): I was planning in doing some work and restoring some info with more sources. Be sure to read the talk page regarding your edits and the policy they are bringing forth (WP:EXTRAORDINARY). You might say that it is not extraordinary, but if another editor believes it is, then the onus is on you to follow said policy, specially if there is consensus about it. I know it is not a good feeling when you put a lot of work in something and another editor undoes your work. Be strong!--Thinker78 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sourced everything with reliable newspaper articles. Everything written in the article is publicly accessible. I do agree that the subheadings are too long. And probably the style in general could be improved. But the content itself is solid. And everything is sourced well. I don't know why you put that heading in the article. Why does it need to state that the content is disputed? The Dutroux case is an obvious example of a criminal enterprise subverting the European political sphere. It should be in everyone's interested to make that known and avoid such things from happening in the future.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 05:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ummmm, evidently the article is in a dispute. Other editors are disputing with you the factual accuracy of the content. You say one thing, the other editors say another thing, and this is called a dispute. I share your feelings regarding the Dutroux case very much, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM.--Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Tank Girl

Hi Thinker78. You may recall you got in touch with me on my talk page last May asking if I was still offering barnstars to translate any good or featured articles I had written into another language. Specifically you said you were thinking of translating Tank Girl (film) into Spanish. While the offer over at the Reward Board has recently expired, I just thought I'd contact you once to let you know I would still honour the original offer if you translated it (or any other article I have written) at any point in the future. One barnstar for translation, another for successful nomination to FA. Or if you prefer I could review any two peer reviews or good or featured article nominations of your choice. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

North Potomac

Thank you for reviewing North Potomac, Maryland. I will eventually submit it for GA review. If you think anything obvious that it needs, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will use North Potomac as a "template" to upgrade another CDP—Travilah, Maryland. TwoScars (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Rape in Islamic Law

I just noticed that you have previously taken interest in the article Rape in Islamic law. Would you consider joining the discussion between me and Vice regent? We could do with third opinions. I would not have bothered you if the discussion had made some sort of headway or if it was being solved at DRN. I opened a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard but it does not seem to be receiving attention from the moderators. Here is the link to the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard.[1] Perhaps you could contribute on Talk:Rape in Islamic law. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Mcphurphy:, I have been very busy and can't do it for some time. I see there is a very long conversation, maybe in December I may be able to do it. Thinker78 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thinker78: Thank you for your contributions to veganism – or vegetarianism – related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a WikiProject to improve veganism and vegetarianism articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics. If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic Law

Thank you for reaching out! I am honored at the opportunity and will take part soon! I hope we can all manage to come to an agreement. Zurkhardo (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Zurkhardo (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

About your request regarding Rape in Islamic Law

Greetings, you recently requeted my aid in judging a dispute about the mentioned article, right? I read myself into various debates, but they all seem to be several months old. Which dispute exactly should have an overview about?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @VenusFeuerFalle:. I think it would be good starting with the Marital rape in lead section request. And it would be great if you could add something regarding rape of unbelievers in Islamic law, historically and currently. Thanks!--Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a lot of material regarding this subject ready. I would need to do much research a about this matter. My first impressions are, that the term "Rape" has no direct equivalent in Sharia terminology and maybe the article should be changed into something like "illicit Sex in Islamic law"? But I do not want to "open a fuss" about this. My interests are usually the belief in spirits, demons and conceptions of God in Middle East, but my Study subject requires much about Middle Eastern history, society and religions. Nevertheless, there is not much about specific legal actions such as rape. When I find something accidently, I want to add my acquired knowledge (as long as I keep editing) here. But I do not have the current knowledge nor the time to make contributions in this matter. Still, thanks for asking me.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

My user talkpage

Saw and Replied to your comment… further discussion can take place there if need be. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. (full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. (full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. (full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. (full results) Other news Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Thank you for your revert.

Thank you for your revert of my edit at WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Why am I thanking you? Because your revert shows that my edit could be read to have the opposite effect of what I intended.
I also write to ask whether you agree that it would be a good idea to add text making it clear that a discussion can continue after a collapse. If your answer is yes then we can talk about what language would accomplish that goal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, I would gladly continue the discussion on the talk page of the guideline. --Thinker78 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Elizabeth II. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that this warning was posted after I reverted the revert of DrKay after I noticed that the policy he claimed in the edit (SPS) did not , in my opinion, apply to the case. Instead of limiting themself to make another edit with the appropriate policy, he plastered this warning on my talk page like if I was guilty of a violation of policy, when my intention when I reverted was simply remove an edit that , in my opinion, wasn't backed by the claim contained in the edit summary. Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Edited 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a vanity press book by a sock puppet LTA. Although I provided a brief edit summary, not even that was necessary. Edits performed by blocked users in violation of a block or ban can be reverted at any time without reference to content policies. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This was posted because after several hours of analysis of candidates for the board of Wikimedia, I decided to make a recommendation for other editors who might not know who to vote for or don't have the time to analyze all the candidates' statements. I think there should be a space dedicated to discuss and be free to make recommendations for said elections. Thinker78 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I won't stop you from noting your endorsements on your own user or user-talk page. I think there are some rules about campaigning, but I can't find a definitive link on the topic. Regardless, posting your endorsements at the Village Pump was so obviously going to go badly that I felt I had no choice but to revert the post adding discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockstrike

Hi, In response to your recent revert, I don't usually revert every single thing by a sock but this sock master is notorious for using WP:FAKE references. From my experience, almost all their content addition is filled with WP:OR and fictional references. Just make sure what they've added is present in the reference. Best - SUN EYE 1 16:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The info seems legit and reflects info found elsewhere. --Thinker78 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The content was likely copy pasted from this this self published book and they had cited a book which I can't access. I don't trust them here as the same IP has added unsourced content with misleading edit summary.[2] Per WP:V, the content provided must be in the source. The sock master usually adds fake references to back up their personal commentary but this is new. - SUN EYE 1 04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also please see that long term socking like this one should be Wikipedia:Deny recognition. The user has probably read this conversation[3] and has also created a section below.- SUN EYE 1 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. You can place a copy of this discussion in the talk of the relevant article (Jainism) so other editors can discuss the situation as well. Thinker78 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

HELP

The revert Jainism in India did by Suneye1 is not needed actually. It is per source only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Someuser1234 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OMG I was ready to call 911 when I saw the caps on my notification! Please discuss this in the talk page of the article where you made the edit. You can copy (not cut) the comment you made here and place it over there, but with a different heading, more objective, I suggest.--Thinker78 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Tavrin draft

Hi Thinker78, I see that you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and a member of WP:Russia. I’m reaching out to see if you can take a look at my draft for Ivan Tavrin, a Russian entrepreneur who has a Russian article already. I can’t publish it on my own with my conflict of interest. Thanks! Anastasia-kismet (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)  Done

Anastasia-kismet I checked the aforementioned draft and the content looks good. But I noticed some things:

1. In the lede I don't know if you intended to link to Catholic schools when you talked about SPACS. If so, I don't think it is very relevant info that should be included. If not, correct the link because many people, including me, have no idea what a SPAC is.
2. The references need to be worked on, because there are many repeated ones. The same reference should be used if it backs up several pieces of information in different parts of the article.
3. Check if your references comply with the general notability guideline and related rules. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Thinker78 for your guidance. I've now changed the SPAC link in the lede and reorganized the references. In terms of the references complying, according to my understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, both the English and Russian media outlets are reputable, third party sources that show significant coverage. I hope this answers all questions and I look forward to proceeding with the page when you believe it's ready. Anastasia-kismet (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I will take another look next week because I don't have much time this week. If I haven't been back with you by Wednesdeay just remind me. Thinker78 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the draft is ready to become an article.Thinker78 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks for taking the time to look through this. Due to my conflict of interest, I believe I'm not supposed to move the draft to make it live. Could you do so, please? Anastasia-kismet (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me just work a bit more on the article, but because of my time constraints I may not be able to publish the article until late November/middle of December of this year. Feel free to ask other editors as well meanwhile, maybe they can do it sooner. Thinker78 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Anastasia-kismet (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

April blitz bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Thinker78 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2022 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 13:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19

I did not realize that I even made that rollback. That was an honest mistake, and thank you for correcting it. United States Man (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump "bias"

Regarding the just-closed discussion on the Trump talk page, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you might genuinely misunderstand how this stuff works. These discussions often close quickly just because folks are weary of saying the same things over and over for years.

Your vague perceptions and unsubstantiated doubts are not useful in that context. It's your responsibility to find the reliable sources to support what you want the article to say, and to sell the idea that those sources represent enough WP:WEIGHT to say it. Don't ask others to do that legwork for you. See WP:RSP for Wikipedia's current views of the reliability of many of the most prominent sources. Discussion about the reliability of a specific source is done at WP:RSN, not at article talk pages, and sometimes that discussion results in a change to WP:RSP.

By the way, I personally don't disagree that Wikipedia is vulnerable to group bias. I also have yet to find a better way. Everybody has a bias, including you, no matter how loudly they deny it. There could not be a Wikipedia Supreme Court of Neutrality, since it would be subject to the biases of its own judges. If one feels an article's regular editors are heavily weighted toward one side of the poitical spectrum, the ONLY remedy is to get more editors on the other side, and teach them how to use Wikipedia policy correctly. This is what I've been telling people for many years, and all we get is an endless stream of Trump supporters who make it obvious they don't know Thing 1 about Wikipedia policies, and don't care to.

Good luck. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ummmm, Who are you? You are entitled to your opinion and Im entitled to mine. I have no idea why are you telling me that it is my responsibility to find reliable sources. I did not make the edit request, I simply commented on it. Are you User:SPECIFICO? Thinker78 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You said: The question is, are there reliable sources that indicate the possibility the election was stolen or that there was a certain degree of fraud? My point is that it's a useless question and it asks others to do the legwork for you. If such sources exist in sufficient numbers, it's up to you to show that.

I am 68.97.42.64 and I have not edited under a registered username for quite a long time. That's all you need to know about me. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm naturally curious, I 'd like to know more about you, but if you don't want to tell me more, I understand. The question I made is not useless, because the other editor was talking about "overwhelming" number of sources, not totality, so I was wondering what were the reliable sources that did support the opposing view. So, as you can see, the onus was not on me, because the other editor implied very few reliable sources supported the stolen election narrative. I wanted to know if there were indeed such reliable sources. Thinker78 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Like using the term allegedly, a good editor, reporter or debater uses a term like “overwhelming” instead of stating outright totality, even when they are certain of totality. Something life teaches you. This is the most investigated election in US history, and in 20 months only a couple dozen votes have been found to have been invalidly cast (apparently and ironically including that of Trump’s chief of staff and his wife ). As I am not a good editor, reporter or debater, I will state unequivocally that no RSN says the election was stolen as doing so would make them obviously unreliable. The onus is on you to show me incorrect.

Incidentally, the source used by the OP in that thread to “prove” a “cheat” is a well-known conspiracist who, ironically, was convicted of campaign finance violations (i.e. cheating). But, he was pardoned by Trump. I think most folk would consider this an unreliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You have a point about "overwhelming" but I wanted to know because some people do use the word literally. The onus is still not on me, because I didn't want to prove the election was stolen, but I wanted to know if any reliable sources state whether it was stolen, as I perceived the editor implied. Thinker78 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

DS alert US politics and BLP

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.

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. blp

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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

a useful template when folks forget to sign

Just a handy tool to pass along... Re this helpful edit of yours, I usually just type {{unsigned}} which calls a bot and the bot handles the details. Sometimes it takes an hour or so. for an edit sum I just write something like "missing sig"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks. I thought about it too, but given that the date and time was already there I decided just to insert the name of the relevant editor. First time I see a comment with timestamp but no user name in this context. Although I know there is a use for timestamps without usernames, I am guessing the editor just pushed one time too many the key for the tilde. Thinker78 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the template "unsigned" can be used by itself, and you have at least two optional params if you want to use them.... username and timestamp. So in this case, you could have used the existing time stamp in the param. I'm not complaining, I was just passing on a minor thing I find convienient.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks, that is useful info I didn't consider. As you have probably noticed, I am big for minor things, in fact, my opinion is that many times minor things consideration is essential for quality work. Thinker78 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Apology re my misreading of events at MOS/LEAD

I screwed up! I think I have a policy based reason to monitor your contribs, but I totally messed up while doing so, and wherever you want me to post a mea culpa to correct the record about this specific mistake I will sheepishly but gladly do so.

Here's what happened.

June 27 After a week's of patience with your table proposal at MOS/Lead talk, you reasonably went live with the table and edit summary "per talk" June 29 You got feedback calling for a change June 30 I saw "per talk" and looked for the thread. What did I see but someone calling for a change to the table! And then I screwed up. I thought you just ignored that person and went live anyway. I failed to notice that their feedback came two days after the fact. Based on my misreading of the dates I mistakenly thought this series of events was evidence of GAMING and of course its only evidence that I was slipping up in my own duty to exercise care.

I'll add some words at the template talk about this, and if I've made comment about the MOS/Lead stuff elsewhere that you want me to say something, please point it out so I can consider doing repair work there too.

We have other issues, maybe, and I'm not talking about any other points of contention, but on this one.... I'm totally in the wrong and apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy I don't think you are perfect, but I have to recognize that few editors apologize, thanks, and certainly apology accepted. :D Thinker78 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

closing "Trump bias" discussion

Hi, Thinker78. I'm not going to revert reopening the Trump bias discussion, but I did note there was a prior discussion about a similar thing @ User_talk:Thinker78#Trump_"bias". While the page you cited about a rule of thumb to keep discussions open for at least a week is fair enough, one of the exceptions to this rule of thumb is obvious tendentious POV pushing in violation of consensus, doubting the reliable sources policy, and other non-good-faith editing. I'm not accusing you of that, but the discussions opened by anon editors simply to opine that Wikipedia is left-wing biased, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia simply follows the reliable source record, do not need to wait a week to be closed. They may be closed quickly or in cases of WP:NOTFORUM or blatant violations of BLP or vandalism of other kinds, they may be reverted directly. Andrevan@ 17:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, thanks for your reply. The problem is that, in my opinion, only one tendentious POV pushing is allowed in the talk page, and that is anti-Trump POV. For example, the comment in the thread at hand, ""some evil racist lunatic" This aptly summarizes his moral code. Dimadick". I have been against undue censorship for many years and I simply do not understand what is the use of closing discussions where right-wingers complain about perceived bias of Wikipedia. This simply doubles-down their suspicions and in the end they just boycott the project. I do not think closing these types of discussions, even if repetitive, is useful for Wikipedia at all. In fact I think it harms it. In my opinion, such discussions should be allowed to run its course, patiently explaining relevant policies and guidelines that are followed when admitting certain content in the article that seems to be partial or biased. But many times instead, ips and new users get hostile replies and get their discussions closed in short order, as to silence them. Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to WP:RGW. We have policies like WP:POINT and WP:SNOW for a reason, coming in to relitigate solved issues under the banner of correcting anti-Trump bias, isn't allowed. Fox News is not reliable, and Larry Sanger is entitled to his opinion, if you agree with him that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased, you should go edit Conservapedia, Everipedia, Citizendium, not Wikipedia. But Larry doesn't work here anymore. I recommend you drop this crusade and focus on WP:RS, WP:V, which accurately leads our article to say: Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but did not establish that members of the Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. Andrevan@ 20:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan, thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with your undue censorship notions that don't conform with or misinterprets Wikipedia's guidance, although it aligns with similarly-minded editors. Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, these complaints are made by people who know nothing about Wikipedia content policies and the underlying principles. Worse, they rarely seem to have any interest in learning about them. Volunteer editors have better things to do than spend man-hours trying to reason with and educate these people. On the other hand, we should not be completely dismissive, reverting without a reply, calling them trolls, and so on. They should be referred to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, which was created precisely to save editors the time that was previously required to explain the same things over and over again, and the thread should then be closed. Per consensus #13, it should then be archived after 24 hours. The OP can then look into the details of the related policy if they have any interest, or they can sign up for Adopt-a-User if they want to get serious about editing. They can also ask further questions at Teahouse, whose purpose is to educate both editors and non-editing users. But article talk pages are not for education of such people, few of us are very good at it, and it's not what we signed up for. We're here to create, maintain, and improve articles. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for the information about consensus 13 that I was not aware of. Regarding your statement, "article talk pages are not for education of such people", it's not about "general education", it is discussions related about their criticism that there is bias in the page of Donald Trump specifically. It comes to mind WP:TALK#TOPIC, which states the purpose of article's talk pages. When someone claims that the article is biased and not neutral, such discussion is well within the purpose of the article's talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you can't just make unfounded claims about general bias, it's akin to casting aspersions. You need to be specific about what is biased, how, why, and what to change it to or how to address the bias. Even just a rough understanding of the answer to those questions would be fine. But IPs dropping by to claim, without a source, that "Trump is actually left-wing because Congress passed a stimulus bill," a) it's not true, b) it's not verifiable, c) even if a source says this, it's probably a WP:FRINGE view, d) they haven't provided any sources to substantiate this, e) similar trolls or disruptive editors have repeatedly made claims for which a,b,c,d apply. Andrevan@ 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The bias I notice is in the talk page of the article, not necessarily in the article itself. I did point out what I considered to be biased, namely discussions of criticism that the article is not neutral are not allowed and are rapidly shut down. I am not talking about forum statements, but specifically, claims that the page is not neutral. Thinker78 (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

My point is that "claims that the page is not neutral" need sources and examples, or else they will be closed if it's just mud-slinging and FUD. Andrevan@ 22:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but the problem is that people come to make claims that the article is not neutral, an editor invites them to provide examples, but instead of waiting to see if the person brings up examples, which can take many days while the response is seen, the discussion is closed. Thinker78 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

And there's nothing preventing the person from starting a new discussion with the examples, ideally after reading the "Response" page. That page needs to be better evangelized, by the way, so that it will be linked instead of inviting them to provide examples. It should be used consistently by all of the article's regulars, as I've described previously, and you could help with that. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"And there's nothing preventing the person from starting a new discussion". I don't understand why someone would do that if the previous post was shut down. Even long time editors like myself sometimes come to pages where there is a cadre of editors who threaten anyone who speaks against their group thinking, basically implying that anyone who dare to challenge what they think and tries to defend such opinion is disruptive and fails to get the point. Thinker78 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed that is disruptive and failing to get the point, if you go to pages and look at the reliably sourced and referenced and verifiable info, and say, "it's biased," but don't offer any examples as to why or how. Especially some editors who seem to do this for multiple related pages and do things like cite Fox News op-eds that allege systemic bias. That would be disruptive yes, if it continued after consensus was found that it was not valid. Andrevan@ 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And you keep failing to get the point. Are you still sticking to the point that I am claiming the article is biased? Because I have already said I did not, or at least my main point is that the situation in the talk page of Donald Trump is biased in that criticism of the neutrality of the article is rapidly shut down. Thinker78 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the IP editors you are defending. Andrevan@ 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The above-linked information page tells them everything they need to know, including how to get more information should they be interested. Time was invested to make it say it concisely, clearly, completely, and respectfully, things that are harder to come by with ad hoc responses. There is simply no justification for additional editor time expenditure. As indicated on that page, we are more than happy to entertain specific, policy-based suggestions. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the 'hatting' method either. But, at least it's a tad better then the 'collapsing hatting' method. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As for Talk:Donald Trump#Regarding news and other reliable sources in the Donald Trump page, that was wrong venue from the outset, and it matters not that other editors chose to entertain it in that venue. That being the case, I'd suggest closing it. Thinker, I think an editor with your experience should've known that such things are not decided on article talk pages. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You should read my post again, because it is a reminder for editors editing the Donald Trump page that not all mainstream news sources are reliable for all contexts. In your opinion, where should I have posted such a reminder? Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Such a reminder is not needed unless you have an example where that wasn't already known or being done. Andrevan@ 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, but I would've made any such reminder in the content-specific discussion(s) instead of creating a separate meta thread. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• If someone starts a thread claiming bias without providing any examples, or by ranting about the media or editors or Wkipedia; they are exhibiting bias themselves. Hatting such removes bias and saves editor time. Quite a bit of time considering how often this occurs. And please, let us not suggest that we should pander to POV pushers who demand we change editing to look nonbiased to them. We will always look biased to overly-biased folk, as we should. WP must avoid bias in articles -- not engage in false equivalencies or add ridiculous sources to "look" non-biased. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Info is power

Forgive me, but I can't get into any governmental info control-related topic discussions. As I don't know exactly which topics will be affected. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning, Talk:Donald_Trump

I would highly suggest you never, ever post something like this again on this project. You cannot insinuate that Wikipedia editors with whom you may have a philosophical disagreement with are a part of some Gestapo-like propaganda ministry, here to influence political articles. If this is repeated, or you unhat the comment, I will consider pursuing the available remedies at Arbitration Enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there are several editors prepared to recommend a TBAN or site ban for you, Thinker. I second ValarianB's comment. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO, ValarianB, "You cannot insinuate that Wikipedia editors with whom you may have a philosophical disagreement with are a part of some Gestapo-like propaganda ministry". First, read again what I wrote. Second, even though it was in response to a comment by Goodday of a certain article, actually I was thinking in neutral terms and even globally, that politicians, governments and others of any political spectrum ideology or philosophy may engage in shady practices to seek to push certain narrative in Wikipedia. My intention was in no way suggesting it was only editors with certain ideology. Btw, I am no fan of Trump nor I am a Conservative. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh of course you're not. Nobody ever suggested that. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I haven't closely watched the talk page, but it seems to me you're flirting with chronic disruption. I think you have the potential to provide a useful voice of opposition, which can be a healthy thing, but your participation definitely needs calibration. I worked that article for years and can attest that I was never approached by these dark forces. Conspiracy theory (belief without concrete evidence) does seem to be a common thread among Trump defenders. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Chronic disruption? Sure pal. My record speaks for itself. Maybe you are part of the Censorship of Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are accusing Slatersteven of being an agent of a foreign government? Seems to confirm his concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I replied to anonymous ip, I dont know why you are involving Slatersteven. Thinker78 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven the ip accused me of chronic disruption and that I need calbration. That is literally censorhip. So why don't you point out WP:NPA to the ip as well? Funny how selective are you. Thinker78 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Becaue you are accusing me (in effect) of bias and vague accusations of "some government or otherwise political gatekeepers" pushing a narrative, aimed at dismissing other edited opinions. That is not acceptable. The IP accused you of a specific policy violation (read wp:disruption), which is not a PA as such. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven look, if you can't properly follow a thread, that is not my fault, it is something you need to improve. I replied to GoodDay about their mention of the Hunter Biden article and editors within. The fact that your comment "You would need to go there and ask" was in the middle was arbitrary and in no way I was even thinking about you or your comment. This illustrates very much the problematic mindset of some editors, who even label accusations against others based on their severe misinterpretations of comments. Why would you, the ip or @SPECIFICO think that I was talking about you? Only because your comment was in the middle? Can't you people realize that Slatersteven comment was completely irrelevant to what I replied to GOODDAY? Am I missing something? If so please point it out. Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Your misappropriation of Censorship to shame a peer who disputes your opinion or behavior is remarkably similar to the Trumpist and far-right claims that they are being "censored" by private companies and individuals who choose to ignore their false or inflammatory statements. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I understand your opinion, that's your mindset. I don't agree with it, but I know no one is perfect. Thinker78 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well good for you. Admitting your flaws is the first step on the path to improvement. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a clear NPA violation to accuse fellow editors of being involved in some conspiracy without concrete evidence, even if you don't point specifically to certain individuals. That was WAY out of line. It is not an NPA violation to call you out for that, or for other issues in your participation. The latter happens every day since we are required to be largely self-policed (a bad idea in my opinion, but it is what it is). I don't understand why you can't see the difference, but your continued participation in the project will depend on your capacity to learn the difference, among other things. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"It's a clear NPA violation to accuse fellow editors of being involved in some conspiracy without concrete evidence". Do you know how to read properly? Who are you accusing me of accusing? "your continued participation in the project" You are the one who is way out of line coming here to threaten me baselessly with your wrong assumptions like that. Who do you think you are? Why are you even hiding behind an anonymous IP? Even if you were a high shot in Wikipedia, guess what, I CONTRIBUTE my time and effort to this project, you don't pay me a dime nor I get any financial benefit from it. So you can swallow your arrogant threats, take whatever administrative action you deem fit, move on and stop wasting my time. Thinker78 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Btw, maybe I hit a nerve and there is indeed something shady going on. I wouldn't be surprised, judging by your threats, Mrs anonymous IP. Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No, let him leave it for all to see. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You accused unnamed editors here. If your position is that you merely suggested unnamed editors might be involved in the conspiracy, that changes exactly nothing; it's still a violation of NPA. Then you accused me specifically, here. And you have repeatedly suggested that there might be something nefarious in the fact that I don't log in for my comments (e.g. "hiding behind an anonymous IP"), when that is fully supported by Wikipedia and WMF policy. There is no "hiding" involved in logged out editing unless one is also editing logged in some of the time and seeking to avoid association with that username. You have zero evidence of that, but you are free to make use of WP:SPI if you think you do. Otherwise, keep your suspicions to yourself please. Since you are doubling down on your indefensible position, I would encourage any editor to "take whatever administrative action [they] deem fit, move on and stop wasting [your] time." 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. But wait, there's more! 68.97.42.64 is no more "anonymous" than Thinker78, unless Thinker78 is your true name and I could use it to locate you in Guatemala, run a background search on you, etc. In truth, we wouldn't have known you're in Guatemala if you hadn't said so, and we would have no way of finding that out. In contrast, you can geolocate my IP address and at least find out my probable location within about 50 miles (unless I'm playing tricks with VPN, etc, which I'm not). So who's "anonymous"? 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, but for Wikipedia an ip user is the anonymous user, while a registered user with a long contribution history is not. Thinker78 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. An IP user is usually easier to trace. All users are anon unless they are outed (a violation) or self-out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I agree wholeheartedly about contribution history, and I have strongly supported required registration and lost. So that's the Wikiworld we live in and have to accept. That's an issue of accountability, not anonymity, and perhaps it's merely a difference in semantics. I'm reluctant to disclose my former username as a matter of principle (i.e., I shouldn't have to), but if it will make you feel better I'll go ahead and say that I'm the editor formerly known as Mandruss. I am 99% retired and I don't feel that the remaining 1% is materially inconsistent with my claim of retirement (O3000 appears to be in the same position but chooses to do their 1% logged in, which is also fine). I rarely edit articles, never edit articles anymore in the AP2 area, and minimize my participation in talk spaces. I don't log in except for watchlist purposes, and I'm pretty good at remembering to log out before posting a comment. I hope this meets with your approval. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I guess now we can have a user virtual reveal party. If you are retired maybe you should consider editing articles about retirement. Thinker78 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandruss, great to see you aren’t totally gone. Thinker, Mandruss was one of the few truly unbiased editors in the AP arena. We both drastically reduced editing at the same time. I don't edit mainspace (articles) anymore and only poke in when I feel damage is nigh. You would be wise to follow his counsel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

AP arena? I am broke so I can't pay much counsel, except when I really need to. Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

AP = American Politics. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm no less biased than the next guy, but I'll accept the compliment that I was better than many at controlling my bias, while nobody can do that 100%. It's important to speak about these things with precision, and sometimes the distinction makes a difference. Back at you, by the way. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)