User talk:Dronebogus

User talk:Dronebogus/Archive 1

Re: Joyce

I made a WP:RFCL for the RfC.[1] Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dronebogus!

Happy New Year!

Dronebogus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The mentorship program

Hey, you just welcomed a mentee of mine who hadn't yet edited; I actually have a custom welcome template for my mentees. If you're going to welcome people who haven't edited, you may as well join the mentorship program; that way, you can have of list of mentees to yourself that you can welcome to your hearts content. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(BTW, the template I use is {{mentor welcome}}) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On what basis are you making the removal?

Hi Dronebogus, there isn't any mention of policy or guideline in your edit summaries and the removal appears to be prohibited by WP:TALK. You're going to need to explain your actions, specifically where you acquired the right to decide what is a real response and what isn't... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules here. Yes, there’s content beyond the initial bad faith request, but it consists of a canned answer and an insult. There is no intelligent discussion here worth preserving and the “request” was impossible to do anyway. In other words, what is the net positive of keeping this section? Dronebogus (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. That content had no justification for existence. Glad it's gone. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You edit warred on the basis of IAR? That is bold. Why are only the intelligent discussions worth preserving? Why delete rather than hat in this instance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A waste of bytes and effort. There was nothing worth preserving or defending. Simple common sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing it takes more effort than letting it be archived automatically. I disagree that there is nothing worth preserving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

An insult is worth preserving? Let alone arguing for? Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Only one of the comments could be perceived as an insult and even then its not the sort of personal attack whose removal is justified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If there were such a thing as a Darwin Award for stupid threads, I'd nominate this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What would be the wikipedia equivalent of procreation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP on a talk page

I thought it was odd that you went to my talk page, after never having interacted with me before, and removed one of the sections. It's in keeping with BLP, arguably, but still odd. Can I ask how you stumbled across this and why you felt it was necessary? I get BLP, and I'm not going to argue about whether or not the IP's comments were in violation or not, but showing up on random talk pages and removing archived conversations because someone implied something bad about Joe Biden seems a bit extreme.

Also, I do not appreciate the tag you added to my section on the Joe Biden talk page. The discussion would have played out and ultimately ended without you hiding it. A more honest and honorable way to handle this would have been to simply comment on the discussion and share your perspective. Instead, you implied that I'm a "civil POV pusher". Which heavily insinuates that my edits and actions are undertaken in bad faith. Could you expand on why you feel entitled to throw out the accusation that I'm operating in bad faith, and what "POV" you think I'm pushing? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The comments about Biden on your talk page were so bad they were removed from public archives. I’m pretty sure nobody in the discussions I hatted agreed with you, and I’ve been thanked at least twice for hatting the Biden one. I think this is a you problem here. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I appreciate the fact that potentially defamatory claims made about living people could open the platform to legal liability. As for the discussion, you didn't address my questions. You assumed bad faith on my part, which is frowned upon, and something I've been talked to about - rightly - in the past, when it's been made clear that assuming bad faith is absolutely unacceptable. You also said that I am pushing a "POV". Why do you assume that you know what my intentions are, and what POV am I pushing? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You are pushing the POV that Biden’s dishonesty and Santos’s dishonesty are somehow equivalent and should be covered ad such when reliable sources (and common sense) say they are not. Biden has lied (of course he has), but not to the ridiculous extent of Santos. Nobody else sees things your way and you’ve provided no hard evidence to convince them otherwise. Dronebogus (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use the hat templates to dunk on people

The {{hat}} template is meant for closing conversations, not winning them. If you find a thread on a talk page that's compelling enough that you want to respond to it, please just comment in the thread; don't enclose the entire thing in a template whose header is a derisive comment about the content inside it. jp×g 09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought this wouldn’t be controversial on a SPA pushing political conspiracy theories but I’ve changed it nonetheless. Dronebogus (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Zordrac crap

I actually can't believe you stumbled upon something like this and this. How on earth that happened? It looks like one must dive deeply into a garbage dump, in order to dig up something on this "level" of nonsense. You certainly should be thanked for bringing crap like this to the sunlight, and helping Wikipedia to get rid of it! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It involved following a paper trail of two other blocked users (since they all commiserated at the same talk page) and subsequently falling down an absolute black (rabbit) hole of fossilized wikidrama. Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

personal attack

This [2] is a personal attack. Comment on the discussion, not insult other editors by dismissing their opinions as invalid because you don't like their voting history. Dream Focus 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, @Dream Focus:. It was a lousy ad hominem argument, I know. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Grayghost01 "essay"

Well, as can be seen, this "masterpiece" is still with us, this time due to "no consensus"... I can say that, if it ends up at MfD ever again, I'll participate in that nomination only as a voter, and that's it. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Portaro

@Dronebogus Hi, I have seen that you have edited Portaro article and I want to ask you why you have removed the Portaro logo, the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters? These photos makes the article look better and the visitors have more information about the company. Thanks FLORIKRUJA (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It screwed up the article tags Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus I saw you added Portaro logo but I added again the photo of Portaro at International Showroom and the photo of Portaro headquarters. Please don't remove them as they make the article look better. Thanks FLORIKRUJA (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

New article List of Joe Biden gaffes

I just discovered this new article. It needs some work, especially the notability of each item. Mention in one source isn't enough for adding to a list article as each item must be notable, unlike content in regular articles.

My wondering is related to its original creation as a user space sandbox and how it finally ended up as a list article. I see it went through some(?) deletions(?) and restorations, and then a Deletion Review:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_December_27#User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

Then on to an MfD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox

That ended with a Keep (as the sandbox it was). Nothing about becoming an article. Yet it ended up being moved by the creator to mainspace. What do you know about this? Please ping me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

GG talk page discussions

Pardon me, but that was overzealous. I wasn't repeating the same things over -- I made different suggestions each time. There was no need to collapse discussions, and when I tried to make one more post, you nuked my whole topic? No offense, but did you even read it, or jump to conclusions? The first time, I suggested documenting their version of reality while calling it false. The second time, I suggested describing their politics and relation to the larger culture war (not the same thing). In the latest post, I was saying that more info could be provided on the history of that movement, and mentioned a handful of topics to work from; it wasn't a direct continuation and I acknowledged the consensus. I think you just saw a post with my name on it and presumed the worst. Really, I appreciate that it's one of the most contentious topics, right up there with abortion, but if you had just let discussion play out, it would've been fine. I wasn't being excessive or unreasonable at all. Xcalibur (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Dilemma

Hi, Dronebogus. For some time, I am thinking about somehow including these three pics into WP:NOCONFED, but I am not sure how and where to put them, or whether they should be included at all. Any ideas would be valuable, really. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t find them necessary. I don’t understand the gay confederate one, and the other two are a little… unsubtle. Dronebogus (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As I understood it, the gay confederate flag suggests that there are gays among neo-confederates (which, I suppose, sounds appalling to the majority of them). And the other two flags are quite direct in a way, but I still like them. They may be out of place in the essay tho. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Problematic userpages

In the course of a random search, I came across these, apparently, problematic userpages – Dixielee, ConfederateLord, Birdman1014, Wōdenhelm and Erlo1783. The first four are obviously pro-Confederate (with a noticeable userbox at Wōdenhelm's userpage), while the content at Erlo1783's userpage can be classified as nothing more than nonsense. I am not sure if these userpages are MfD-worthy, tho. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m more curious how your even found those. Nominating all except wodenboyface, since that appears to be a single userbox Dronebogus (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You would be surprised at all the stuff that can be found here, if you just type something simple into the search engine. In this case, I typed just the word "Confederate", and it was enough. As for the Erlo1783's userpage, finding it was a pure chance really... Thank you for nominating them! And, yes – in the case of Wōdenhelm, only the CSA "citizenship" userbox was really problematic. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And, I almost forgot about this, a "great" creation of ConfederateLord. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Dont call things junk

Its mean Widget-Policy Thy Editor (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Question

why does User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan have a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Trivia in it

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t remember, that was ages ago. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipe-tan came up in the discussion Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

i see. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Voiced velar tap

Hi, I hope you won't mind, I renominated this article for deletion. You were quite right to close the previous nomination procedurally as it had been nominated by a blocked sock-account and the justification wasn't appropriate at all. Nevertheless, I had a look at the article, and was unimpressed. The sock and IP's might have a valid point, I don't know. I think this article is basically one guy's PhD, as retrieved from some conference proceedings, referred to in one of his own paper, which makes me wonder whether it was produced by someone closely related to the work, and also makes me wonder just how mainstream it is. I think it's worth a proper deletion debate based on properly Wikipedian principles, which is why I chucked it back into the arena for round two, with no intent to reflect badly on your closure of round one. Elemimele (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair Dronebogus (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Be careful with WP:Twinkle rollback

Twinkle rollback should only be used against obvious vandalism. It should not be used to revert good faith edits (such as this one) even if they are erroneous. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you've been to that talk page before...

Could you take a look at this section and determine whether it's useful? Wes sideman (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Just appears to be one KoN running their mouth. It’s tedious but I’m not sure if it rises to disruption level… yet Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Hello,

This is not a big deal, but in response to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonfire (Dark Souls), you probably should not have invoked WP:SNOW. First, SNOW is generally used to justify early closes, and the usual 7 day listing period had expired, so there was no need to justify an early close anyway. Second, SNOW generally implies that the consensus is one-sidedly overwhelming or that there's a very clear rule in play. While consensus was certainly strong for a merge, there were 3 good faith !votes for something else by editors in good standing. I would gently suggest reserving SNOW for cases where there is essentially at most one person swimming the other direction, as it is generally only invoked for extremely clear-cut cases rather than normal closes.

(As noted before, I'm not contesting the result, consensus clearly was merge, just the reasoning - this was just a normal AFD, not a SNOW case.) SnowFire (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Death of Jimmy Carter MfD

I know you and I do not agree on a lot of things. That said, I was sure that you said you were going to stop closing MfDs you were involved in. Why not wait for an uninvolved admin to close? Yes, I realize the discussion is trending a certain direction, but that decision should be left up to someone whose job it is to assess consensus. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'll disagree with Walt that it doesn't take an admin to close an MfD. However, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure also says a person doing the closing shouldn't be involved. This isn't a matter of bureaucracy, but rather a needed element of the process to help ensure needless problems don't arise. Note that I agree with the close; that isn't the issue. The MfD wasn't going anywhere but to no consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, to be clear, there are times where WP:NACs are perfectly valid. I've seen plenty of appropriate ones to know. Hell, I've closed a few discussions myself, but I always try to step away when it comes to a discussion that I've !voted on, even if it's something I don't feel particularly strongly about. It's a matter of preserving the integrity of the discussion (and yeah, avoiding a needless DRV on procedural grounds). --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

    Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

? We're discussing your close. That's the whole point of this thread. We are talking to you. Unsurprisingly, your close of that MfD has been reverted [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The notice is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures. BusterD (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, I just saw that you appear to be feeling a bit stressed over that ANI thing, and that's entirely understandable. And I just want to offer you a bit of support. ANI exaggerates minor issues into major drama, and blows things out of all proportion. I think all you're really guilty of is a bit of over-enthusiasm. Please don't let it drive you away, and I hope you carry on with your seriously net positive contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass

Just wanted to say try to maintain positive thoughts. To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, sometimes the best that we can do is to participate joyfully in the sorrows of Wikipedia. Sincere well wishes. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And see that this is one of the many ways Wikipedia can drain things out of us :(. The hyper-bureacratic attitude of this site can so often drain us of our love for the project, especially when every "gotcha" is brought to bear at times like this. Just wanted to say I definitely support you continuing to contribute in a zillion different ways on this site, and I think your activities in general have been a positive force. Keep up the good work, truly. In the grand scheme of things, this is a blip. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans

Hi Dronebogus. I've closed the ANI thread (permalink) with consensus for the following sanctions:

• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.
• Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from miscellany for deletion, broadly construed.

I have logged these sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Dronebogus. You are expected to comply with them, and violations can result in blocks. Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy for more information about topic bans, exceptions, appeals, etc., and let me know (here or on my talk page) if anything is unclear. Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: so in regards to closing I am only restricted from closing XfDs? Dronebogus (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, yes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Always stay positive

I am really sorry to find out about your TBAN (I didn't even know there was discussion about it, until today). Whatever you do, please stay within the limits of that TBAN, until its eventually lifted (and that will surely happen). You are a valuable and productive editor, and divert your energy and time eslewhere, until this unjust measure is lifted. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Stay cautious, I feel like you might be next. Dronebogus (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Really? How come? — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re pretty aggressive at MfD, might want to dial it back. Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda, but honestly – I already dialed it back, by rarely posting MfD nominations of my own for some time now. Since recently, I basically just vote there, as I rarely find material that is really MfD-worthy. Also, so far I've never made a non-admin closure, and I don't plan to do that at all. Once your TBAN is lifted, you really should abstain from doing such closures in the future. Don't give any excuses for future TBANs and/or blocks. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User page

Hello, Dronebogus,

Your User page is tagged for deletion. It looks like it has something to do with transcluded userboxes but you have such a full User page, I don't want to hunt around to figure out what the problem is. I suggest you do so so that your User page isn't inadvertently deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: G8’d ubox. Kind of annoying that someone deleted something in use by a non-disruptive user (me) but I’m not fighting over something in my “junk userbox” section. Dronebogus (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DENY

I don't think that WP:DENY applies to the comment you removed from the Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy page. WP:DENY is about vandalism, which it wasn't. Yeah, it was a troll like comment, but it wasn't vandalism per se.

It's generally a bad idea to remove comments from Talk pages because it can make the discussion hard to read. The standard is to strike out a comment that you want to retract. It's also considered bad form to remove or edit a comment made by somebody else. I added a note explaining the missing comment without restoring it or naming the now-banned editor.

RoyLeban (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Village pump

Just let people vote on that policy thing. Arguing with people who have been entrenched for years isn't going to help anything except making it more contentious. Nemov (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know. It was a knee-jerk response out of annoyance to “never hearing that one before”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey—if you want to keep engaging, I'm not going to officially say you shouldn't, but, while I definitely don't think you've crossed this line, I'd be careful about nearing WP:BLUDGEON. So far, you have responded to every single oppose voter, which looks a bit intense. I might suggest, if you want, going back and adding point to your own vote if someone raises a point you'd like to respond to, unless you really think a back and forth will be productive.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I know, but the second two were more just comments/requests for reconsideration than “BTW YOU ARE WRONG”. I’ll lay off the commenting for now. Dronebogus (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this point. It ends up driving people away from your position. You've said your piece on this and it's time to see where it goes. Nemov (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm begging you to stop commenting. I agree with you and if I think you're bludgeoning the process, certainly others will as well. Nemov (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay okay I’m not allowed to say anything now fine Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

About that recent revert I've made

On the page Black Aria II, I thought it was vandalism and I was gonna self revert the revert myself. I won't do it again (if possible) since I've might or might not have broken Wikipedia's good faith rules. 64andtim (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s fine Dronebogus (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

More BFDI crap

User:ImJustThere/sandbox (WP:FAKEARTICLE)

• User:EricAllums11/sandbox
• User:Ericallu1115/sandbox

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G5

118.149.85.1 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks good IP person but I can’t legally participate in MfD anymore. Please ask somebody else. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up vandalism

	Janitor (cool) Award
	Yo I noticed some of your efforts in my recent browsing. Thanks! Zorblin (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Qirtaiba

Why did you revert this editor's removal of material from their talk page? With some specific exceptions, users are allowed to remove mayterial from their user pages, and the stuff they removed isn't of the sort that needs to remain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I bumped something by accident, I should have reverted it. Dronebogus (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, but yes, you should have. NP, we all make mistakes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your basement gallery

There's a lot of cool stuff in there but it should best be compartmentalized further so that it's more navigable. Synotia (moan) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I was actually going to transfer it into favorites on commons since it nearly crashes the page Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Please stop engaging. You're well past the point of productively contributing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think someone should just close as indef ban at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It has to stay open for 72 hours per WP:CBAN. – bradv 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Knock this off. I suggest you disengage from this entirely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If you see them marching towards a site ban, don't knit beside the guillotine. It's almost like gravedancing before they're even banned. I don't know if it's a twitter/internet thing but have some compassion for Roxy and the other editors in this dispute and let the issue fall silently. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but I haven’t commented in hours and am not about to. I don’t know why some people are still defending Roxy, or why Roxy is so intent on dying on this hill, but I know I’m not going to change that. Can’t be helped. Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Pink Fae/Userboxes/bathroomuse1

I haven't log on Wikipedia in a long time. I noticed that nearly a year ago one of my userboxes was up for deletion and has since been deleted. I tried to make userboxes for all views on the bathroom issue, even ones that I did not agree with. Pink Fae (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted by consensus as transphobic (not a comment on you) a long time ago. Dronebogus (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting. The userbox has been up since 2016 and never challenged on these grounds until you did so five years later. Is transphobia a recent grounds for deletion of material? Is there other type of prescribed phobias that are not permissible on Wikipedia? Is this just restricted to userboxes or does it also apply to articles? I'm just curious. I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a long time. --Pink Fae (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes transphobia is now considered as highly unacceptable as racism, homophobia and misogyny. A long-term user was actually just banned for repeated transphobic remarks (as well as general incivility) Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are confusing transphobia for genderism or gender binarism. It is like the difference between gynophobia vs sexism. Gynophobia is the fear of women, while sexism is discriminatory beliefs towards women. Transphobia is the fear of transgender people, while genderism is the discrimination of those outside of the traditional gender roles. There is nothing really essentially immoral or unethical about fears, but there is when you talk about discrimination. Also, transphobia is a non-clinical phobia, while gynophobia is a DSM-5 clinical phobia. Yet, You never did answer my question, is this limited to userboxes or are we including articles as well? --Pink Fae (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I am discussing transphobia under the assumption we are referring to its use to refer to anti-trans sentiment Dronebogus (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial follow-up AfD

Hi, because you recently participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which also led to the deletion of Comparison of the Turkic states, I would like to invite you to participate in the partial follow-up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states. The situation of these three pages is not exactly the same (because language family plays no role in these cases), but because many issues are similar, I've nominated them as well, and am curious what you think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk Page Denialism

You're very fast in drawing conclusions (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION,) and putting labels on people. (talk page Denialism)

If you check my quite long history in Wikipedia, you won't find anything near to this behaviour you have suggested in your edit. Better yet, I have never participated in any “heated discussions” or tried to win an argument (any argument). Entropy1963 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)