User talk:Trillfendi

As of Indigenous Peoples' Day 2019, these are the ground rules around these parts: do not leave messages here unless it pertains to article creation, a Good Article nomination, an automated comment from a bot, a barnstar, an invitation to join a WikiProject, requesting help, or something important. Anything else will not be entertained. DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Hello. Do you know how to request page protection? There have been constant problematic edits by anonymous users. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: I’ll handle it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm curious how you feel about the page? Do you like it? Do you think it's overly detailed and needs things deleted? I ask because there's a debate on the talk page right now and I personally like the page and think the information is relevant and belongs there but others don't. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: Well, it's far away from becoming a Good Article if that's the aim and I do think some parts can be taken out to make it more concise without affecting the information of the article. If all else fails, the page can be split but I think that should wait until awards season at the earliest. Look to Pulp Fiction as an example of how the article should be modeled. Also that talk page needs to be archived already. Trillfendi (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. I've brought up Pulp Fiction as well because it's an example of another long, detailed movie article. One of these editors have stated that article is too detailed as well. I like them both, personally. I won't be the one to archive the talk page. I'm not sure how to do that. If you're up for it it'd be great t get your help editing the article and possibly reformatting it as I know it could flow better. What parts d you think could be taken out? D you mean merged or deleted altogether? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess my o isn't working very well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: When it comes to an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be detailed, but it's not supposed to go off course and veer into detail that doesn't properly focus on the subject. Pulp Fiction the right amount of detail of a cult classic film with many unorthodox parts to it and theories that Tarantino wanted fans to fill in themselves (his words), without being too damn long. At any rate, if I do take up fixing the page it's gonna be a while due to other Wikipedia exploits I'm tied up in and real life. The main thing I noticed that needs to be addressed is that there is too much about the real Manson family compared to the characters and too much focused on the background / production of the film. Trillfendi (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I think you're more aligned with the other editors than me on this one unfortunately for me. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for your time. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I just felt there was a lot of references to many things about the Manson Family. That, like Pulp Fiction were left to the audience to fill in. Perhaps it doesn't fit well with the page though. I think it does. But again, I seem to be in the minority. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind though, I still think it'd be good if you chimed in on the talk page. People there are arguing to remove the pop culture references and Tarantino references. I don't know how you feel about that. Either way it might be good. It's under character descriptions on the talk page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The page has been edited and trimmed quite a bit since you add the tag. I'd like to remove it now. I wanted to message you first though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: It's still very long to read and navigate comfortably for the average reader. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree especially considering the amount of historical characters and references but it's your tag so I won't remove it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I know you're very busy but if you get a minute can you look at the portrayal of Bruce Lee under the controversies section. Attempts were made by myself and another editor to cut down on some of the excessiveness in the section. However, there is IMO, an extremely pro Shannon Lee editor who added the section initially, and seems to only have a handful of edits on Wikipedia, all dealing with this topic, who is edit warring with me and saying the edits were made to push a narrative rather than trim excessiveness. I may be the wrong with the edit warring. I certainly feel the other editor is. It'd be nice to get another perspective on it. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: What it seems like to me is that section is in presents too many people in defense mode from too many people’s personal feelings invested in it. Someone who wasn’t involved with this at all such as a film reviewer should have a neutral take on the interpretation included here instead. Of course his daughter would be upset about it and as you well know Tarantino will always retaliate against criticism. Trillfendi (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That is basically my perspective as well. At this point I was warned to back off though and the other editor was blocked although he wants to add more Shannon Lee. I think he may be Bruce Lee's biggest fan. It seems to me that most of the stuff he added just goes on and on about people's personal feelings. I understand where they're coming from but I don't think that section on a movie page is supposed to be about how everyone feels about it although there is some room for it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

However I don't think the other editor is listening much to reason and even ignored an administrator's edit warring warning. He certainly won't listen to me as he feels I am part of a conspiracy to shame Bruce Lee. At least that's how I read his responses. That's why I asked for your input on the page. Not just for me but for that editor and the page in general. If you don't have the time I understand though. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We figured that out for now. Another editor was able to help. So it seems for now, that the editors who originally brought up trimming the page have finished. I'm sure some may still happen as time goes by but for now a lot has been done. I understand you feel it's not complete and can still be worked on and trimmed. At this point I really feel the tag should be removed though as the conversation on the talk page has stopped and a lot of editing has been done. I'm not advocating for its removal to stop editing or from you editing when you have time. I just feel for now, it's served its purpose and it just seems to be lingering. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Sangramsingh Thakur

Dear @Trillfendi,

Please do not delete this page, I am constantly working on this page and other pages. In the coming days, I will add more information related to this page and I will continue to support my work on Wikipedia, so I request to you do not delete this page and give me a chance to do more work on this page. Thank you--Romeonew (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Romeonew: The policy is if a page was previously deleted via deletion discussion in the Articles for Deletion page and it was recreated without proper permission or is too similar to the original version it's speedily deleted. If you keep recreating the page it will be blocked from creation. If you are working on the page, simply create a draft and put it through the Articles for Creation process as most pages go through so that a page reviewer can make sure it's ready to be on Wikipedia. As it stands, obviously several people have questioned the notability of the subject at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I know you said you're not here to be liked. I livery in south africa I am a black African May you please teach mEnglish editing skills if you can You are really interested in the same things I am, I love models,fashion and shows link "this is us" May we please be friends and please teach my how to edit a page and create one. I suck at it😓 Please

Kind regards Rainbow your fellow wiki-editor Rainbow Dlodlo (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lisa Bonet. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Don’t fucking try me. WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO given in the reliable source and listen to what she had to say about it. I serve truth, not agendas. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You pinged me to your page to swear at me and show me what a sloppy editor you are? How vulgar. Leave me alone. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: YOU came on MY talk page with bullshit. You could’ve just reverted it and went about your (pathetic, I assume) day. I don’t give a good goddamn. So leave me alone or you’ll see how “sloppy” it really gets around here. Trillfendi (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Grammy Award for Best Rap Performance. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: What part of JUST REVERT IT AND GO! don’t you people understand? Everything isn’t worth user talk page discussion. My knowledge was that King’s Dead was the winner. Based on the format it appeared as Bubblin’ was malformed so I moved it (and moved on with my life of 11 days ago). Good faith misconceptions aren’t “vandalism”. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Drake Burnette

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Drake Burnette.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For generally commendable work across a variety of areas and projects Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red stub contest

Thank you for adding Emily Zamourka. As far as I can see Continentaleurope is not a member of Women in Red. In order to avoid any problems, articles should be added by those who create them. Continentaleurope is of course welcome to become a member of WiR. The article should be expanded to at least 160 words of running text before it is submitted. Thanks, Trillfendi, for Mona Tougaard. I hope there will be more.--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mijo Mihaljcic

Hello, Trillfendi,

Thank you for creating Mijo Mihaljcic.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for creating this biography and for contributing to Women in Red stub contest.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Abishe}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Abishe (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Campbell

Lady Jean Campbell seems to be a better disambiguation than Jean Campbell (model) seeing as she actually is a British lady and that is how she is referred to in the press [1] [2] [3]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: What part of she is known for being a model not a titleholder are you not understanding? Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that her profession isn't what makes her notable. Since when has profession been a reason to not include a title on Wikipedia? Particularly when the subject at hand is mentioned frequently in the press by that title? Is Lady Mary Charteris not both a lady and a musician? Lady Amelia Windsor not both a lady and a model? Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick not a lord and a fashion designer? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: Two of them are in the royal family. 🙄 Mary Charteris is another example of someone who only uses her normal name while the British press salivates over title. If nepotism weren’t running so rampant in the fashion industry these days no one would even care. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like a personal opinion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: If you don’t know what I’m referring to clearly you haven’t been paying attention to fashion this decade. Trillfendi (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fashion trends of hiring European aristocrats is hardly the topic of conversation right now. Yes, I am aware. German princesses and English society darlings are on all of the runways and in the tabloids. That's hardly new news. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18: The fact remains, the sources you cherry picked go with an editorial narrative to point out that she has noble blood or is literally an “aristocratic beauty”. Meanwhile actual work remains Jean Campbell. The cover of British Vogue is Jean Campbell. The cover of Porter is Jean Campbell. The model signed to DNA Management and Viva is Jean Campbell. Trillfendi (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not cherry pick. I looked at the sources used in her article that included Lady Jean Campbell in their titles, since Jean Campbell is taken already by an American athlete. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jessica Picton-Warlow concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jessica Picton-Warlow, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ysaunny Brito concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ysaunny Brito, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chu Wong concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chu Wong, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Akiima concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Akiima, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mia Brammer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mia Brammer, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced DOBs

Hi Trillfendi. I have just hidden a revision of Nessa, wherein you inserted a date of birth without a source. Dates of birth in BLPs require a source; please make sure to add a reliable source for a date of birth next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Said information came from the California Birth Index which according to California law is legally public information whether people like that fact or not. Now had I actually cited said link inevitably someone would have come here to pontificate about why they don’t like the source so honestly I didn’t bother to look for another one. “Famous Birthdays” claims she was born in 1981 (and that’s why we can’t trust websites like that). Trillfendi (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to this discussion. ミラP 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, if you're not using a given source because people will object to it, your only other options are finding a better source or not adding the information. Adding the info without a source is sanctionable, so please don't do that again. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donald Glover

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Donald Glover you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hiya111 -- Hiya111 (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Report of Billiekhalidfan Needed

You've made a good point regarding this user, and they've been warned far beyond the three warn rule. They've also now admitting to having an agenda regarding certain artists and their fans, and is editing/vandalizing pages accordingly. Are you familiar with the following template for reports? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

It's also important to note that they are using duplicate accounts for editing wars as well.

Ilovetati91 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetati91: I said what I had to say to that person and left it at that. If you have evidence that they are indeed socking then take it to the investigation page. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination of MJ Lee for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donald Glover

The article Donald Glover you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Donald Glover for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hiya111 -- Hiya111 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald Glover

Hello! Your submission of Donald Glover at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For your trophy case

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Donald Glover (estimated annual readership: 4,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Don't be discouraged after the Afd on Juli Briskman. You have a long way to go and I award you this to come back stronger. Thanks for recreating Juli Briskman. Despite its deletion nomination, I feel the article should be kept. Thanks for your voluntary participation at WIR. Keep creating articles. Your contributions are very much appreciated. Abishe (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Monica Rose (stylist) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monica Rose (stylist), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Baxter on screen and stage

Hi, hope you're well! Thanks for your DYK review of the above article but I think you forgot to sign your review. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 15 November 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MJ Lee

On 24 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MJ Lee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that CNN political correspondent MJ Lee became an American citizen during the 2016 United States presidential election, which she reported on? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MJ Lee. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MJ Lee), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:He Cong concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:He Cong, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

WiR stub contest

Thanks very much, Trillfendi, for creating Giselle Norman for the stub contest. Unfortunately, it still has only 110 words of running text. It should have at least 160 words. I hope you will be able to expand it a bit. If not, you can always list it under "Newly-created stubs which do not meet contest rules: November". Happy edting!--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Jasmine Shimoda

Either cite reliable sources or cease adding unsourced claims about a living person to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And since the fuck when did you even start caring about this article I created several months ago. Pray tell. Because you haven’t contributed anything to it for me to even care about your edicts. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you not understand WP:RS and WP:BLP? Because if not, you shouldn't be creating biographies at all. If you do understand them, then you're willfully violating them. Feel free to curse at me all you like, but the fact remains that you're inserting entirely-unsourced claims about someone being a former pornographic actress into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: And yet... it’s not unsourced. It’s just a source you don’t like. On all other articles of people who have been involved in pornography the IAFD is the standard. They show the picture of this woman so you can’t say it’s “not her”. It’s exactly her. If you want to go to Pornhub and search her name, no one is stopping you. I’m not gonna go to her Instagram account and pull a photo from 1999 she posted from those days because that’s nonsensical, nor will I go external linking anal videos for your entertainment. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please consider this your final warning: Making any edits such as this, without sources of the highest reliability, will lead to an immediate block from editing. Please carefully review the biographies of living persons policy prior to making any further edits in regards to living individuals. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I don't know what possesses you people to watch my talk page but as you can tell I left the matter alone hours ago and went on with my day. So go threaten someone who cares. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 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.

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.

Template:Z33 Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, "Stop adding the BLP violation" did not mean "Go put a BLP violation on the talk page instead." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Trillfendi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not that I particularly care about this version of events but I didn't "put a BLP violation on the talk page." All I did was respond to the ping message about the source I used for the original inclusion of the statement, IAFD, andsaying why it would be difficult for one find the information the editor was looking for (I said no interview has brought it up) rather than the forums they spoke of. I ended it with "Ah well whatever." clearly indicating that I was going leave the matter alone once in for all. And hence, I have not returned to the page for further content disputes or editing in general after that. At no point did I include any reference to pornography so honestly, I do not see what the problem is. I gave a source when I made that edit in March. To say it was sourceless this whole time is a lie. Trillfendi (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not accurately reflect what you did. "At no point did I include any reference to pornography"; this is untrue. You clearly referenced pornography and made an unsourced claim that the person in the porn movies was the person under discussion. Yamla (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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

@Yamla: IAFD is not a reference to pornography. It is a database, not a pornographic website like Pornhub, Xvideos, etc whatever is out there. A cursory search shows that IAFD appears as a reference on at least about 1000 pages on Wikipedia. The fact is that sentence was not unsourced. The paragraph about her on Nacho Vidal’s page was unsourced, if anything the ire should be directed over there. But as I said, after that I left the whole situation alone and haven't returned to it (for all I care the whole page could get deleted), so it is what it is. It’s not my agenda to "convince" people that Clark Kent is Superman, Miley Stewart is Hannah Montana, or Dick Whitman is Don Draper. I agree to disagree on this and once again, this isn’t worth spending Thanksgiving weekends on; with that, happy holidays and the 72 hour block will handle itself. Trillfendi (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"doesn't mean it's a BLP violation to say that someone once worked in pornography. Which she did." That's what you said. You can't now claim you weren't referencing pornography. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: (Eh, I didn't think about it like that, to be honest. To me referencing pornography is literally referencing pornography. The act of using the ref button and putting a pornographic link in there.) Since everyone watching this talk page is so focused on the reported "outing" of identities... of vegan restaurant owners, why is it that on Nacho Vidal's article his ex-wife Franceska Jaimes's real name (whom a red link revisionist wants people to believe is just a "model" while calling Jasmine Shimoda the "adult film actress") is right there in broad daylight? What's that about, hmm? As an administrator you can see the deleted page's content. Now if someone will sit here and say Franceska Jaimes doesn't exist I’m just gonna chuck my phone out the window because then it’s getting into "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." territory. Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That was also a BLP violation, and has been properly removed as such. We cannot "source" such assertions to YouTube and Twitter. Unless a reliable source has actually stated "X is the same individual as Y", we cannot put such an assertion into an article. Not even if you're certain it's accurate; not even if it really is accurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite know all the details here, especially since I don't know the content of the deleted edits. But we have a persistent problem of editors trying to add 'real names' of those involved in pornography, in violation of our WP:BLPNAMES, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY standards. This often involves people using primary sources (like trademark filings or court cases, or sometimes birth certificates or other such stuff), or non reliable sources (like forum threads, Youtube or other video comments, Facebook or Twitter or other social media posts, blogs, news sources which don't meet our requirements) or even just no sources. Such content is often suppressed whenever it is found and reported to the oversight team.

The case which resulted in your block seemed a little different, since there you had people speculating without sufficient reliable secondary sources that someone apparently notable for something else was once involved in pornography; but it's no more acceptable.

Note that the Internet Adult Film Database, is almost definitely not a reliable source consider their editorial process involves accepting user submissions, not that different from the way IMDb is not an RS. This seems to be acknowledged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. According to our article the IAFD has a policy of removing real names when they know about it if they can, with the exception of cases where they can't like if it's on a box cover. So I'm not even sure why it came up as a source. But whatever the reason it's not an RS and so should rarely come up in discussions. (It may sometimes be acceptable as an external link in articles on something clearly connected to pornography.) But it should not be used in an article with no clear connection to pornography. And especially not if it's being used to speculate about someone's real name or that someone known for something else was involved in pornography when this isn't supported by any reliable secondary sources.

Also, if you see a BLP violation, you should remove it, not use it as justification to keep other BLP violations. If someone removes something as a BLP violation, and your not sure if it and you are aware of something that seems similar, then the better choice would generally be to ask about the other content and whether it should be removed rather than reintroducing the earlier removed BLP violation in some form.

Remember also that BLP applies everyone including talk pages. Speculation on someone's involvement in pornography is no more welcome on an article talk page, or a user talk page for that matter. While of course since talk pages are used for discussing how to improve an article, it's sometimes necessary to discuss stuff like whether it should be covered based on the sources you can find, care should always be taken and if it's clear that the answer is no, there should be no further discussion unless more sources are found. And it may even be better to just remove the existing discussion on something sensitive like this even if it makes it more difficult for future editors.

Remember that for many people, involvement in pornography is sensitive and they can face problems when others in their lives comes to know of it. And whatever we may personally think of this, we need accept the reality of how the world works and respect how living subjects feel about this. So we need to take particular care in this area. Which is not to say it's acceptable to speculate about the identity of people in other areas.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: 🏳️ I left it alone. I won’t get on my soapbox about why we shouldn’t be treating people differently around here just because of stigma (obviously that industry doesn’t care to provide reliable sources anyway and we have to scrape the barrel to even get the barest biographical facts. It’s quite sad really. Unless it’s someone who has achieved mainstream recognition. But in the guise of trying to protect subjects people will resort to outright revisionist lies such as “Asa Akira isn’t remarried and doesn’t have a kid”.), because why else would we have neutrality? Anyways, this woman has been interviewed by the New York Times so it’s clear she’s done just fine these days professionally. When I created the article I was more focused on her restaurateur-ism than the tidbit of her blip in the adult world which was already publicized on here with no apparent qualms. As far as I was aware this wasn’t some clandestine thing—the Internet is forever. On that note I’m going to get lunch. Trillfendi (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

BLP is a big deal so it's important you understand the requirements if you are going to continue to work with BLPs. And per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or common sense, you should always take great care in assuming just because something in some other article means it's okay. Still, you initially including the info while problematic can perhaps be excused as a good faith mistake. But following that up by continuing to link the person with that work, with non reliable sources that don't even seem to make that link is definitely not on. (While dealing with Wikidata, I checked out IAFD and I didn't see the name mention anywhere, just the stage name.) And I don't see how you can claim you left it alone when you did so. Replying to someone does not require you to violate BLP. While I cannot read your reply, I see zero reason why you would need to link to IAFD to reply.

Anyway, the fact that you are 'scrape the barrel' proves the problem. If there are no reliable sources then we do not cover it. Your personal opinion of the industry, or that we should ignore our normal sourcing policies because you think there should be no stigma, and therefore somehow subjects should be the ones to suffer because there is, is irrelevant. I don't particularly know about the subject which started this discussion, but plenty of people do report losing their jobs (especially ones with a public 'face' like teaching) or getting expelled from university or other such repurcussions [4] [5], families and friends being pestered [6] [7], etc.

Note that although as I said, the effects of inappropriately sourced info, especially real names tends to be greater in the area, and so we are probably far more stringent in keeping it out and in cracking down on those who ignore our policies and guidelines, there is nothing unique about us requiring good reliable secondary sources to cover such info. And nor does removing unsourced info about someone's spouse or children mean we are "revisionist". The lack of info in our articles should never be taken to mean that we are saying there is no info since it doesn't exist. AFAICT, we do not say that Asa Akira is not remarried nor that she doesn't have a child. We very rarely cover say such things for a living person anyway since it can change at any time. Not mentioning such details is not the same thing as claiming that it didn't happen. Our articles are never going to be "complete" for various reasons including our sourcing requirements. So if we don't mention someone's spouse or kid or whatever, it doesn't mean there is none. Especially since, for plenty of people such info is not something they share with people except maybe for close family and friends. And even for tabloid media, they cannot always find out depending on local rules and regulations about records of such things and the willingness of said family and friends to go against the person's possible privacy expectations.

For example, I've twice now remove a new husband from Onision since the only info at the time seemed to be coming from primary sources, except for one loose reference to a wife (as he was presenting at the time) in one source which I'm not even convinced is a RS. I have no doubt he is or was in a new relationship and they were probably married, but it doesn't mean we should cover it when it isn't covered in reliable secondary sources. Hayley Westenra has sort of implied a remarriage on social media although it was very unclear, something the reliable secondary source which covered it noted so yes, it's not covered in our article.

We sometimes get things like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive290#AL JOYNER (probably) and Special:Contributions/Kimthew and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Jamie Moyer and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive280#Interesting BLP issue at Kirsten Haglund where someone claiming to represent or is the subject says they have gotten divorced or married or whatever. I have no doubt that most of the people are telling the truth but we still don't cover it unless sources are found, and this isn't just because they may be not telling the truth.

Spouse and children and of course one case where we have to take care since while WP:ABOUTSELF may seem to apply, we have to remember unless the other people are dead, it does involve other living people. (Although the Onision case is interesting since it sort of seems both of them are involved.) And covering the info without reliable sources when the person is happy for it to be out there may mean problems when things have changed and they no longer feel the same see e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive282#william wrigley jr ii and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive280#Dominique Lévy.

As the earlier examples showed, our current policy does mean people may not be happy when the only info we have is from earlier reliable sources as there are no ones reporting on the new info, still our best solution is just to stick with our sourcing requirements and hope that most readers don't make the mistake I guess you may have made of assuming that the fact we don't mention a divorce means the person is still married etc.

Likewise the fact that we may be unclear when someone got divorced, but know they did e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive278#Divorce date, doesn't mean we should allow court records and other such primary sources to cite such details. Ultimately if no other source thought it particularly matters, then it's quite reasonable for us to feel the same. Again, we have to hope most readers are able to understand such things.

Note that even when details are covered in reliable sources, we don't always include such info. A common issue that crops up are the names or dates of birth of someone's non notable children. While we sometimes include such info e.g. Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP, we do not always do so per WP:BLPNAME e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Alex Molden Bio. While there are those who feel we should very often do so, many of us feel we do need to carefully consider whether the info is widely published enough that it should be added see e.g. these discussions Talk:Carlos PenaVega#Child's name / Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again).

The inclusion of such info can mean issues crop up e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive279#vandal claiming astronaut's daughter is really a transgender boy / Talk:Scott Kelly (astronaut)#Gender of children.

Note that we do have to be careful about what people tell us anyway. I came across this case again when looking into the history Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive272#John Wetteland / User talk:Joeyb7473. Maybe that person really is telling the truth but frankly they are clearly someone intimately involved in the dispute if they are and we always have to be careful with their perspectives. And assuming they are the subject, with the latest info now covered at John Wetteland, which wasn't at the time I dealt with it, I'm even less inclined to trust them.

Of course people's disputes and their views on them are something that does crop up e.g. [8] and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Jamie Shupe and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive279#Ashley Hicks. (The Kirsten Haglund case seems to be another example of this.) Again we need to be careful to follow our sourcing requirements, and consider carefully whether to include the info per WP:UNDUE etc, especially when they deal with other people.

The internet may be "forever" but it doesn't mean we should be part of the problem by allowing poorly sourced or unsourced info to remain. The fact that it's still going to happen without us, as shown in the examples I highligted at the beginning is unfortunate. But we can only do what we can and that includes following our sourcing requirements and not becoming a source for such info ourselves. And as clear from the many examples I highlighted, this is far from something we only do with those involved in pornography.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I realised I should clarify. I too would much rather live in a world where people aren't harmed just because they once were involved in pornography, whether completely willingly or not. But I'm also a realist who recognises that isn't the world I live in, and I'm not going to make others suffer to try and change that world. If someone wants to try and change the world by publicising their info then all power to them, but I'm not going to try and force others to do so. And I am going to continue to demand our sourcing requirements in all articles, but especially those cases where I expect the harm is likely to be greater. If you wish to risk harm to others by forcing publication of info they would prefer to keep private, out of your desire to change the world, that's up to you I guess. Just keep it out of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: In scraping the barrel I’m referring to the frequent use around here of Adult DVD Talk as a “reliable” source. It’s sad that that’s all there is to offer. I left it alone in that I didn’t go back and forth with edit warring. When it comes to actual porn stars (not those who did a stint), it seems to be the order of business on Wikipedia to make it as litigious as possible for these people to even be notable. Now they can’t be notable if they’ve won industry awards. Ultimately, I don’t care about any of these people, period. Whatever they do with their own lives, the good the bad and the ugly, is none of my personal concern and my opinion doesn’t matter. I can’t even imagine the idea of some social justice crusade for the sake of Wikipedia when it’s a source that no one takes seriously. Yet millions of people come here everyday at the drop of a hat expecting us to have some extraterrestrial knowledge about everybody. Dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kiki Willems concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kiki Willems, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Faretta (December 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Faretta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Faretta, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trillfendi! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: This is ridiculous. So when it’s Kätlin Aas, Carola Remer, or anyone else with mere fucking sentences written about them it’s “enough” because of appearance, yet when it’s the likes of Birgit Kos, Jing Wen, or Cora Emmanuel one has to explain chapter and verse why reliable sources are reliable just because men don’t understand fashion? Not only American Vogue but British Vogue as well. And W. And Dazed. Hell, even Yahoo! Vogue and New York Times are now “bottom end”? Are you losing it? I’m moving it again, period. Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only will that be deleted, I am considering asking to have you blocked for disruptive editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: It’s not “disruption” to move an article I created when there is clear as day assertions of notability with independent, verifiable evidence of it. Period! Just because I don’t agree with your comments about The New York (for Christ’s sake) being “bottom tier” doesn’t mean I shouldn’t continue contributing article. You should be glad I even told you ahead of time. Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Faretta

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Faretta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faretta. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Palvin

Hello. The only source you provided does not say that she was born in Albertirsa. Otherwise, all except Spanish Wikipedia writes that she was born in Budapest. Provided with resources. In Albertirsa, only her grandmother lives and visits many times, so she was mistaken for being born there. Some sources, which writes born in Budapest:

• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5435980/
• https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10357799/barbara-palvin-figure-white-bikini
• https://www.mafab.hu/people/palvin-barbara-473857.html
• https://nlc.hu/cimke/palvin-barbara/
• https://starity.hu/sztarok/palvin-barbara/eletrajz/

Stop the editorial war and accept the facts and resources. --InterCity(IC) (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@InterCity(IC): Oh give it up! None of those are reliable sources! You have been on this trip for years, relying on your own original research and single purpose editing. So no, YOU stop the edit warring while I uphold BLP. Trillfendi (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: I'm not giving up! :) Because the false statement has no place on Wikipedia. --InterCity(IC) (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)