User talk:Generalrelative

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Pinned comment

George Floyd and Dostoevsky

Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Truth

Honest question for you - what is to be done on a Wikipedia article when there exists evidence of verifiable truth that is relevant to the context of an article, but a majority of users partaking in discussion on said article are for whatever reason opposed to its inclusion? In a case like this, it seems that a majority of users with a vested interest in concealing some truth could band together to reach "consensus" on an article to keep the truth off of it; thereby allowing the article to tread the line of "lying by omission", and stray farther from WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, truth (when it is relevant to the article it could be added to) should be prioritized over "achieving consensus," because of cases like this. Is this not how Wikipedia works? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it, this may seem like a fundamental challenge for a project like Wikipedia, which is indeed based on consensus. And of course most people believe –– often strongly –– that the things they believe are true. But the more time you spend here the more you will see that the person yelling "truth!" will very rarely have the stronger argument. This is especially evident when there is a large community of editors involved in a given discussion (or watching and only intervening if things seem to be getting out of hand). As it happens, the page you're currently worried about, Anti-fascism, currently has 292 watchers. A verifiable and neutral telling of the truth will out in the end. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:TRUTH. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks, but the editor is not stopping. See Anton Drexler as well as the economy article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that editor's history makes it pretty clear what they're after. On their talk page just now I've recommended they read WP:NOTDUMB, mostly just to see if we can save ourselves the trouble of writing up a 3RR complaint. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Aaaand... indefinitely blocked. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Richard Lynn

Hi, the point is not whether there is a consensus that Richard Lynn is controversial. His controversiality is amply shown throughout the article, including the lede. Compare the article Donald Trump, where it doesn't say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." It's not encyclopaedic practice to flag someone's controversiality in the first line, which simply ought to state what they do/did for a living or for notoriety. 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is consensus language. See the article's talk page archive. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Richard_Lynn/Archive_5#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead is undecided, not a community consensus in favour of your position. I know I won't change your mind, but I'd be interested to know whether you think encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica *should* open their article on Donald Trump by writing "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician". Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in debating this with you. The existing wording has a clear consensus behind it, whether you agree or not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is entirely beside the point. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Cyril Burt

Hello, a question, if you don't mind. Surely keeping such a reference is because this is another facet of Burt's life?. Therefor its existance (and in this this case who created it as well), is a story that needs to be told. And no I do not have an answer! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(→‎Fraud accusations: Unclear that a primary source by Gavan Tredoux, who is not an academic, is DUE for inclusion here, especially given that his finding purports to contradict academic consensus.)

I'm afraid that I don't understand the question. Would you mind rephrasing? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, badly put. My point was that as an article in a enclyopedia this link alongside the dubiousness of said link needs to stay to be part of the picture of Burt for any researcher. I appriciate some of the inherent difficulties in this and do not have an answer for them, but all the same I think the link should stay. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying. My response is pretty simple though: Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts but rather a curated tertiary source which presents verifiable information (usually based on secondary sources) according to its due weight. That particular primary source was, in my view, undue for inclusion for the reasons given in my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Did not realise it was a primary source for some reason (my bad)! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Republican Party

Gene, just wanted to thank you for hearing out my RFC recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I adore that you thought to call me Gene. I hadn't even realized my user name could be read like that. Have a spooky Halloween (if that's your thing). Generalrelative (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll leave the Abrams discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Understandable. American Politics can be a food fight. Hope you're having a good day. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not the topic that I'm finding frustrating. But anyways, all is well. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Abrams

Hi. You can copy your comments to a valid thread. That RfC is zombie disruption, with bad choices that don't reflect prior discussion. please self-revert. we can't be tied up in the banned user's parting shot for the next month. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Between you & me, I think it would be best to 'ping' the editors who've already participated in the RFC. They may want to know, whether or not their input has been disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

See my latest comment on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I archived it is that GoodDay's note in the hat bar is equivocal, as if there were not consensus to end the RfC and as if anyone could come along and restart it. I don't think anyone has said there would be a problem starting a valid RfC when and as it seems fruitful. I'm just concerned that each time it's reopened, additional editors take the time to comment and are surprised to see their comments hatted. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I hear that. Looks like GoodDay has resolved the issue. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Gene, I've reworded the closing note. Clarifying a 'new' RFC can be opened, rather then a reopening of the closed one. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. That sounds like a good solution to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022 Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Peer reviewed papers

At RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Wishing you a happy and healthy new year. Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Big Lie edits

In regards to your reversion here, could you point to where the removed claim is mentioned in any of the seven sources? The claim is one made by the Wikipedian who originally wrote it, not by any of the actual sources it cites. Horizons 1 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by your question. The claim seems to feature quite prominently across a range of sources. Here, e.g., is The Guardian: The disclosure that extremist Republicans dedicated to election subversion have formed a network was first revealed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House who is spearheading a “precinct-by-precinct” movement to inject far-right activists into local elected office. Marchant disclosed the alliance on Bannon’s War Room podcast. The revelation can only heighten jitters about the fragile state of American democracy. An NPR analysis of 2022 secretary of state races across the country found that at least 15 candidates have adopted Trump’s big lie. [1]. Feel free to open a discussion thread on the article talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

This was delightful. I got to "Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread??" and couldn't stop laughing. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

:P Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women | Justice | Folklore Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name, married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia is a mess

Both NKM And KU Are same height 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.141 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson

As I'm sure you've also noticed, there have been about 100 edits to E. O. Wilson by the same good-faith editor in less than a week. I have some concerns. The lead now has a lot of promotional language in wikivoice that it didn't have before (pioneering, trailblazer). I've been thinking of removing that, and also maybe adding to the lead something about support for Rushton, which is an important part of the body of the article. But I'm waiting for this editor to finish their series of rapid-fire edits. I also don't want to over-react. After all, many BLP leads, in order to establish notability, use somewhat promotional language. Your thoughts? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks NightHeron, I haven't had a chance to look deeply. I considered reverting one or two of these edits but wasn't sure. Honestly I'm slammed right now IRL, so probably will limit myself to chiming in to support conclusions others may reach or offering my 2¢ in a limited capacity. In general, though, I do think some modest mention of the controversies Wilson provoked belongs in the lead of his bio. Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just noticed that a few hours ago Grayfell initiated what seems to be a productive discussion with that editor on the talk page. When the dust settles, I'll add a sentence or two about the Rushton business to the lead.NightHeron (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a productive discussion, and that the recently prolific editor is amenable to feedback. Nice to see. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Jensenism pops up at FTN and RSN

Greetings! As you might have already noticed, there are two newly-registered users (see [2] and [3]) suddenly arguing at FTN and (in one case RSN) for positive treatment of Jensenist sources. It's pretty clear that both are not really newbies, and this looks suspicious. You've had experience identifying socks. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi NightHeron, hope you've been keeping well. Yup, there's definitely some sort of puppetry afoot surrounding the Eyferth study article, given the amount of attention it's received all at once from a number of IPs and new accounts. Unfortunately, I don't have much time in the next few days to devote to WP, but I see that at least one of the accounts has already been blocked as an LTA [4]. Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue One request

Hi @Generalrelative, I noticed that you recently made edits to the Protect Democracy page, and I was wondering if you could take a look at some recent edit requests I made on the Issue One Talk page, which is a similar organization. I have a COI as I work for Issue One, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor like yourself could take a look at what I've put together. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi AR at Issue One, I'll take a look at this when I have time. Thanks for doing the right thing and declaring your COI. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Wonderful, thank you so much! I've suggested edits for the History and Organization sections, and appreciate you taking a look at whatever you have time for. AR at Issue One (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, AR at Issue One. I took a look and honestly this looks like a more substantial job than I can take on at the moment. Consider posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics? Generalrelative (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, @Generalrelative, thank you for the suggestion! I just made a post. If you happen to have some time, do you mind taking a look at just the request to edit the History section? It's just a request to rename the section to "Formation", and simplifying some of the details about predecessor organizations. Any change at all would be helpful, no matter how small. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023

Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261 Online events: New: Geofocus Mediterranean | Art + Activism | Alphabet run Q & R Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Folklore See also: #Visible Wiki Women Wikimedia challenge to add more images of women to Commons Tip of the month: Mobile phone readers may only see the article "lead" – take some time to make it shine! Include something to keep people reading. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Describing Yockey as being attracted to Marxism previously is not a controversial claim

and the fact the page previously said "Left-Wing" (with a citation need) even less reasonable edit. You can doubt Autonomedia, all you want but if this is a controversial claim, you may as well delete the statement that he had previously been attracted by Left-Wing movements altogether because the person who wrote that probably based that claim on the same book considering that it is the most detailed on the subject of his life from sources which are not of the far-right. StrongALPHA (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@StrongALPHA: With apologies for the delay in responding to you, I would be happy to discuss on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Response

hello you have removed the pages that I have created then please can you explain to me why didn't you removed section like holocaust denial which itself is a pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ppppphgtygd: Short answer: because I didn't have time to do a big overhaul. I see that this and similar discussions have been ongoing on the article talk page and would encourage you to post there to see if we can come to a lasting consensus on what belongs in this article. Wrt Holocaust denial, it appears from this discussion that there is consensus it should not be described as pseudoscience but rather pseudohistory, though pseudoscience has certainly played a role in some of the arguments marshaled by Holocaust deniers. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

deal i will put it in the talk page Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To-do philosophy

I was surprised by your comment at Talk:Steven Pinker opposing my addition of the {{to do}} list because it gives off the impression of *claiming authority* over and above the normal consensus-building process. Reading the WP:TODO guidelines, I got a very different impression. A to-do list is a list of improvements suggested for the article and a tentative consensus. The page recommends that we feel free to discuss to-do lists in the talk page of articles, to add new tasks, or to work on pending tasks. Are these recommendations outdated in some way? Is the general community opposed to the use of to-do lists? It seems to me like a handy way to plan and organize, but if the consensus has changed, then WP:TODO should be updated to reflect this.  — Freoh 00:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not aware that consensus has changed. I was glancingly aware of what you were hearing from the community at ANI and wanted to let you know how these particular edits looked to an uninvolved observer. That is, not especially helpful. My advice is to tread carefully in contentious topic areas, even when claiming a tentative consensus. But of course, feel free to ignore me if you like. In any case I wish you well, Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your advice to tread carefully seems to conflict with your previous advice to be bold. I would need to read and think a bit more before adding this content into the article, so I thought that it could be helpful to list it somewhere that I (or someone else) could come back to later. I was trying to be bold by adding the content to the {{to do}} list. Would you be opposed if I re-added the {{to do}} list?  — Freoh 14:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I could've been clearer. By suggesting that you "be bold" I was referring to article space. My suggestion is that you work on improving the article itself, and then if you're reverted or challenged, engage in constructive discussion on the talk page until consensus is reached. I don't think the to-do list is helpful for the reasons I've stated before. Generalrelative (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think that to-do lists should be discouraged in general, then you should probably add that advice to WP:TODO and {{to do}}.  — Freoh 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not. I think that the way you were attempting to use the to-do list in this context isn't helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I will drop this issue, but given that I added the {{to do}} list after a good-faith effort to follow the WP:TODO recommendations, I would appreciate it if you would edit that page at some point to specify under what conditions the to-do list is inappropriate.  — Freoh 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Eyferth study closure

There is currently a discussion at [[the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic The EyeFerth Study. Thank you. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Baffling and repeated reverting

I've tried to explain this to you in the plainest language possible. I'm not the IP who was blocked. I also showed you how to check contributions. While I understand it's a strange coincidence, it's not impossible for two IPs to be from the same general geographic area. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Izno blocked you for a month. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP edits. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you somehow remained unaware of this but now you know. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. And I wasn't aware. I will refrain from editing henceforth. Everything doesn't have to be so contentious, Generalrelative. Even though we might be ideologically opposed, that does not mean we can't communicate with civility. Sometimes a simple message will accomplish twice as much as a lengthy ANI complaint. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not that we are "ideologically opposed." The problem is that you don't understand the science relevant to the race and intelligence topic area, nor do you understand Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines. You chose to become a time sink and make an absolute ass of yourself based on your mistaken beliefs. That's why you were blocked. I'm not being mean and you are not being nice. At this point the most civil thing I can do for you is to explain what is going on here. This is a collaborative project, and you have shown yourself –– at least for the time being –– to be incapable of collaboration. Perhaps you are young and will mature into it. I don't know. But you need to reflect long and hard about what led to this block before you ever think of editing Wikipedia again. Including this talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Witch hunt

You started the sockpuppet investigation against me here. The other user in question ended up being blocked for being a sockpuppet of someone else here. I wonder if I can get some kind of admission from you that your report against me was based more on a personal grudge and hysteria than logic and evidence, or that perhaps your judgment on who is a sockpuppet of whom is simply quite poor and maybe you should quit participating in the sockpuppet investigation portion of Wikipedia to save everybody some trouble. MarshallKe (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)