User talk:Annette Maon

Low Earth Orbit
Welcome to Wikiproject Spaceflight, fellow Wikipedian! Please note that your edit on Low Earth orbit has been reverted because "low Earth orbit" is not grammatically incorrect. Earth is capitalized because we aren't referring to normal earth (which means dirt) but a special wet sphere of earth. The word low is simply an adjective to Earth orbit. XYZt (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Molniya orbit/GA1
Annette Maon, you opened this review over six months ago, in late July, and haven't posted to it since October, which was your most recent Wikipedia edit. Do you plan to return to it soon? If not, or if we don't hear from you, we will have to find someone else to complete it. I hope all is well with you, and we see you back on Wikipedia in the future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antipodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HLA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad I got this note even though in this case the link is intentionally pointing to the disambiguation page in order to highlight the ambiguity between two different airports that happen to be nearly antipodes. Annette Maon (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Annette Maon! Your additions to Orson Scott Card have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Please help me understand where there was a copyright violation. Most of the edits you erased were fixing citations that could not possibly have been copyright violations. If you wanted to remove the few places with a small amount of a source that I marked as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cited inline you could have reversed those edits. You did not have to erase everything I contributed Annette Maon (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not "erase everything". You can view my edit, where you can see I only removed a small amount of copying and left the quotations and other acceptable additions alone.— Diannaa (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I can see it now. I must have been looking at the talk page instead of the article page and got a false impression. Now that I see your change, I understand what you are referring to. How short does a quote need to be to be "fair use", I thought my additions were small enough but I am not an expert on copyright and would appreciate your guidance to help me steer clear of future violations.

Thanks for making the stylistic improvements and paraphrasing that also help to steer clear of copyright violation. Would adding the word "positive" instead of the "sympathetic" that you removed still risk a copyright violation?

If we paraphrase (or if necessary delete) the "I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia" can we keep the "As a result, his later work is distorted by not having gay characters where he would normally have had them" which is already paraphrased from first person to third person? Or is there another reason for your objection for that line? Annette Maon (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or a Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Nightscream (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Annette Maon/Don't loop up
User:Annette Maon/Don't loop up, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Annette Maon/Don't loop up and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Annette Maon/Don't loop up during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices
Firefangledfeathers 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly interested in either politics or WP:BLP. Your decision to post these two notices on my talk page without even bothering to post a link to the discussion that triggered them or intervene there to encourage WP:NPOV does reflect on my real interest in how WP:NPOV is applied and enforced within the Wikipedia community and how WP:BLP is used as an excuse to circumvent Wikipedia policies, bully those who oppose POV pushing and bolster WP:Fringe theories in article space while obscuring discussion about mainstream views even in Talk pages. Thank you for your contribution to my exploration of this topic and for encouraging me to remain a WikiGnome and avoid controversial topics that might aggravate administrators and lead to sanctions. Annette Maon (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Annette Maon. I am likely to participate in the triggering discussion if your proposals, which I oppose, start to trend toward consensus. In the meantime, I wanted to make sure you were aware of heightened standards in these sensitive topic areas. I see you have made edits related to COVID-19 (at Elon Musk), another such area, and am posting another notice below.
 * Please avoid vague accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP on article talk pages. If you believe an editor is engaging in misconduct, consider following the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, the first of which is to bring it up at the user's talk page. The policy recommends against bringing such matters up at the article talk pages, which should remain focused as much as possible on content. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers 17:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that your intent was not to encourage me as I originally assumed but to trigger sanctions against me if my proposals even "start to trend toward consensus". I stand corrected. I must admit that the title of this section on my talk page was intimidating enough even before your clarification.

As to my so called "accusation" of WP:OWN, I make no accusation against any specific person. I have better things to do than starting disputes on other people's user pages. I simply examined the last GA review and observed that the article was curated by two people who show up prominently here as well. The links provided to previous discussions on the talk page (which I had already seen when I posted my request for RfC and GA history) make it clear that a small group of editors who act like they WP:OWN the article repeatedly gang up on anyone who dares to challenge the "unscientific" slur. If you count all the different people from all these discussions, they outnumber the ones who insist on keeping what recently described as "contrary to BLP guidelines". The so called "consensus" is achieved not by convincing those who object but by polling without discussion, ganging up on people one by one followed by reverting their edits. I was under the false impression that consensus meant something else on Wikipedia, thank you for disabusing me of that naive notion.

Even if I had more experience as an editor and considered a "proper RFC or a discussion on the BLP noticeboard" as suggested, the intimidating tactics here on my personal talk page would give me pause. I congratulate on their effective intimidation campaign. Annette Maon (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Annette Maon, I am not here to intimidate you, and I disagree with your description of my actions. That said, I think it's unlikely that my continued presence here will be helpful to anyone. Unless pinged, I'll leave your talk page alone for a while. Firefangledfeathers 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Annette Maon,
 * Alerting an editor to existing discretionary sanctions on a subject that has been a contentious subject of arbitration on Wikipedia is a way of letting them know they are entering into a sensitive, policed area and is not considered an act of intimidation. It's common to give editors who might not be familiar with discretionary sanctions a notification about them because these subject areas are treated differently than the majority of subject areas on Wikipedia. There are probably two dozen subjects covered by discretionary sanctions and it is unrealistic to assume an editor with your experience level would be aware of them so this is considered a courtesy, not an aggressive act. Typically, in areas covered by discretionary sanctions, disruptive editing is more quickly sanctioned than, say, if you were writing about an insect species, a sculpture or a national holiday. With discretionary sanctions, administrators have been given permission to act quickly before a conflict escalates.
 * Now you have been advised about three of these subject areas and given links to learn more about discretionary sanctions so you can consider yourself alerted. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. The notices themselves make it quite clear that they do "not imply that there are any issues with [my] contributions to date".  It was not the notices that I found intimidating.  It was the combination of the section header which has no such clarification with the open threat to trigger a discussion about discretionary sanctions if my proposals, which they oppose, start to trend toward consensus.   May I ask how you came to notice this section of my talk page and why you chose to comment on it?    Annette Maon (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Annette Maon/A female paper on NPOV
Hi Annette Maon. As you may have observed, User:Annette Maon/A female paper on NPOV was deleted by another administrator as being an attack page. The sources used did not adequately support the strong, and negative, claims being made about the subject of that page. We take our Biography of Living People policy quite seriously and I would ask that you review it before doing any further editing about living people. Further issues of this kind may lead to sanctions, upto and including blocking. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not intend to request undeletion

 * I can observe the fact that the page is no longer there. Since the page has been deleted and not blanked, it seems that the talk page associated with it has also disappeared and I no longer have access to either. IIRC, when I created the page, I tried to make it clear in every possible way that the page was not an attack on a living person but a Satire that refers to a fictional character.  It is hard for me to understand why either of you would think that WP:BLP applies to the contents of that page.    Moreover, the content of the page was modeled after several famous satires:


 * Shakespear]'s [[Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears which is a superficial attack on the fictional Julius Caesar that ultimately portrays him in a positive light. The deleted was intended to ultimately portray the living person Orson Scott Card in a positive light as well.
 * Mark Twain's Satire in Huckleberry Finn which describes the internal struggle between the protagonists' racist values and his innate morality.
 * Hofstadter's "Person paper on purity in language" under the telling pseudonym "William Satire" which is intentionally shocking in order to create an internal struggle for the reader.
 * Orson Scott Card's "Secular Humanist revival meeting" which is a satirical parody of fundamentalist preachers.

The fact that "The sources used did not adequately support the strong, and negative, claims being made" is not a coincidence, it was intentionally designed to achieve the satirical effect. I was under the possibly mistaken impression that satire is allowed in Wikipedia essays like List of cabals which I very much enjoyed reading. I obviously never intended my user space draft to ever be posted in article space where it would have been completely inappropriate. I intended to ask more experienced editors for comments and suggestions before I tried to move it anywhere. According to my own judgement, the page was still a rough draft and was not ready to be posted as an essay. I believe I marked it as a work in progress to reflect that.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify why you think that the deleted page could possibly be an attack on a living person. If the reason is that my draft did not achieve the satirical goals I had in mind, I would like it to be restored so I have a chance to improve it. If the reason is different, please explain it to me so I do not inadvertently do anything that "may lead to sanctions, upto and including blocking". Annette Maon (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies to every page of wikipedia. I actually clicked on it from your contributions because the title interested me and then immediately saw satire and humor warnings while including BLP content that was inappropriate for wikipedia. If admins want to grant you a WP:REFUND, that's their call but I'd suggest you avoid making mention of living persons in your essays. Slywriter (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While the talk page is eligible for deletion it's actually still there for the time being. You didn't write about a fictional character, you took a real person, took things they said, and twisted them into charges that are not allowed per our policy on living people. Or put another way, while there is a place for humor on Wikipedia (or at least tolerance for some of my poor attempts at it) but we don't joke about living people like that. This is in keeping with other satire. There is a reason that Orwell named the pig Snowball not Trotsky in Animal Farm and it's Dr. Strangelove and not Wernher von Braun. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the prompt reply and clarification. I defer to your experience and do not intend to request undeletion. I would like to ask for the deleted content to be "emailed to [me] so the content can be improved upon" and because it contained many citations that could be useful individually in various other contexts that are not satirical. As the page was deleted under under speedy deletion criterion G10 it seems that I can not make the request at WP:REFUND. Can you suggest where I may be able to make such a request?

As I was writing my response above, I realized that Julius Caesar was dead long before Shakespeare wrote his play while Orson Scott Card is still alive. I believe that some of the fundamentalist preachers mentioned in Card's "Secular Humanist revival meeting" were still alive at the time and that the racist views that Twain's satire is directed at were still prevalent when he wrote Huckleberry Finn. However, I do not think my poor attempts at satire can measure up to their genius. Even if they did, I understand now that Wikipedia has no place for such satire. Your point about the Snowball and Strangelove examples resonates with something that made me feel uncomfortable with that page all along which is why it never went out of draft mode.

People with an axe to grind and admin backing have much more staying power than Wikignomes like me
Frankly, if Wikipedia really takes our Biography of Living People policy seriously, I should never have felt the urge to write a satire like that in the first place. My actual citations of sources that purposely "do not adequately support the strong, and negative, claims being made" were modeled on the repeated distortions in the Orson Scott Card article and Talk archives where WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are supposed to be enforced more strictly than on drafts in a User page. I have given up on trying to balance the POV pushing there as it seems that people with an axe to grind have much more staying power than Wikignomes like me who would rather move on to other articles where my contributions do not get reverted within a few hours. I regret to note that searching through the archives of Talk:Elon_Musk makes me realize that similar WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues are not localized to the Orson_Scott_Card article. They also seem to appear in the most viewed BLP Wikipedia article of 2021.

In those two mainspace articles about living persons, I try to take WP:BLP very seriously. As a new editor with limited experience, I have restricted myself mostly to the talk pages, trying to look for consensus even when WP:BLP guidelines theoretically "allow" me to violate the 3RR rule. I must admit to some surprise that the stale satirical page I created to vent my frustration at WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues got more attention than the WP:BLP issues that triggered those frustrations in the first place. Annette Maon (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * G10s aren't normally eligible for undeletion which is why you can't request it at REFUND. I have, however, alerted the admin who deleted it of your request and will leave it up to them to make a final decision. As for the issues at Scott Card, I am definitely aware of the complexities having been the reviewer for a GA nomination which went off the rails. To the extent that you find that there are BLP issues in articles, using the talk pages, RFCs, and the BLP Noticeboard to remedy them are ways of addressing it in areas where unilateral editing doesn't stick. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Annette Maon, I'm the admin who deleted your user page. To answer some of your questions in no particular order: the reason this subpage got more attention than other things is simply that, when an editor nominates a page for deletion under the G10 criterion (reserved for attack pages or negative unsourced BLPs), it gets placed in a separate queue that many admins monitor closely, myself included, for obvious reasons. So, it's more or less a procedural difference that brought this page to my attention so quickly.
 * As other users have mentioned, Wikipedia is not the place for satire about living people (personally, I would question the extent to which this even qualifies as satire; it doesn't read that way, but that distinction is of course subjective, and didn't play into my decision to delete). Some satire, yes, but we have to be extremely cautious about BLP issues. And yes, it's unfortunately true that Wikipedia is rife with BLP issues as is, but that's not a reason to not take care of the ones we find when we find them. The Wikipedia lingo for this (usually used in delete discussions) is the "other stuff exists" argument.
 * Now as far as your request to be emailed the contents of the page, I personally am going to decline to send you the actual contents for the reasons above; I don't see any way in which it could be reasonably modified to suit being on Wikipedia. However, I would be happy to extract the citations from that draft and send you those. Note that that isn't an endorsement of any of the citations themselves, as far as their value as reliable sources. Would that help? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would appreciate it if you could extract the citations from that draft and email them to me. I have already agreed with the deletion of my draft page, I am not trying to argue against it.  What I am trying to do is understand the process.
 * I am fascinated by the process reflected in "that's not a reason to not take care of the ones we find when we find them". Am I really the only one that finds Talk:Elon_Musk and Talk:Orson Scott Card to be "rife with BLP issues"?  There must have been be some "reason to not take care" of them long before I noticed them myself.  I can understand that it is easier to delete a standalone user draft than to fix the complexities of BLP and NPOV issues within the talk page of an article while it is being nominated for GA.  It is my current understanding that the flag which called administrator attention to potential BLP issues and triggered the speedy deletion of my draft would not be appropriate for Talk:Elon_Musk or Talk:Orson Scott Card.  Is there an equivalent mechanism to call administrator attention to sections or phrases within a large talk page?  I do not consider myself to have enough experience to start a WP:RFC or WP:BLPN process without some assistance.  Annette Maon (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, sent. Note that I don't think *any* of them are useable as sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, *any* is a pretty strong statement. Can you explain why they are not "useable as sources"?  Would the same criteria be "a reason to take care of" similar sources that raise BLP issues in Article space?  Annette Maon (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, four of them are links to the "Enderverse Fandom Wiki", which are unusable as sources because they are user-generated content. 3 entries on WorldCat; not super sure about that, but probably aren't reliable as sources for anything other than "Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game", etc., since I think they're also user-generated. One link to the website for the LDS Church, which isn't reliable for anything but what the LDS Church says about itself. Two links to Youtube, which are also UGC; since they (presumably) link to Card talking himself, they're better than the usual Youtube garbage we get, but they're still primary sources at best, which should be used with caution, and even then, Youtube is not "reputably published". Then an audio clip hosted by "the DNA Store", which is more or less the same deal as Youtube, except even less reputably published. So no, none of the sources you used are actually truly reliable; some might be usable in certain contexts for very specific facts, but none can be used freely, and certainly not to soruce the kind of things you were saying in your page.


 * Thank you for the informative reply. The citations were inspired by an administrator who said that "OSC is a Reliable Source for what he said" in justification of quoting a WP:PRIMARY source out of context.  My talk page request to remove all citations to a Salon opinion piece was ignored even after I linked to WP:RSP (those citations are still there).  People continued to mention the Salon attack piece as a RS while demanding that I produce reliable secondary sources for what OSC actually said in context.

, I decided to take a small step and report my own possible BLP violations at WP:BLPN based on 's advice. I want to apologize to all three of you in advance if this makes it look like I baited you into deleting a page titled "A female paper on NPOV" while leaving no trace of the contents on Wikipedia to see why it was actually deleted. In retrospect, I could not have asked for a better outcome. I would like to point out however, that this lucky outcome was not intentional. When I created that page, I had no way of knowing in advance how it would be handled, much less that it would be deleted by the author of this page who apparently enjoys self reference Irony as much as I do. Thank you all for the learning experience. Annette Maon (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As for your post [above], well, it sounds like you're thinking you've concocted a clever trap to reveal how Wikipedia is biased? That's not news; we even discuss it in our articles. But here's the thing--bias on Wikipedia is (usually) not due to active collusion and malfeasance. It's not that the admins have gotten together and decided to exclude people or suppress their ideas. Wikipedia isn't evil; it's messy. Policies are enforced unevenly, not because people are trying to be unfair, but because Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and people have limited time and attention to volunteer; we can't be everywhere at once. And because we're all volunteers, with no central training or quality control, different people have honestly different ideas about what to do. So yes, issues mostly get dealt with as they're noticed and according to the, not as they happen, which leads to wild variation in the actual amount of time it takes for them to get dealt with. And yes, that sucks and can lead to real harm. But trying to "trick" individual users into revealing their biases isn't really going to change anything, because it's a systemic problem, not an individual one. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought that my apology made it clear that there was no way for me to have intentionally "concocted a clever trap" like this even if I had wanted to. I can not see what made you think that I would even try. The rest of your response was interesting but when I followed your link to Systemic bias on Wikipedia and realized that I had already read it before, it made me feel like you are preaching to the choir.  I know that sometimes I miss the point in what is being said to me.  Did I miss something? Annette Maon (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I defend myself from distorted BLP accusations against a page that no longer exists?
As an optimist who prefers to "Assume Good Faith not just as a Wikipedia Policy" I was hoping it will not come to this. However, as a borderline paranoid  and in light of recent events elsewhere, I am reluctantly asking  and  for some public indication that the deleted draft made it clear that the attacks were directed at a fictional character that was not created by me and contained the phrase "can not possibly be a BLP voilation" in that context. I am also asking for all the notices and templates in the header of the deleted draft which I do not believe contained BLP violations to be emailed to me so I do not have to rely on memory alone in defending myself against false accusations.

I fear that some editors with a cunning and deceitful nature may have inadvertently missed the template at the top of WP:How_to_Ban_a_POV_You_Dislike,_in_9_Easy_Steps and are actually following those steps in an attempt to ban my POV from Wikipedia. They may proceed with all 9 steps just out of habit without realizing that in my case, a ban would not be necessary since they have already achieved their goals. They may not be aware that simply asking me to "stay away from all BLP pages" and getting administrators that I respect to redact my POV into obscurity is enough to intimidate me and silence my POV.

For example, if I had not felt intimidated, I may have responded to that there is no need to weasel by "adding MOS:ALLEGED or a similar qualifier" when "spreading misinformation about COVID-19" (secondary source to establish notability only) is a criminal offence (primary source to establish reliability) in South Africa (Musk's nationality). I have seen no WP:RS indicating that Musk has been convicted of spreading misinformation. As a newcomer, my experience with WP:BLPN has been limited to only one incident. Based on my limited experience there, it seems to me that allegations of spreading "misinformation" should be eliminated not only from the article but from the talk page as well. I would hope that this can be done delicately. I would hate to see the extensive history of "work and ideas" on the talk page redacted in ways that could alienate or intimidate "Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources [that] may have watchlisted" the article (quoted from WP:OWN). I for one respect their POV even when I disagree with it.

I still prefer to assume good faith and attribute my fears to my own borderline paranoia. But it never hurts to be prepared, just in case.

I am asking for some understanding that, as a newcomer, I mistakenly thought (at the time) that the tactics I used in the deleted page were acceptable in an unfinished draft for what was intended to become a satirical essay (like WP:9STEPS and WP:BRRR). I wish I had known about the "humorantipolicy" template at the time and thought to include some variation of it in the header when I tried to write a "A female paper on NPOV". However, all that is moot now. As I said above, I am not asking for my satirical User space draft to be restored. convinced me and we now have consensus that mixing humor with BLP is too volatile a combination. Annette Maon (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slywriter (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Space Karen/


A tag has been placed on Space Karen/ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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.

''I assume that the extra "/" in the title is a typo? I can't find any reference to this name with a slash on the end anywhere, and we already have the correctly spelled Space Karen redirect.'' 192.76.8.73 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My first Edit war Accusation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I think I already mentioned People who live in glass houses in that context.

's quotations and material that "discuss controversial changes" are challenged and likely to be challenged (not just by me). The Talk page section title refers to the missing support "by an inline citation". It is who is demanding "a constitutional amendment before anyone's allowed to revert" her controversial edits that do not represent consensus.

I am still waiting to see if is willing to actually discuss her "controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus". I hope I do not get accused of WP:CANVASSing for asking people I respect like User:Rachel Helps (BYU), User:Barkeep49, User:Writ Keeper and User:FyzixFighter for help and guidance on how a WP:NEWCOMER like me should handle my first edit war accusation. Annette Maon (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Having failed to get consensus for your proposed changes among the users already editing the article, your next step must be to seek broader input through eg. a Request for Comment, not to continue trying to insert the disputed text indefinitely. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Adoption Notice Expired
Hello, I'm Justiyaya. I wanted to let you know that I removed the "seeking adoption" userbox from your user page, because you haven't been active for at least a month. When you come back to Wikipedia, feel free to add the userbox back with the code. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —  Just ' i ' yaya  00:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from Stifle
Stifle (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

New message from Stifle
Stifle (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)