User talk:Autonova

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ocarina of Time
Heyo. Just wanted to thank you for your help resolving the issues on the OoT talk page! I appreciate it. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We have work to do again... The Fwanksta (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolution
Hi there, I reverted that addition, since one case of advantageous traits would be ones that increased sexual attractiveness, even if these decreased lifespan (think of the peacock's tail). This is covered in the article on sexual selection. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes good point, much appreciated :) Autonova (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Combinesoldier.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Combinesoldier.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Empire: Total War
Just a note regarding this, I've already got that planned. I had it thought out so that reviews would come in for around a week after release, then I would redo the section properly. At the moment, with the influx of reviews, its difficult to properly construct the section. -- Sabre (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification at CT
I think you wrote: NRen was actually talking to me (Autonova) about NIST's report, which, as I've heard, altered the initial conditions of its models in order to produce a collapse. Thanks for the clarification, which on my second reading was what I understood. Yes, I have read a few times that NIST adjusted its metrics and assumptions in its conceptual model until it achieved a certain result. And further, it is said that FEMA's assumptions are quite different, not in line. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Sir Rubin has probably stopped looking for the article he "thought" he recalled might support "reverse whatever" now that such a finding would actually show flaws in the governments analysis (not in Niels, etc). But if he finds "it", it might bring another editor more toward common ground. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I notice you are engaged in a discussion at the Ocarina of Time article regarding whether or not the claim that it is the "greatest video game of all time" is synthesis. I have dealt with this issue in the past, and I believe I know why the article has remained as it has for so long. There was an old footnote to WP:SYNTH that stated that simple acts of logic were not considered synthesis. The argument at the Ocarina of Time article presumably would have been that since it is clear that many critics not it as one of the greatest games ever, it is clearly "widely recognized" as such. Since then this footnote has been removed so I think User:Haipa dragoon is correct that it does technically fall under the definition of synthesis.

A simple compromise presents itself, however. What about simply altering the wording from "greatest video games of all time" to "best game ever made" per this single RS. Although I personally find the droves of reliable source rankings to be more persuasive, there's no hint of synthesis if we just use the one reliable source, right? The lede statement should of course be bolstered by offering a few particularly notable examples later in the article in what Use:Haipa dragoon has called the "CASE B" style. -Thibbs (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work!
Good call on adding that screenshot to Redpill, and thank you for writing up a detailed fair use rationale, it is much appreciated. Cheers,  Skomorokh   21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) My pleasure, cheers for the good words :). Autonova (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Vesperydia (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking you, I am suggesting that you are a sockpuppet of Dr90s, since your only contributions to Wikipedia have been reverts identical to those made by Haipa Dragoon, who was proven to be a sock puppet. A sock puppet, if you don't know, is a name for an alternate account set up by an individual who has been blocked from Wikipedia. Autonova (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rome Total War
Just saw your edit of my edit! I was trying to indicate that there are multiple ways in which position can affect morale (for example, flanking an enemy is more effective on morale than being higher up, being 'next to but on the other side of a wall' has an effect that is less pronounced than being higher up). Can you think of a way of saying both of those things in a relatively concise way? I'm messaging you because I don't want to tread on your toes without consulting first! OneCatch (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's terribly conscientious of you! That's a good point - I didn't realise being next to a wall also had an impact. Maybe something like "whether the unit holds an advantageous position on the battlefield relative to the enemy"? I'd love to collaborate on that section some more but I've got a load of lessons to plan tomorrow. Feel free to rework that morale bit (and indeed the article), you seem to know your stuff! :) Autonova (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I ended up just making a really small change to wording; I saw that the article has been regarded as too long in the past so didn't want to add too much. I might create a few new pictures for the article if I get a decent scenario in campaign. If i have a few days free, I might see if anyone has any objection to bringing a 'historical inaccuracies' section back - i always thought it was rather interesting before it was deleted! OneCatch (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maika Monroe in It Follows.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Maika Monroe in It Follows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intercontinental Cup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Mediation on Liverpool-Manchester Honours Court
(This is being posted to the talk page of all three parties.) PeeJay2K3 has asked at the rejected mediation page whether or not it is too late for him/her to accept at this point. It is, but the case can be refiled. If you choose to do that, please file it as "Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry Honours Count sources 2" (notice the 2 at the end). However, let me note that this case appears to have had a fairly thorough mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard without any final consensus being reached and formal mediation through the Mediation Committee can only do the same kind of thing. Formal mediation is not a court or tribunal which will declare one side right and the other wrong. All it can do is to try to help to get the three of you to come to consensus. The primary difference between what you've done already at DRN and what would happen at MEDCOM is that you'll have a more experienced mediator — which is not at all intended to imply that the DRN volunteer was inept or did a poor job, it's just the nature of the difference between the two forums — and there will be no time limit on how long the mediation can take (and, indeed, formal mediations often continue for several months). But you each have to consider whether or not your position or that of the others is so entrenched that there is little or no chance of you changing your mind or compromising so that the three of you can come to consensus. If that is the case, then before refiling at MEDCOM you might want to consider, if you've not tried it already, a request for comments to draw in other editors to the discussion. If that doesn't achieve consensus, then you can still try formal mediation afterwards. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson) (Not watching) ]


 * PeeJay2K3 has withdrawn his request that the case be reopened or refiled. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda
Please stop making this edit while the content is discussed. There has been a talk page section open for two years on this topic and Dissident has been replying to you there. Per WP:BRD, please discuss before continuing to edit war. Please also be mindful of the three revert rule. -- ferret (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dissident did not direct me to his reply so I didn't realise a talk dialogue was started. Also, Dissident broke the three edit rule before me. Thank you for directing me to the talk page. Autonova (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You will stop reverting until this is settled? --Neil N  talk to me 12:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Autonova (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will decline the request for full protection an editor made at WP:RFPP. --Neil N  talk to me 12:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also reminded Dissident about 3R, just to make sure you know I didn't single you out. :) There's no deadline or rush remember, let people discuss for a bit. The article is certainly not in any sort of damaged state at this time. -- ferret (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you :) Autonova (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All Simpsons characters.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:All Simpsons characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of in-game appearances of G-man character (Half-Life) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of in-game appearances of G-man character (Half-Life). Since you had some involvement with the List of in-game appearances of G-man character (Half-Life) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

February 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theory; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2019 (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.

NPOV tag
There is no NPOV dispute, you just clearly don't understand the meaning of words. If you restore the tag, I will ask that an admin block you from editing for disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory RfC
Hi. I don’t think that the RfC you posted was worded as good as it could be. Would you mind reverting yourself and give me like a half hour to post some more detailed suggestions on your talk page? I just don’t think the way it’s worded will get a usable outcome, whereas there are better ways to word it that will get a usable outcome. Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;ich 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Open to suggestions. Autonova (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Great–thanks–good move. You've done a good job of going through the dispute resolution process with this by the way; and I hope you're understanding why various editors are suggesting RfC rather than dispute resolution–it's all about how many voices are in the conversation.

The major problem with the first draft RfC language was that "along the lines of" was just too vague to be actionable; it's open to interpretation. After the RfC closed, there would have been an argument about whether this language or that language is "along the lines of" the language in the RfC.

From what I've seen, the most successful RfCs are generally framed in a way such that after the RfC closed, someone could make a specific edit with the edit summary "per this RfC", and no one can argue that "this RfC" didn't provide consensus for that particular edit. Most often, this is done in some fashion of, "Should the current language, be changed to the proposed language?" And then it gives two quotes, the current, and the proposed (known as an "A/B RfC" because it gives voters the choice of language A or language B). If B gets support, then the language is changed to B. If not, then it's not changed. Simple, clear, enforceable result.

For an example of this in action, see Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, where there are like seven of these "A/B" (sometimes A/B/C/D, etc.) proposals, but you can see how the voting is clear, and it's clear where there is and isn't consensus. For an example of a "too general" question leading to a lot of discussion but no consensus, see Talk:Jesus.

The A/B format isn't the end of the story, because if the language choices are poor, the RfC still won't end well. For example: Talk:2018 United States elections, where the closing statement points out that neither the A nor the B really had full consensus.

For an example of an RfC that had to be run twice, because the first time it asked a sort-of general question, but the second time it asked two specific questions, see Template talk:Infobox election (technically this wasn't an RfC but pretty much the same thing).

So I think the best way to move forward is to come up with some good A/B language and propose it specifically. For this, you may want to have a discussion on the talk page, just about what the A/B language should be, before you post the actual RfC.

So, one question is what is the "current" version? The original "status quo" version was:

Old status quo (call it A for now):

But that has now been changed to:

Current version (B version):

I'm not sure which should be the "A" version, or if perhaps both should be presented, so that would be "A" and "B", and then you'd (I presume) want to propose a third "C" version. If no one likes A, then there's no sense in including it; but if the people who disagree with you prefer A over B (and only changed A to B to satisfy your concerns essentially), then there may be no reason to include B in the RfC. It may be worth asking the editors who disagree with you, on the article talk page, whether they think A, B, or both, should be included in an RfC. The simpler the better, so if you can get "your opposition", as it were, to agree to one version, that would help simplify the RfC.

I'm not sure about the language of the "C" version; that's really up to you. With regard to the old status quo A version, I can think of these two changes:

Levivich's suggestion C-1 (I actually made this edit here):

Levivich's suggestion C-2:

As you can see, both of my suggestions are tiny incremental changes, which in my opinion increases the chances of gaining consensus. If neither you nor the other editors like it, there is no reason to use my suggested language. But if you are OK with it, then it might be worthwhile to suggest it on the talk page, and see if that version gains consensus there, which will eliminate the need for an RfC altogether. I doubt that is the case, though, because I assume if editors liked my edit, they would have kept it :-) So I think you probably need a better C than either of mine.

Also, the C version, whatever it is, will probably need to be cited for the RfC, or editors will reject it for that reason alone. (Even though the lead doesn't usually need to be cited, it does in contentious situations, and this is one of them.)

Wow that was a lot to say! Anyway, you might want to post suggested language on the article talk page before doing the formal RfC, just to see if there is at least a consensus on what the A/B/C/whatever versions should be. (At that Macedonian RfC I linked to above, take a look at the talk page to see how much work went into figuring out what the proposals should be.) If you have two "camps" of editors (as seems to be the case here), the best outcome would be to have an A version that one camp is good with, a B version the other camp is good with, and then put that up for an RfC; that way, after the RfC is over, it will be clear which version has consensus, and there won't be any further need to discuss that particular passage.

All these examples and advice comes from recent RfCs I've been involved with; by no means am I an expert on the subject or anything, but I hope this helps! Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this incredibly helpful input, this is the first time I've been involved with an RfC. Much appreciated, I'll have a think about the language to use now. Autonova (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI this is an excellent example of RfC formatting just posted by another user in another conversation. Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. By the way I've found more sources in support of my proposed RfC wording - should I add them to the list of sources? Autonova (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, add more sources, although I gotta say the current 18-references is WP:OVERCITE. I actually don't think I've ever seen 18 in a row before. You might check out WP:CITEBUNDLE. The dictionary definitions could probably all be bundled into one cite, for example. I tend to go with bullet point bundles as in Biography (TV program). By the way, I think I am considering whether to draft my own language and throw it in for consideration; please post a "warning" before you "go live" with the RfC so I can either submit it or let you know that I won't be submitting it. Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. Will also check out citation bundling. I don't seem to have any chance of being able to make any decisions or be agreed with about anything, so I think it'll be up to you when we go live with it. Autonova (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, yeah I think you're right. What do you think if I posted the RfC instead of you? I think it'll reduce the "noise" once the RfC goes live. Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes please I'm totally fine with that. Thank you so much for your help. Autonova (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're handling this situation well. So I'm going to need like 24hrs to figure out my language, and then I'll post on the talk page proposing the current one, yours, Slaters, and mine, and we can see at that point if anyone has any additions or changes before going live. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Separate side issue
Aside from the issue of how best to form the RfC, I wanted to ask you this: what about the notion that once a conspiracy theory has credible evidence, nobody refers to it as a "conspiracy theory" anymore. E.g., it's a "conspiracy theory" until someone gets criminally charged, and then it becomes just a "conspiracy", meaning that the phrase "conspiracy theory" connotes a lack of evidence, and the phrase "conspiracy" connotes the existence of evidence. I'm not sure how I feel (or what RSes say) about that argument, but would be interested in your thoughts on the matter. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Initially my argument was based solely on the dictionary definition which makes no mention of evidence - however after delving a bit deeper I've found sources from political scientists and philosophers where it can be thought of in epistemic terms - when a conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy is like when an accusation become a conviction. One of these sources mentions explicitly that "we are intellectually entitled to believe a conspiracy theory depending on its evidence". Since you're asking me for my opinion I'd say if a conspiracy theory has been properly investigated and its evidence put before a court of law (where both processes are established as neutral and independent), we can then objectively decide if there is a conspiracy or not. The problem is, many conspiracy theories have not been put through this process, so no-one (me or you or anyone else on wikipedia) can make generalised value judgements on all conspiracy theories and their lack of evidence. It's a similar epistemic idea to "theory" in general - a theory isn't something with a lack of evidence, it's just something which may or may fit reality and be accepted as truth, depending on properly judged evidence. Autonova (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require a court of law. Consider the conspiracy theory that posits 9/11 was an inside job. That was investigated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and found to be baseless. The individual claims of Truthers will never be tested in court, not least because the level of evidence is sufficiently poor that it would not survive summary dismissal.
 * Another example is the idea that the government is conspiring with Big Pharma to cover up evidence that vaccines cause autism. That will also never be tried, because there is a robust scientific consensus from studies around the globe that vaccines are not associated with autism at all, let alone as a cause, so conspiracy simply doesn't arise as a legal question.
 * The essential difference is not that a court has ruled, but that good faith efforts to investigate the claims, have shown them to be false. Even when this is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is always the elephant in the room, and the discussions of truth and falsity in the sources make no sense other than in the context that conspiracy theories are generally understood to be false. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the process needs to be independent and neutral. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States had a number of very significant problems and so doesn't meet the quality of independent and neutral. And some lawyers do think the level of evidence is strong enough to be taken to court: . I don't think most conspiracy theories are true, but when there's enough money at stake, they could well be (beyond all reasonable doubt). For example global warming is real and manmade - however there was (and is) a coordinated dark money effort to muddy the waters, pretend it's a hoax, and prevent action being taken. That's a conspiracy theory. How else would you describe what's happening wrt climate change? Autonova (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Encouragement
Hi Autonova, just wanted to add a note of encouragement to you regarding the conspiracy theory RfC. I like how closely you've followed the sources (dictionaries and otherwise) throughout. Always a good approach when the topic is controversial. Tim Smith (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * nick bryant on the epstein-cover-up-scandal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTCf4TNOPQ --93.211.214.79 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E09-Battle-of-the-Bastards.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E09-Battle-of-the-Bastards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All Simpsons characters.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:All Simpsons characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:All Simpsons characters.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All Simpsons characters.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations
When I saw the above by an obvious conspiracy theorist who is obviously not posting for the first time. I though, "Benjamin Franklin? Aretha Franklin? Franklin, Quebec? USS Franklin (1795)? Franklin Roosevelt? Roosevelt Franklin? It turns out that the obvious sock puppet is talking about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Which was a hoax. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Autonova, thank you for speaking out about the extreme bias in this article. Like the OJ Simpson trial, this court case was and is a huge controversy, despite how the juries decided. This article should discuss both sides, there are educated opinions on the side of the victim testimonies that aren't conpiracies. Mudsprout (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Censorship?! Eek
Loved your comment on the Franklin child prostitution article, thank you for advocating for unbiased coverage.

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia...is there anything helpful I can do to add myself to the list of people asserting that the current editor is blocking relevant edits? Does that help at all? Wtf I never realized Wikipedia would allow such censorship! Mudsprout (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Goron.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Goron.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)