User talk:KlayCax/Archive 1

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Taliban into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Single edits over multiple paragraphs
Hi KlayCax. I see that you're new to Wikipedia. I'm noting that you're editing large swaths over multiple sections and paragraphs with just one edit. Would you mind putting that into multiple smaller, bite-sized edits in the future, please? It makes it easier to go over your changes. I'm not aware of a rule on this, heck I could be completely wrong, put if you could do that I'd appreciate it. Thanks :)Stix1776 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * KlayCax Can you please respond to this message, because I'm starting to get frustrated at reading and undoing your massive edits. Thanks Stix1776 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on the circumcision talk page. KlayCax (talk)

I second what Stix1776 said, reviewing 10 edits that all only change a couple words when it could be done in one single edit is difficult and somewhat annoying. ― Tuna NoSurprises Please  20:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the sources before editing
Hi KlayCax. I just spotted the edits that you made in Circumcision and law. I read through the sources and they don't say what you're asserting. Please read through the sources carefully and only modify articles with text that's represented by the source. As I mentioned in the Circumcision talk page, misrepresenting sourced text is likely going to earn you a block from Wikipedia.Stix1776 (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, there's vigorous discussion about your edits in the talk page. Can you please engage with the discussion before removing sourced content. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you, to cease editing Circumcision and open a discussion on the talk page and get consensus for your edits. If you continue, it's likely to result in a block from the article or possibly the site.  CUPIDICAE💕  14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you move sourced material to the lead, just to "trim" the lead?
I KlayCax. I noticed that you moved ethical considerations up to the lead in this diff, only to later remove the material as trimming the lead 10 days later. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but please try not to move material to the lead just to delete it later.Stix1776 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision and Tendentious editing
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. 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. It's generally considered bad form to revert back to defend your own edits. Please use the talk pages and explain why you removed sourced text from the body.Stix1776 (talk) 11:05, 19 April 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.
 * This reverts, were defending your deletions here , and here . May I remind you that you were reverting against multiple editors here promising to file a report at WP:HSOCK, which never happened.Stix1776 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * also please stop making major edits as a minor edit. Adding and subtracting huge portions of the text is definitely not minor.Stix1776 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

AE Report
I wanted to make you aware of a report I opened up at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, since the evidence I supplied was primarily attacks on you. You can find it at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If you decide to comment there, I encourage you to keep the focus on behavioral matters and to avoid commenting on content disputes as much as possible. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Friendly notice
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above didn't actually alert you of any topic area, but I'm guessing Mhawk10 meant one of these two:


 * (Or WP:GENSEX, but looks like you're already AWARE of that through WP:AE.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Hi KlayCax! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple edits were occurring at the same time. The reversion was unintentional. KlayCax (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

July 22
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey. I have no intention of starting an edit war. Your initial edit summary gave me the impression it was erroneously reverted under the assumption that the edits were unsourced. (And thus it not counting under the three reversion rule.) I'm starting a discussion about it on the talk page now. Best regards and I hope no hard feelings, KlayCax (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Cultural views on circumcision


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Cultural views on circumcision requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fram (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Per the tag, the article is being currently in the process of being created. It is being merged in with multiple articles. (I was about to create a notification about it on the Talk: Circumcision page. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC) KlayCax (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * An "under construction" tag is not a get-out-of-jail infallible protection. There is no reason to create an extremely premature, near-empty article and then move on to edit completely unrelated stuff. While an article shouldn't need to be perfect by far, it should be "something" information, not just a placeholder where you will return in your own time, perhaps, someday. Fram (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that it isn't. The basic outline of the article is going to be completed within one or two hours. While a complete merger of it and other article is aimed to be completed within a month: along with the contributions of other editors. KlayCax (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We have draft space for a reason. Fram (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If the article isn't in satisfactory condition within two hours, feel free to delete it. KlayCax (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Viktor Orbán
Why did you delete from the lead that he is trumpist? Ltbuni (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Because he has relationships with many figures — e.g. the present Polish government — it is disproportionate to just focus on him in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Caution
Please make sure sources explicitly say what is claimed in the passages they support. None of the ones on Kellogg's page said anything about "misconceptions" in the quotes cited.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What passages in question? (Snopes, 2020) extensively debunks the claims that he promoted corn flakes to prevent masturbation; Kellogg also explicitly rejected the growing movement of routine neonatal circumcision of the time. (The notion predominately got popularized by a comedy video in 2014.)


 * Are you referencing the fact that there's no specific mention in the sources that Sayre, Hutchinson, and Spock were more influential than Kellogg? I wouldn't have a problem with it being reworded towards something like . I'd be okay with something like that.


 * Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Rachel Amber
Hello, KlayCax, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Bruxton, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Rachel Amber, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Rachel Amber.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision & STDs
Hello. Since none of the other sources related to increased chance of STDs were objected to in your reversion, can I assume you don't have an issue with other sources that are not by those particular people? For example, this one? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is already conveyed with in the article.


 * The notion that circumcision increases (rather than just being unnecessary in developed nations) STD's is WP: Fringe. KlayCax (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Please review notability guidelines before proposing articles for deletion
Hello. You recently nominated an article for deletion despite the obvious notability of the subject. While anyone is free to nominate articles for deletion, proposing deletion when the notability is obvious can appear disruptive. In case you are not aware of notability guidelines for academics, please read WP:PROF before nominating other articles about academics. Best regards Jeppiz (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

American vs. European views on circumcision
Can you please quit removing the varying views from medical organizations on circumcision from the lead? You have been reverted for a similar edit in the past. I reverted you just now. Please note, that even if you do not violate the three revert rule specifically, you can be banned for edit warring. There is no consensus for your actions, so please stop. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I didn't realize that you were opposed to the alteration. (I thought it was Stix1776 who objected.)


 * I removed it for two reasons.


 * 1.) The meaning of the sentence is already covered by right before it. The meaning is already conveyed.


 * 2.) It implicitly gives a NPOV tilt to the article. Because it shows three communities (two of which are international; the World Health Organization and UN/AIDS) and contrasts it solely with European medical organizations. It's easy to see how it would imply that the majority side would be the ones favoring the practice, when it's actually divided. KlayCax (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll request a RfC on it. KlayCax (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Blonde (2022 film). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. ''You made this edit with five months left in 2022, yet you state that the film is the only film in 2022 with an NC-17 rating. You also misrepresent what is stated in the sources.'' Sundayclose (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources state that it is the only NC-17 film of the year. (See this for just one example.) KlayCax (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi KlayCax! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Republican Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ''Specifically, this edit: was not minor. Thanks''  – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was accidentally marked due to my keyboard glitching.
 * Thanks and apologies, . KlayCax (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC).
 * Thanks. My own message itself was a bit inaccurate. Sorry. – S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, ! KlayCax (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism and Confederate State of America
Please do not remove sourced information from Wikipedia article without first getting a WP:consensus to do so from discussion on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Religion based on music singles
When you copied a pie chart from Religion in the United Kingdom to United Kingdom,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1115470359&diffmode=source you left the reference as merely. This reference name had already been defined in United Kingdom, so we had the absurd situation that a chart about religion was citing a source for UK music singles. I've fixed it, but I'd encourage you to examine and replace named references when copy/pasting, and encourage anyone to use reference names that hint at the references. NebY (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutilation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Police surgeon. 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) 06:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit war warning for Foreskin article
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. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 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.


 * A singular reversion is not an edit war. KlayCax (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Respect for Marriage Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Identity Evropa
Hi, would you please put back the SPLC etc in the lead? I don’t have strong feelings where you put it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no problem. Have to be somewhere for a few hours. But I'll add it back once I'm back, . KlayCax (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No rush, thanks for your other edits there and your offer to restore it. Doug Weller  talk 16:16, 20 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing and removal of sourced content
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2022 FIFA World Cup, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I responded on the World Cup talk page. I agree that they are. But it goes against Wikinorms; we don't even call North Korea a human rights violator in Wikivoice.
 * (Despite the obvious fact that they are.) KlayCax (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donald Trump — Kanye West — Nick Fuentes meeting


The article Donald Trump — Kanye West — Nick Fuentes meeting has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Well-meaning, but this one dinner fails WP:NEVENT and is best contained at the relevant articles rather than getting its own."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens
Where was Christopher Hitchens "opposed to birth control"? There's nothing about it in your diff. Why are you selectively removing positions he was in favor of and claiming that he held positions he most certainly did not? -- Veggies (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI / Legacy
Hello, I'm The Parson's Cat. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Pope Benedict XVI seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do read the Wikipedia guidance about neutrality carefully, and Happy New Year! The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Republican Pride Coalition for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Pride Coalition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Andre🚐 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Transclusion on wrong page?
Hi, this looked like a case of "adding stuff to the wrong tab", so I took the liberty of undoing it. I think Cyberbot I added the missing transclusions, but it might be worth double checking. Let me know if I missed something and the transclusion was intended. Cheers, Ljleppan (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It wasn't intended. I messed up the formatting on the AFD log page. Thank you, ! KlayCax (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision edit war January 2023
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * One reversion isn't an edit war. I'll go to talk then — and a RFC if need be — but all of this has been extensively revisited over and over. KlayCax (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is edit warring ”whether involving the same or different material”. You are one edit away from a 3RR violation, FYI. Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

LGBT wing moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, LGBT wing, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 00:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk)  20:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notice
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk)  20:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV on Democratic Party (United States)
The median political position of the Democratic Party (United States) is moderate center-right by any standards but those of the United States, and centrist by those of the United States. Wikipedia is a global project, and we have reached a long-standing consensus not to describe "the" position of the Democrats because we cannot achieve a consensus on how to describe it. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Responded on Democratic Party (United States) talk. :) . KlayCax (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hey, I notice you've been edit warring at the United States article:. I find this disruptive, and I'd recommend you take a look at the BRD cycle. &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It was a singular reversion because I thought there was a misunderstanding.
 * I responded on the article's talk page. . KlayCax (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

== I've reported you to WP:ANI, see "KlayCax (talk · contribs) doing mass editing of political parties claiming "Per longstanding consensus: no American political party should have their position on the ideological spectrum listed"" ==

Doug Weller talk 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to stop and respond at ANI
Carrying on isn’t a good look. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just logged on.
 * Didn't see the ANI notice until now — or post afterwards; you first messaged at 12:24, all of the charges were before 12:20 — responding on there. KlayCax (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad. Doug Weller  talk 13:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you really do need to stop what you're doing and respond at ANI. I do not think that you had consensus to make all the previous changes; I do not think you have consensus to make all these new ones you're making. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With the exception of National Union Party (United States) - which was unsourced - I'm reverting all of the minor parties with sourced information back to the previous edits. . The partial reversion was unintentional. I'm responding on ANI now.KlayCax (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what I see at the first one I checked - Working Families Party. Here are your changes. You've taken a sourced political position, and removed it telling people to seek consensus on talk. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can blanket revert all non-talk page/ANI edits past this edit. (11:58 GMT, 17 February 2023‎). The fact that it was a partial reversion was an accident. (I was trying to quickly delete 50+ changes at once.) I'll elaborate more on ANI. KlayCax (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds complicated and time-consuming. Why wouldn't I just revert all the changes you've made to those articles in the last couple of days, since it seems clear you do not have the consensus you claimed to have? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm requesting. All of my article edits past 11:58 GMT, 17 February 2023‎ (from here to ending now) being reverted.
 * The ones removing "ideologies" from the Republican level pages were in line with the consensus. KlayCax (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And the consensus was meaning a lack of consensus.

Minor edits
Please check that you understand what minor edits are. It catches a lot of people out because "minor" doesn't just mean "small" as some people might assume. For example, this is not a minor edit. DanielRigal (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * . I assumed that this would be a case of WP: MINOREDIT: since all of those relate to how she sees issues of human sexuality. Generally, I prefer consolidation of subsections (e.g. issues being combined together) rather than them being spread out. I don't have a strong preference one way or another, though. So I'm fine with it being reverted. KlayCax (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process
Hey, I notice that you have been repeatedly making the same comment at. You have also to United States that had been previously reverted and challenged, and was currently under discussion, which I would recommend against. Could you please stop this disruptive behavior? &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

State Articles
I noticed you have made unexplained lead changes to Montana and Mississippi. These type of changes need to be explained and changes to the lead must follow MOS:LEAD. This isn't even a comment about the content you're adding (which may or may not be valuable). Please insure the information you are adding to the lead is included in the body of the article. This is need to justify WP:DUE inclusion in the lead. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean "ancestry"?
Re United States: "Irreconcilable sectional conflict regarding the enslavement of those of black African descendent." There are descendants of black African slaves, yes, but no one is "of black African descendent." 173.77.71.234 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edits to Australia
Hello there

I reverted your change to the lead regarding Australia as a member of the "Anglosphere". Although this is a concept used by some writers I have never seen any evidence that it has caught on in Australia. To my knowledge, no Australian politician has ever referred to the Anglosphere or our alleged part of this thing. Perhaps its more an English-American notion? Australia has considered itself part of Asia for some time. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, . The "Anglosphere" is a widely used cultural/political term in political science, foreign relations, and anthropology. On a personal/popular culture level: I know it's widely used in the United Kingdom/United States - both in which I lived in. From what I can tell: it's commonly used in Australia as well. KlayCax (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello thanks for the link. I have lived in Australia for over 40 years. I have taught history at university and have followed foreign affairs fairly closely and I can assure you that the concept of "Anglosphere" has hardly ever entered into the mainstream Australian political debate or popular consciousness. I am aware it is a fashionable term in some academic circles (the French are very big on the idea that there is an "Anglophone" conspiracy), but it's a very odd feeling to wake up one morning to be told by a foreign academic that you are part of an Anglosphere. I can only wonder how French Canadians feel about it. Since the Labor government's pivot to Asia in the 1980s, Australia has generally considered itself a multicultural country which is part of Asia. Of course Australia has a shared British heritage and there is a hard core of Anglophiles but they are pretty much in the minority nowadays. The Lowy Institute survey is interesting because the analysis on the left seems to contradict the survey percentages. Or perhaps the text is referring to a later survey. I would be very interested in the background of the "Anglosphere" survey because my guess is that if 1,000 Australians were asked about the Anglosphere today, 99% would say that they don't know what an Anglosphere is. The Aukus pact is interesting because it involves Australia's first major defence initiative with the UK since the 1950s, but this less about shared culture than a confluence of strategic interests relating to perceived Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea. As for this article, I'm not against some cautious Anglosphere reference, (for example, "while some writers consider Australia a core member of an 'Anglosphere', since the 1980s Australia has become one of the world most multicultural societies with extensive cultural and defence ties with the US, Japan, India and other Asian nations." ). Australia tried to cuddle up to China in the early 21st century but that's gone sour and now Japan and India look like our new best friends in the region after the USA. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"The CDC recommended universal circumcision"
Why are you repeatedly inserting this baseless claim? This has never been the CDC position. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded on circumcision talk page. KlayCax (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear that your urology resources and professors have misrepresented the WHO/CDC position, intentionally or otherwise. You would do well to correct them that neither organisation has ever recommended "universal circumcision". I've searched both organisations' websites and found nothing close to what would amount to a routine recommendation, which would undoubtedly have created a media stir and contributed to widespread protest. There is no way that two organisations of their stature could make such a recommendation under the radar. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Circumcision
Please self-revert. Reverting someone else who was blocked for edit warring is not a 3RR exemption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that. My apologies.
 * I'll revert. . What version to? KlayCax (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just self revert your last revert, back to . ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, just did. . KlayCax (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding new content. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "African-American culture".The discussion is about the topic United States. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Shoreranger (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Major changes to US-topic articles
US state is similar articles are among the most multidisciplinary articles Wikipedia has. Typically, this means that coverage of topics within the ledes—and, to a lesser extent, the bodies—of these articles were negotiated and refined over many years of discussion, trying to hone in on what is truly the most crucial information for a brief encyclopedic summary. The unilateral addition of abortion policies in states to their ledes, as well as the other massive content additions/subtractions to these and other articles, can (and have been) interpreted as disruptive. This isn't a warning, as it's clear you stayed well within the parameters of simply acting BOLDy, but understand that the reversion of your charges are likely to continue sans consensuses to sustain them. Pbritti (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

United States
Hi, I've started a new section on the talk page and would greatly appreciate your input. Pizzigs (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll respond within 2-3 hrs. (I'm busy and have to do something.)
 * Could you remove your additions to the lead (not body) for the time being? . Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not having replied earlier. Now all that content is moved to sections, but I hope something can be worked out to mention America's global influence in culture and technology. Pizzigs (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other countries' lead sections are a mess by the way, just check Italy, especially the last paragraph. Pizzigs (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

talk
speek 5.52.6.146 (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your behavior at the United States article disrupts Wikipedia's collaborative process. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your chronic disruption needs to stop. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope that uninvolved editors there can help clarify Wikipedia's edit warring policies for you. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Copy pasting and images
Anyway you could read over WP:CANYOUREADTHIS and WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE. Moxy - 05:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

United States article
Unfortunately, the article is becoming a battleground with multiple editors consciously introducing their POV on a daily basis. Can something be done about that? I'm honestly tired of engaging in fruitless conversations with them because they simply ignore most of the points made by me and other editors. Pizzigs (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Yes. The present article on the U.S. is very bad. Compare the Japan treatment of the country's respective atrocities during WWII to the U.S.
 * Japan's simply states:
 * The United States article has been recently changed to have all of the worst aspects of U.S. history highlighted.
 * It's not a perfect estimate. But from my calculations:
 * United States's has around 400-500 "positive words" (vs. ~2,000 negative)
 * Japan's is 771 words positive. (vs. 360 words negative)
 * Canada's is 800 words positive. (vs. 278 words negative.) KlayCax (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a social democrat (in many ways more left-wing on economics than most Democrats) and was shocked at the bias.
 * I can't imagine American actions justify 7x more coverage in the U.S. article than in Japan's (or more closely) Canada's.
 * I'll write more after I get off of residency. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll write more after I get off of residency. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also:


 * Compare the U.S.'s coverage during WWII to Japan's.
 * How the American, Australian, and Canadian treatment of indigenous people is covered. (Considered by most historians to be roughly equitable. Canada's and Australia's minimizes it as a natural part of their respective histories. The United States article goes on a multiparagraph, detailed response to it that outpaces the entire American Revolution and Founding. (2x-3x when you count slavery)
 * First Nation (Canada) inequalities are minimized in the article. Despite First Nations peoples farring either similar or worse than America on the metrics cited. See this chart.)

There's other problems as well. But these are the ones that immediately jumped out to me. The U.S. article has changed in a radically negative direction since 2016. KlayCax (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Another example is the coverage of slavery in the United Kingdom article (just a single paragraph in the history section):

It is almost laudatory, with a huge emphasis on the government's role in ending slavery. Pizzigs (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And this sentence is straightforward slavery apologia For the record, I'm not anti-British, but the systemic bias in this encyclopedia is highly unfortunate. Pizzigs (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a full-on edit war over there. I posted some of your observations on the talk page, hope that's okay. Additionally, I provided support for a complete rewrite of the article. I'm not an American (and not an English speaker), but from what I understand the majority of negative edits are introduced by US-based users. It's an interesting phenomenon but not an unexpected one (at least to me), given that most Americans are so unaware of what's going on outside of their country that they're easily swayed into believing one of the extreme viewpoints (either America is the best country in the world or it is the absolutely worst one). And the truth is neither, which is why both positive and negative aspects of the country should be highlighted in an impartial way in the United States article instead of turning it into slavery –> genocide of the native population –> racism/Jim Crow –> 20th century "imperialism" –> 21th century wars and wealth/racial inequality. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. Pizzigs (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Tyson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Tyson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

United States article
Hi, I've been busy the last few days. As I see, the chance of having a rewrite option accepted by the majority of editors is quite slim. I replied to some of them, but that is unlikely to change their mind. As an option, I propose going section by section and introducing some of the content from the draft, especially to the history section, given that you have it almost completed in the draft. Pizzigs (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was my plan.
 * I think a lot of puff for the U.S. side could go as well. I'm planning on starting at 1820-1861 and then working from there. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * About that. Hi, I was recently pinged to an Edit Warring Notice board  post about you. You seem to be doing a lot quickly, which is upsetting some editors. You might want to be careful to discuss changes on the talk page  and gain consensus if you are reverted. You might want to plan ahead, and propose changes on the talk page and discuss before implementing them. Best --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping  --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I, as usual, agree with another veggie-admin. You've been warned recently over edit warring, and absent a BLP violation there's really no reason for it. Please, in the future, try to restrict your reverts and immediately begin discussion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Amber for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Amber, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Rachel Amber (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality in the United States.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:LGBT wing
Hello, KlayCax. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:LGBT wing, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abortion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conception.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Rachel Amber GAN
A suggestion I wanted to make in passing because I saw it came up for GAN, but you might combine or expand the single paragraph sections, at the very least the ones that are just one sentence. It's very likely to sink the GAN overall otherwise.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)