User talk:LokiTheLiar

April 2019
Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: why? I deleted a bunch of references, yes, but those were broken references that the previous editor (who, I want to say, was me before I had created an account) had failed to delete properly. When I viewed the page again I saw a bunch of red "cite errors" so I deleted the errored out references. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feminist views on transgender topics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:13, 27 April 2019 (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 a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update to hidden comment
Thanks for this. I've been away from the article, has their been continual problems with this? If so, we could add an edit notice, see for example, Allahabad. To see the notice, click the Edit button to edit the article, and you'll see it. But that's usually not appropriate unless there's been a lot of problems, and discussion about it on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the history. Editing that line is basically the only thing that happens on that page. Loki (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop following me
You showing up here after I edited here is an obvious case of being followed around. This is WP:HOUNDING. Stop following me. Crossroads -talk- 01:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. I'm following the list of RfCs, especially the society and culture ones. That you happen to edit in this topic area a lot is a coincidence; if you look at my edit history you'll see that I also comment on plenty of RfCs you're not involved with. Loki (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, hold up. Previous response was quick and on a phone, but now I can see what you actually linked, and I'm confused. You specifically invited people to edit that page on the main Talk:Trans_woman page! And you have to have known I've been watching that page, since you've interacted with me on that page multiple times going back a whole month. Loki (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you were already at Trans woman; that's not the reason for complaint. The problem is following me when you see me there to a different topic you never had any interest in before. Crossroads -talk- 03:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I was at ACAB is that I watchlisted the list of society and culture RfCs, so I saw it as it was posted. Again, take a look at my edit history; there's plenty of RfCs I've commented in where you weren't present. Loki (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Girth Summit  (blether) 22:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Girth Summit, I was aware that there was discussion ongoing about that line on Feminist views on transgender topics, that's why I reverted the edit. In the absence of consensus, status quo rules, and the status quo was with that line. The article before the discussion started had that line, and the previous editor had removed it while the discussion was ongoing, so I put it back. Loki (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks for letting me know that you realised discussion was ongoing - when I looked at the talk, there was nothing from you, so I assumed you were unaware. Reverting without an edit summary isn't really ideal, it makes collaboration harder. The material is contested on what seem, on the face of it, to be reasonable grounds - I'd suggest discussion before reinstatement would be a good thing, it won't harm our readers much if this assertion is missing from the article for long enough to allow discussion to take place. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd typed an edit summary and I don't know what happened to it. (I'm on a VPN that I have to disable to edit so maybe it got lost in that process.) It was supposed to be something along the lines of "Not a feminist? Margaret Atwood? Really?". I also disagree with that reasoning for leaving it removed: I think that allowing someone to change the status quo without consensus, but not allowing others to change it back until consensus is achieved just creates an easy way to game the system. Loki (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see my latest comment on the article talk page, where I'm afraid I botched my ping to you - apologies for that, I'm on mobile... In short, I misread the article history, and accept that my revert was not the best option. Thanks for your explanation about the edit summary - glitches like that happen to us all from time to time. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At least you can edit via mobile. I can't figure it out. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do it in 'Desktop' mode, which is the only way I can get my head around. It does result in fat finger problems occasionally though... Girth Summit  (blether)  11:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi, I noticed you replied in someone else's section. We don't do that. We reply to them in our own section. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 01:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed it worked like talk pages. Loki (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yearly awareness
Your awareness is expiring in a week, so I'm just do a reminder for you. { – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

sorry about the revert
i misinterpreted the talk page discussion. sorry about my stupidity JackyTheChemosh (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Happens to the best of us. Don't worry about it! Loki (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Strike-through
Just FYI, the code is , not  (which hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

SEP
hello, I'm here to ask about something that confused me in the Articles for deletion/Female_(gender). you seemed to indicate that the SEP distinguishes between "female gender" and "woman". I only see that in the lead, it only distinguishes between female sex and woman, which is what it calls gender. In so doing, they distinguished sex (being female or male) from gender (being a woman or a man), although most ordinary language users appear to treat the two interchangeably. 

it does talk about a "women's gender", which Wikipedia calls "female gender, the gender of women", but I'm not sure that's what SEP meant—being a woman is the gender, just like being a female is the sex.

further, discussion of Butler's work also doesn't seem to produce this distinction, for the same reasons—her arguments merely seek to deny any essential core of "woman" and do not posit any "female gender".

Butler’s view is that ‘woman’ can never be defined in a way that does not prescribe some “unspoken normative requirements” (like having a feminine personality) that women should conform to (Butler 1999, 9). Butler takes this to be a feature of terms like ‘woman’ that purport to pick out (what she calls) ‘identity categories’. She seems to assume that ‘woman’ can never be used in a non-ideological way (Moi 1999, 43) and that it will always encode conditions that are not satisfied by everyone we think of as women. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Accountability software
FYI, I opened an ANI discussion at WP:ANI about the attempted RFC closure. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

In reply to your question
Why are you asking how I found the TJ article? Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I recognize you from several other pages, and for those pages (stuff like RFCs or politically controversial articles) I get why you'd be on their talk pages. But for Thomas Jefferson and slavery, you hadn't edited it or its talk page at least any time in the past several years (if ever), and it doesn't have an RFC going on or anything like that which would attract people naturally. Nor does it seem to be in your usual topics of interest. So the only ways I can think of for you to get there are either you're following my contribs list (and if so, please stop), or if you were summoned there by some other editor. Loki (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you might feel that way but no, I didn't find the page through you nor was I asked by another editor. Springee (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then how did you find it? Loki (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if it wasn't by following your edits nor by being asked by another editor (nor do I have any association with the IP)? Springee (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious, and I think it's odd that you haven't given me an alternative explanation if you really aren't following me. It should be an easy allegation to refute, no? Loki (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your questions are accusatory and don't AGF. Is it surprising that the result is the editor on the receiving end is less than willing to help out?  Let me spin this around, why would you think I was following you?  What evidence would you accept? Springee (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, since you were following my edits, it only stands to reason that you might follow another editor as well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did follow you to the talk pages of editors who received DS warnings from you for what appears to be little more than disagreeing with your POV. It may not be your intent but you do it frequently and it certainly can come across as trying to intimidate other editors.  Can you show an example where you placed one of those notices on the page of someone who agreed with you? Springee (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a tool designed to find such cases, but here's one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Accidental deletion
Thanks for restoring the deletion I made on the reliable sources noticeboard. I apologize. It was accidental. I don't recall making the deletion or even recall looking at the reliable sources page today. So, a brain fart, I guess.Smallchief (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem! Loki (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Lint errors
Hello! I wanted to let you know that 1+1=1 has been deprecated in HTML5, and thus creates lint errors. This means that browsers might decide to stop supporting at any time, when it will literally be rendered like this. Luckily, there is an easy fix: either this or this work just fine! It is beyond me why the WMF cannot do some tech magic to continue supporting. Unfortunately, I would bet against a fix... HouseBlastertalk 19:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, woops! Sorry! Loki (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy editing! HouseBlastertalk 20:04, 12 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert at ANI
You broke some stuff, looked like some kind of edit conflict/overwrite, as I'm guessing you didn't mean to actually add 191k worth of page addition. You might sift through that in the history and add it back without the edit conflict. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh damn, woops. Loki (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Weirdly, it appears after the revert the comments I intended to move are now in the correct section. So I guess it probably was some sort of edit conflict thing. Loki (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, with that much data, it was just too hard to make sense of it to fix it myself. I've seen that plenty of times, but not 191k worth.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent;

Eyeferth Study Closure
Quick question: I was under the impression that the RFC should be closed by an uninvolved editor. Am I incorrect in this assumption? 2600:1012:B043:216D:E142:1465:184D:3D75 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You're correct. And I believe myself to be WP:UNINVOLVED. I didn't vote in the RFC and as far as I can tell I've never once edited the article or commented on the talk page (which is a lot stronger than the WP:INVOLVED policy requires). Loki (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You did however vote in the hereditarianism RFC, which in my opinion makes you involved regarding this particular topic, especially since you are quoting that same RFC in your closure decision. 2600:1012:B043:216D:E142:1465:184D:3D75 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The hereditarianism RfC had really wide participation, and per the links Loki's provided here there is no policy-based reason to suggest they should be considered involved in the Eyferth study dispute. The FRINGE status of racial hereditarianism was never seriously in doubt. No matter who ended up closing the Eyferth RfC, those arguments were never going to hold water. Generalrelative (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't even remember that I had. But I don't think it makes me WP:INVOLVED to have voted in a previous RfC that
 * a) wasn't directly about the relevant topic. The RfC was about content in a particular article about a particular study, and not whether hereditarianism was fringe or not.
 * b) wasn't the only or even the most important reason I closed as I did. (The main thing that did it was discounting for WP:MEATPUPPETry, after which your side was outnumbered by at least 2-to-1.)
 * c) wasn't remotely controversial, to the point it was closed in under half the time of a normal RfC under WP:SNOW. Any closer would have found the same result about whether hereditarianism was fringe that I did.
 * If you still want to challenge the close, go here: WP:AN. Loki (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the policy you quoted, you are involved. As you quoted the hereditarianism RFC as part of your reason for closing.  Not only were you involved according to the links you provided, but some of the "meat puppet" accounts you discounted weren't even SPAs or "meat-puppets".  I can certainly escalate the issue, or you can revert your close, as I believe it is not a good look in this particular instance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B043:216D:E142:1465:184D:3D75 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and go to WP:AN. Loki (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Eyferth Study
There is currently a discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic The EyeFerth Study. Thank you. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Honest Question Here
I see part of the reason for your decision in the Eyferth Study RFC was that "Racial Hederitarianism" is "fringe". Considering that voting is not a substitute for an argument, what kind of evidence, independent of a vote among Wikipedia editors, would convince you that Hederitarianism is not fringe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C180:1980:998A:2971:EF34:F150 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way
I've been seeing your name quite a bit recently, and it reminded me of those long-ass WP:RSN threads about the reliability of British outlets on trans topics. I just wanted to say: I was given a subscription to The Telegraph, and I've been regretting my vote ever since; its transphobia is as blatant as it gets. As I recall, I didn't find the evidence convincing, but I wish I'd just read the Telegraph for myself. I feel pretty darn stupid now. So, all I wanted to say is, I'm deeply sorry, and you can count on my vote the next time such a discussion is held. DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Uh, thanks a ton! That really means a lot.
 * In your defense, that RFC was made on the spur of the moment because the OP was losing a content dispute on another page. It was therefore framed in such a way to lean heavily on the Telegraph's (etc etc) general reliability for other topics. Other editors in the same topic area could've highlighted the difference between the Telegraph's (etc etc) reporting for other topics and for trans topics a lot better had we not had that RFC sprung on us out of nowhere. Loki (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; the RfC should have been closed as malformed (for lacking an WP:RFCBEFORE), not allowed to go on the way it did. DFlhb (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @DFlhb: Hi, there's an update! I've finally opened a thread at RSN about the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will take a look when I have time, thanks DFlhb (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: MOS:BIO
Thanks for your kind words, but I don't think I should stick around that discussion. Nor do I want to be seen as canvassed, because it looks like our views on the matter are quite similar. In my view, two people arguing the same points isn't necessary. casualdejekyll 19:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's ultimately your decision, but there's quite a few people arguing the same things in that thread. Loki (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Source use
You seem to be repeatedly using sources (if you even bother to read them, as your huge 'MEDRS quality' revert suggests you don't) in a way which leaves out stuff you don't like. Like just now, erasing when a source says something is 'pseudoscience' but leaving the rest in. This is called cherry-picking; this is called POV-pushing. I think the Project, and probably you, are not benefitting from this. Bon courage (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand we disagree on the content dispute at EMDR. I frankly do not really want to talk with you about it unless we both promise explicitly to assume good faith, or we at least  do it in the presence of a neutral party. Otherwise, we're just gonna continue to accuse each other of POV-pushing and misreading the sources.
 * Such as, for example: yes, that source sure does say EMDR is pseudoscientific, but it's also basically alone among recent sources in saying that. Instead you have a bunch of high quality WP:MEDORG sources saying that EMDR is "evidence-based" or giving it high grades for evidence. Even the other critical source you added says EMDR is evidence-based. You need to follow all the sources, not just one single source that says the thing you like.
 * (Does this sound exactly like an argument we've had over and over at the talk page? Sure does to me, so let's not do it again over here.) Loki (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It not really "an argument". Multiple editors are informing you of policy and you're just refusing to accept it. I don't doubt your "good faith", but your understanding. Anyway, as others have also said the point here is that your continuing to hammer away at this is not gainful for anybody. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I don't want to push it too hard because I recognize the local consensus is often against me, but I genuinely do believe that it's you who's operating against policy. And while I am relatively new to the topic area, I've been editing Wikipedia in general for quite a while, so I have some good reasons for believing my position is correct here.
 * I am fine with trying to hammer out our disagreement somewhere neutral, if you like. But just scolding me over and over again? You know that's never going to work, right? I believe my edits are more consistent with policy and with the sources than yours, that's why I'm editing the page, and you simply stating otherwise is not at all a convincing argument.
 * And it's not like I can't be convinced, right? Shibbolethink convinced me of something you'd been trying to argue just today. But I'm not going to be convinced by you just threatening me or casting wild WP:ASPERSIONS. Loki (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need to listen to me, just listen to everybody else. Or heed the cautions others gave you at ANI. Or look with clarity at the terrible edits you've done (like the 'MEDRS quality sources' one). If you can't see from all of that there's a problem, then there's nothing I can add. I am not 'casting aspersions', I am making a directed criticism of you as an editor. If you continue in this vein, I think it likely you will end up sanctioned, as others have said too. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The MEDRS quality sources edit was indeed a mistake. I'm genuinely sorry about that, but I don't think that one bad edit means my whole position in the content dispute was wrong.
 * But that being said, if you continue to make wild accusations of wrongdoing over a bog-standard content dispute, I'll delete this thread and instruct you to stay off my talk page. Loki (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't delete other editor's comments
Don't delete other editor's comments. ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's an edit conflict thing. Loki (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies
Loki, my apologies because I think my response at AN/I was snippier than I intended. It certainly is my belief that less things should be escalated to that board, but as ever, reasonable minds can differ on the proposition. I genuinely value your contributions, and felt I should make that clear. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem! Loki (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Not to be dramatic but I was really starting to feel a little crazy and bullied in there, which is so silly for a discussion that is supposed to be based on facts. Anyway, I appreciate your point of view a lot and you working to keep things fair so everyone can contribute, including a newbie like me. Thank you again and have a wonderful day!! Aquamarine9719 (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gender-critical feminism has been accepted
 Gender-critical feminism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Gender-critical_feminism help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That's great! Thank you! Loki (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titles
Hey! I realize it might be an issue of clarity on my part, so I'm wondering if you could elaborate what led to your first/second sentence here regarding MOS titles. That is, what did you think I was saying such that you thought "Mitterrand was the French president" was a counterexample?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's another example parallel to the Nixon and DeSantis ones, but not in the chart, so your whole paragraph speculating about the chart can't be right. Loki (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ... but it's not parallel to the Nixon or DeSantis ones?
 * The first bullet in MOS:JOBTITLES covers the Nixon and DeSantis examples. It would not cover that example.
 * The Mitterand example is actually more equivalent to "Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.", which I included.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm really baffled here. The distinction I'm highlighting is the presence of the verb linking the subject to the title.
 * Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
 * US President Richard Nixon
 * Mitterand was the French president
 * May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
 * In all of the examples exampled the "US president Richard Nixon" example, there is either: (1) a verb linking the subject to the title or (2) a title that independently serves as the subject (such that the name of the titleholder is, effectively, a parenthetical—and accordingly offset by commas).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think your distinction is a difference. The way I read this we have:
 * French president
 * US president
 * Florida governor
 * And then separately "prime minister of the United Kingdom".
 * I don't think the position in the sentence matters, is the thing. "French president Mitterand" is the same as "Mitterand was the French president". Now, if it was "President Mitterand of France", then you capitalize it. Loki (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or let me be even more explicit: I think you think that putting words in front of a name automatically makes the first bullet apply. But it doesn't. "Florida governor Ron DeSantis" is not part of DeSantis's name the same way "Governor Ron DeSantis" is.
 * See my doctor example on the page for why I think this, and we really should move this discussion to the page. Loki (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, I wonder how I could have made my first post clearer. I tried to note it:
 * Every item in the left column—showing capitalization—is not a title immediately followed by a name—it's a title that's the object of a verb
 * On the right column, we get a little more variation: titles that are the objects of verbs ... AND titles that exist independent of the name they precede—not functioning as adjectives but as subjects ....
 * But oh well!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

British media
Hey. Inspired somewhat by, plus what I've seen over the last few years. Do you think we're at the point now where a stand alone article on transphobia in the British media would pass GNG, instead of being interspersed throughout Transgender rights in the United Kingdom? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably, yes. Loki (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll do a deep dive on sourcing next time I get a few hours to spare, as I'm not fully up to date (last time I read sources on this was mid-2022). Want me to ping you once I have a skeleton outline and array of sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep! Loki (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. 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. Beccaynr (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (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.


 * The rule as imposed by the contentious topic restriction is:
 * But that change does have affirmative consensus on the talk page. It has a clear affirmative consensus. You are the only one challenging it, and consensus is not unanimity. Loki (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Loki, you are involved in the discussion, which has recently opened, and per dispute resolution policy, has recently had notifications posted seeking additional editor input. Multiple policy objections have been raised, including based on BLP, OR, NPOV, NOT, and V policy. In the discussion, you have appeared to recognize the content as a form of synthesis, others in the discussion seem to recognize aspects of the source as a non-RS, and one participant seems to have noted insufficiency according to OR policy; overall, this appears to be an ongoing discussion, not a situation in which an involved participant can declare "clear consensus" to support again adding the disputed partial quote from Keen-Minshull's tweet. I assume you are aware of the contentious topic areas and the need for careful and constructive editing; to that end, I am asking you to revert your second attempt to add this disputed content so discussion can continue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple objections have been raised by you alone. There is no obligation to WP:SATISFY any individual editor, and everyone else in that discussion has said explicitly that they want the material to be included. Also, WP:INVOLVED is for admin actions and closing RFCs, it doesn't apply to every single content dispute.
 * And the discussion can obviously continue without me reverting, and has. Loki (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr - We do have an awfully convenient  I could drop on your user talk page over this, but in the interest of not templating the regulars, I'll just let you know that dropping this template itself looks extremely WP:INVOLVED of you, and I really would suggest that you not threaten editors who fully understand what an edit war is with a block. There is nothing disruptive about how Loki is behaving in my view, and I think you should avoid templating him and let somebody else do it if there truly is a problem with his behavior.  casualdejekyll  19:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I was surprised to see the disputed content restored so quickly, but I will recalibrate my approach in the future, because it ultimately does not seem helpful for deescalating the dispute, which is my goal. Loki, I am sorry for using the not-for-newbies template and for using a template instead of just asking you to revert so the recently-opened discussion could continue. Ultimately, I think I have done what I can with the Keen-Minshull article and there is plenty else in the encyclopedia to work on. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Beccaynr, thanks for your calm response. I too would like to apologize as I feel my message was somewhat aggressive and it's easy to get mad about contentious topics. Just as long as all three of us are more careful in the future I'm sure it'll be fine. casualdejekyll  20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Beccaynr, thanks for your calm response. I too would like to apologize as I feel my message was somewhat aggressive and it's easy to get mad about contentious topics. Just as long as all three of us are more careful in the future I'm sure it'll be fine. casualdejekyll  20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mangled comment
Sorry about that, your comment got mangled when I was trying to fix this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries! Loki (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RSN Legal Eagle
I have closed the discussion of Legal Eagle at RSN because the discussion is no longer about whether it is a RS or not. If you disagree with the closure, you can take an appeal. If you want to change the criteria for SME, take it up at the appropriate talkpage. Banks Irk (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Protocol I
I'm having difficulty assigning any good-faith motivation for removing sourced information which is vital for the article, informing why the US has never ratified the Protocol, and in the opinion of some, Israel can't ratify the protocol. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is it vital to the article to include a bunch of clearly WP:UNDUE speculation? Why is it vital to the article to include clear and unsourced WP:SYNTH by linking to this other unrelated UN resolution? Loki (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a 100% legitimate topic of article coverage to explain why the United States of America has never ratified the Protocol, so I really don't know what UNDUE has to do with anything. And people in International organizations in 1977 were all exceedingly well aware of UNGA 3379 of 1975, a very live and acrimonious topic, which had invaded a number of seemingly unrelated venues, such as the International Women's Year.  The people who added the pro-terrorism clause to Article I of the Protocol knew exactly what they were doing, so I don't know why Wikipedia readers can't benefit from the same knowledge. AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it to the article talk page please. Loki (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Sex
Hi. I have seen discussion here. I have education in molecular genetics and I would like to participate to help promote more nuanced definition than gamete definition. I have some good ideas. Problem is that I don't have an account which would be able to edit or post.

Can you help me? Thanks. Moni-0x1984 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ...can't you edit with the same account you're commenting with? Loki (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it occurs to me to ask: you seem like you're new to Wikipedia. How did you find the discussion you're asking about? Has it been linked from some sort of outside website or something? Loki (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I found it linked to Twitter by some person vehemently promoting gamete definition. Which I don't agree with because when used as a classification system it isn't able to classify organisms (humans) who don't produce gametes for whatever reason.
 * I cannot comment with this account since it's new and I would need to make at least 10 comments (Wiki rules). Moni-0x1984 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On Twitter? Could you please link the tweet in question? Loki (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether it's a good idea to make him advertisement here on public wiki. If you have some private communication channel I would use it rather. Moni-0x1984 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:EMAIL for instructions on how to email people on Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Got your email! Thank you! Loki (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * YW Moni-0x1984 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added comment under username Beczky (my old long lost account), and I just want to assure that I am not canvasing. I genuinely wanted to contribute, I am watching the person who "helped" to spam discussion by Twitter sharing for long time and I wanted to oppose skewed opinions. Moni-0x1984 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but just to let you know: Wikipedia has processes to resist canvassing and one of those is that if canvassing has been suspected on an RFC (and it is, thanks) whoever closes the discussion will either fully disregard or at least severely discount the opinions of suspected canvassed accounts.
 * So, for one, you don't need to contribute to that RFC to oppose skewed opinions, because those opinions aren't likely to be counted anyway. And for two, because you've come from Twitter just like everyone else, your opinion is likely to also be ignored when the discussion is closed.
 * That all being said, I do encourage you to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia! It's just that the specific discussion you saw on Twitter is one of the worst places for a new user to contribute right now. :P Loki (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an explanation, I really don't know much about Wikipedia processes. I am glad the situation regarding the source of canvasing is clear. :) Beczky (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beczky/Moni-0x1984, I'd also love to see you helping out. We need more editors who know what they're talking about.  A good, plain English statement that connects all the related articles (e.g., the article that says we conventionally call the sperm-producing half of a population male, even if they have other characteristics, such as bearing young internally, that are associated with female humans; the article that says determining which half of the population any particular individual belongs to can be challenging; etc.) would be enormously helpful.
 * Loki, when it appears that your proposal is being soundly rejected, then tagging a bunch of participants' comments is not such a good look. It might have been better to ask someone else (i.e., anyone who can't be credibly accused of sour grapes) to do that.  You should probably leave a note on the talk page about what your criterion was; at a glance, it looks like you've accused all participants with fewer than 500 edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did leave a note on the talk page, for one. There wasn't a particular edit number I had in mind, but it basically was that, yes.
 * And I frankly don't care what you think are "sour grapes". At this point, between me and Sideswipe, we've found several separate large Twitter threads encouraging people to disrupt this RFC, and just based on the dates and general WP:SPA behavior we could easily have tagged way more accounts.
 * I also very much don't appreciate you coming to my talk page to WP:BLUDGEON a new user into voting for your side. Loki (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that there have been significant off-wiki attempts at affecting the RfC consensus on Talk:Sex. Loki has tagged more or less all of the accounts I would have tagged, minus a one or two more that I would have included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I expressed my opinion on the topic based on what I know about the topic and tried to do it as much unbiased as I could. BTW the RFC is full of links to articles I will try to read them one by one during next days. I know some of them, not all of them tho. If any of you want I can share my opinion here afterwards.
 * In regards to canvassing, there is really a thread on Twitter promoting explicitly to skew this RFC in one particular direction placed on 15.11.2023 20:00 CET.
 * Loki has all info in e-mail since I don't want to a advertise Twitter accounts on Wikipedia. Beczky (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is this "an editor" you repeatedly cited in your dismissal of several votes at an RfC? From the sounds of this discussion, there is a hell of a lot more on-site transparency needed before this RfC is closed. And I see no "bludgeoning" from WhatamIdoing here. Off-site collusion – from either side of a contentious topic – is not welcomed on Wikipedia. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just the template canvassed. But I suppose the editor would be me and Sideswipe, if you want a specific one. Loki (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * that's the text produced by the canvassed template. As for more on-wiki transparency, I'd be happy to give some limited detail publicly if you have questions. However as, I won't be posting any direct links due to the risk of outing any identifiable editors. I would happily provide such evidence to ArbCom if necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because of the repeated requests to provide the info, I just did provide the evidence to ArbCom with a request that they at least confirm it is real and says what we say it says. (No guarantees, of course.) Loki (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia users are canvassing off-site, then those links deserve to be posted on-site for the benefit of the wider community, and taken to ANI. I can recall many on-site situations that would've been resolved a lot quicker if users only had the guts to post what they knew at the time. For example, a user recently contacted me off-site regarding a situation I had a couple of years ago, where several users were colluding off-site. The user was a part of that group at the time, but later apologized and sent me screenshots of five different users colluding together off-site. But by the time that user contacted me, it was too late to raise that situation at ANI in any concise way. Those users are still active on-site. They wouldn't be had I been informed a year or two earlier. Off-site collusion is a cancer at Wikipedia, and needs to be eradicated at the earliest opportunity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I can recall many on-site situations that would've been resolved a lot quicker if users only had the guts to post what they knew at the time. It's not a question of guts, but one of policy. Per policy neither of us can share links to this on-wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If they're using the same username, then there is no "outing". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would strongly urge that you read the policy I've linked, particularly the final paragraph prior to the exceptions subsection. What you're asking for cannot be done on-wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no username-to-username connections as far as I can see, but there are (as one would expect) several people using their real names on Twitter, and because of the nature of the thread some of them are highly likely to be editors. Loki (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Homeostasis07, they're right to be cautious about posting links. I thought the pattern (a bunch of less-experienced accounts showing up an RFC from seemingly nowhere) was suspicious even before anyone talked about Twitter.  The RFC is only a week old, so it could be coincidental (and for any individual editor, it might have been), but it doesn't smell that way to me overall.  I am only wishing that Loki had also been cautious enough to ask someone (anyone) else to do the tagging.
 * If social media wants to weigh in, they'd do more good in the world by asking textbook publishers to be clearer about the difference between how biologists decide which half of a species is the male ones, and how doctors decide whether an individual human more closely aligns with the typical description for male or female. "Well, there's lots of factors to deciding whether to put this individual into group A or group B" doesn't answer the question of "Is group A supposed to be labeled 'male' or not?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi LokiTheLiar :) I'm looking to interview people here, feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi! I'm brand new to being an editor on Wikipedia, so I don't know if commenting here is the correct etiquette on this site, but I just wanted to let you know that I saw the archived talk pages on the EMDR topic and reading through the arguments on there made me start my Wiki account. Reading through the back and forth, you are so right. It's wild how you were being treated in those discussions. I don't understand what is going on with the other editors but I just wanted to let you know that you are correct and I'm sorry that they were treating you so poorly. It was wild to read. Folkpunkgirl (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Be careful
This remark appears to me that you have taken a story on disinformation and turned it around to claim it is in fact Cass herself who is misrepresenting what others said and her reviews and the two systematic reviews that were commissioned. It is a extremely ironic that Snokalok is citing BLP concerns (which apply to talk pages too) and you rush in with allegations that Cass is "misrepresenting what other people said (or even her own report)". You might want to strike that. Especially when we have Hansard reporting what other people said, and her own report and the two systematic reviews that were commissioned agree with Cass. Even a primary school child could do the maths on this, or a simple word search would uncover that none of these documents insist on blinded RCTs for the evidence they use. Both are matters that Cass has twice complained about, to the Times and the BBC, so it isn't just me. Doubling-down on misinformation, as you appear to be doing, is getting into topic ban territory. I strongly advise you strike your comment and go read the actual review and supporting papers.

There are differences of opinion for sure on how to interpret evidence and what to do in the absense of good evidence and there are always differences of approach in medicine. But these are matters of basic facts that are being spun deliberately to discredit the review. If the review has flaws, let's have science and facts determine that, not bullshit. You are in moon landing conspiracy territory. -- Colin°Talk 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I responded on the article talk page clarifying, but I also think it's wild that you're now accusing me of being in moon landing conspiracy territory over a pretty standard source dispute.
 * The TL;DR is that I think Cass, and you, are being way too aggressive in the misinformation claims. The majority of criticism from WP:MEDORGs is based on true facts about her report. Some of these are similar in structure to false claims being shared on social media, and I believe that Cass chooses to focus on those false claims because it's harder to defend against the true claims.
 * Part of this is also that the Cass Report is kind of dodgy about what it's actually arguing. The underlying systematic review of puberty blockers absolutely doesn't say that RCTs are necessary, but the report itself implies pretty strongly that RCTs should have been conducted. But it never actually says this, so when she's criticized for saying this she can say she didn't and technically be right. Loki (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a pretty standard source dispute. And you seem to be doubling down on the idea that Cass is being dishonest and are now calling them "dodgy". The misinformation is not a "claim" and not mine. Seriously Loki, you are in a hole and need to stop digging. -- Colin°Talk 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I frankly think you are way out on a ledge here. Cass is a human and can in fact make mistakes or respond to criticism poorly.
 * But let's please continue this on the article talk page. I'm not impressed at your assertions of misconduct and will not be responding to them further. Loki (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Paywall issue
Re: this, shoot me a message through the email system, I have access via my institution, so I can get you a copy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC?
Was the intent to start this as an RFC? In that case you might want to add the traditional four options to the end of it. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of course 😁 --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not yet. This is supposed to be like the thread about the ADL that preceded the RFC. I'm making sure there's enough support for it to be plausible before I actually officially start an RFC. Loki (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

RSN on Suissa and Sullivan
Hi, Loki! I see you pinged me (and ) in your valiant attempt here to get a derailed discussion back on track. I suppose you may have noticed that the tone of the discussions has recently turned to one quite different than the collegial and collaborative method we used when ironing out content differences during the FAR; was not part of the FAR, and I'm relieved he took over the next version of the draft, but he may not have realized that one of the reasons the FAR succeeded is that we didn't let disruption or negativity suck the oxygen out of the room -- we just tried to keep moving forward looking for areas of agreement, and that approach kept bludgeoning, personalizing and any sort of disruption from taking over. It worked; that isn't the direction things are trending now. But I'm wondering if you had carefully read the entire RSN discussion when you suggested that Victoria and I were among the "people who were already arguing about this back at JK Rowling's page". So, while you are correct to point out that we have gotten nothing useful from the RSN post (which often happens when bludgeoning discourages others from weighing in), I'm wondering if a) you would mind correcting the misimpression left about the participation of others relative to the way Victoria, S Marshall, I and others (like you) had been working together, steadily moving forward; and b) whether you have any better ideas about how to get back to that collaborative place. My view is that giving oxygen to uncollaborative discussion won't get us where the article needs to go -- and it would be optimal to find our way back to the time we all worked towards the goal of writing the best content we collaboratively and consensually could. For a WP:CTOP and a Featured article, people should be on their best behavior, and I don't think that's what we're seeing here. I wish someone uninvolved would step in and hat the off-topic and stop the downward spiral. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Back on the talk page discussion which preceded the RSN, Victoria had not weighed in at all, and I entered a one-line opinion.
 * 2) In the discussion at RSN, I weighed in first, briefly, when the page numbers on the source were mis-cited -- that required correction.  To the odd suggestion that I should "step back" from a discussion after one brief post correcting a page range, I gave my opinion for the (so far) first and only time, while noting the previous patience with the extreme bludgeoning that was occurring.
 * 3) I ran the word counts on that discussion the other day (they could be higher now), and about half of the RSN discussion was one poster, and the entire "Is this in the source?" section isn't even about reliability.


 * I really don't see how questioing if a source covers material it's claimed to isn't part of its reliability. I do not understand Sandy's opinion that it doesn't matter if the source doesn't have the content it's said to. I asked if something was actually covered by the source. S Marshall said it wasn't and that using it was a mistake, and then Sandy came in and began claiming it was in the source, if you read four pages of it and drew connections between material explicitly not about Rowling and the three sentences about Rowling in the article.


 * I'm frankly shocked that anyone would defend a source that has only three sentences on the subject and doesn't really support the text being cited to it. Why are people passionately defending what is - barely reliable or not - a terrible source for the material it's meant to cite? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * a) I've read the entire RSN discussion and my use of the word "arguing" for all of you stems from reading it closely. Yes, you didn't participate as much as some others but you still were all clearly having an argument. As such I don't think there's any misperception to correct.
 * b) My suggestion for what to do from here I already posted at RSN: just stop the argument. It's not going anywhere helpful and it's over an extremely minor point. Loki (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with that last bit, Loki ... we're just getting repetition of the same information, over something that is relatively insignificant to the overall picture. How to get back on track is the question ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well. There's policy about how to get it back on track, but it's not the most brilliant outcome.  WP:V says at WP:ONUS:  "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."  I've fought very hard over WP:V and I passionately believe that WP:ONUS is correct policy.  I've failed to achieve that consensus, so what I ought to do is cut the source.  But it leaves a foul taste in my mouth to do it, because there's just no good faith dispute whatsoever about whether Rowling did get insulted over Twitter, and the opposition to the source is very political in character.  So I'm unenthusiastic about doing it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that my objections and AFAICT the objections of others are more that the source is bad and shouldn't be used to source anything than that the claim it's sourcing is false. It shouldn't be difficult to find an alternative source, though, right? My understanding is that it was completely redundant for the claims it was sourcing. Loki (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, reading & evaluating sources correctly is essential. It's the first step to writing anything. I didn't realize I was arguing. But - so be it. Victoria (tk) 20:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, if you sweat every thing, we'll never get there :) The spirit of collaboration means compromise is essential.  Yes, it sticks in one's throat to see something so "political in nature" when we had such a good collaborative spirit going for so many years. But if you let it get to you, the FA star is gone, and once the FA star is gone, there is nothing upholding content-- it all goes to heck as the rest of the 99% of the "project" has no standards. So my main message is don't let negativity suck the oxygen out of the room ... let it go and move on, just because someone may want a fight, you don't have to give it to them.  I'm more concerned that we've lost all of the big picture, enduring bits, and are becoming increasingly focused on RECENTISM ... but we can do that bit back on the talk page.  And like Victoria, I most certainly did not think anyone was arguing until the RSN discussion went south with personalization.  I did see some arguing on talk, but I've mostly ignored it, and if personalization continues, WP:AE for GENSEX is an option. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I rather disagree with this idea that an article that isn't a FA has no standards.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Me too, and I also disagree with the idea that including events that happened over the past several years is WP:RECENTISM rather than just keeping the article up to date. Loki (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hear you both. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way
thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is LokiTheLiar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m wandering through the TALK pages…
…my god. I’m hesitant about even starting the editing process! I’ll restrict myself to the teahouse. People spike the brew in the coffeehouse. Anyway, I appreciate your posts, Loki. &#32;Toronto, Ontario, Canada (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Revised 07:18 EST. I’m reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League …to get a clue about sources. This is where I found yer name.

duplicate
The user who moved the discussion of your 3 June vote out of the discussion section and into the survey section has caused your 10 June vote lower down in the survey section to become a duplicate vote; I suppose you might want to remove or explanatorily strike it. &#45;sche (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good catch, thanks.
 * They also have caused a bunch of bracketed comments that some people have responded to and would be too much of a pain to reverse at this point. Loki (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you didn't know
You're on CNN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sameboat, you too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. However, of all participants of the RfC, they chose a non-native English speaker... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Neat!
 * Though while I mostly share their reading on the numbers of the second RFC, I do think that someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works would be a little more circumspect? There's a lot of votes in that that are like "it's not reliable for antisemitism that has to do with I/P but otherwise it's fine", which is one of the situations where "consensus is not a vote" really does matter a lot. Loki (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply
. Yes, I am saying they should not. Now, imagine that it will indeed be closed differently for parts 1 and 2. Someone is looking at a publication like this (this is not ADL, but ADL published similar things). What it should be? A conclusion for the part 1 or for the part 2? You will probably say the former, but I am sure that some other people will say the latter. So, instead of resolving issues, the results of the RfC will cause issues. I think this is because of the incorrect and unnecessary complicated set up. I suspect this also made the RSNB discussion 3 times bigger than it should be. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, it was closed. According to the closing, "ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned". But of course they are always concerned. Hence my reading of this is #3 (generally unreliable) for the entire RfC, which is a logically consistent outcome. This is great. Many thanks to the closers! My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI: Talk Yasuke
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrhns (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

hi
I just wanted to thank you for starting the RFC before and RFC on the telegraph and congratulate you on a surprisingly smooth run through it and it now being closed. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Loki (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Small request
Loki, would you mind striking the claim of lying here ? I know you were one of the strong voices on this topic and you made a number of arguments with regards to the specific point in question. I also acknowledge that I agreed with those who felt they rebutted those arguments. In the end I think it's clear that we (the group) didn't agree. I certainly think we can assume, with good faith, that editors on either side could leave the discussion unconvinced that the other side proved their case. To that end I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest either side is lying nor did either side carry the day with a consensus. Sorry to intrude. Springee (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Was going to edit it and then someone replied. I don't want to strike it because I do think that it's a much stronger claim than the evidence justifies. Loki (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Mukokuseki RFC
Can explain your conclusion here better? You called it a "rough consensus" but did not clarify if this meant the changes should be implemented or not, and I don't see how this could be seen as a "strong majority" if only three people clearly voted no on point one, one of whom as I pointed out did not even read the current version of the article. Of the other two participants besides myself one clearly voted "yes" to point one, while the other gave only a very conditional "no".

Nobody except myself made any attempt to reason with opponents, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A rough consensus for No on option 1. The changes should not be implemented.
 * As for a "strong majority", there were six participants, and of those four of them were no on one. That's a 2/3 majority, which if there were more participants would in fact be a clear consensus. I already mentioned that the low number of participants gave me pause here, which is why I only closed it as a rough consensus. Loki (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case could you also address this piece of POV-pushing by one of the involved editors on a closely related page. It would make no sense for it to deviate from the main page on mukokuseki if the latter is the new status quo of the issue but I can't revert it again without drawing close to WP:3RR. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? No on 1 means mukokuseki should not include "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead. Removing equivalent language from other articles seems like it's just making those articles consistent with mukokuseki. Loki (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I was asking about for "rough consensus", the discussion did not reach any agreement on what is to be done so it should have been closed as a no consensus. The "no" votes also did not address the sources at all so it wasn't really a fact-based discussion, and again one of the votes was only a conditional "no" against how the text was phrased in the request, if that doesn't match the text of the article it should not count as towards the majority. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the close, take it to WP:AN. Loki (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding mukokuseki RFC closure. The thread is RfC closure review request at Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead. Thank you. — Orchastrattor (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)