User talk:PBZE

January 2019
Hello, I'm Tsumikiria. 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 Antifa (United States) 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. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Map (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minor-attracted person ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Map_%28disambiguation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Map_%28disambiguation%29?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) 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Page
I looked at the press coverage, and Elliot did not come out as lesbian in 2014 - they came out as gay - so your edit misleads rather than informs the reader, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed it back. I changed it in the first place because the word "gay" and the pronouns implied he was attracted to men, so I made it clear he came out as gay back when he presented as a woman, meaning he is attracted to women. But I suppose the phrase "when he presented as a woman" is enough. PBZE (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the second change was redundant anyway. The reason I checked the 2014 sources was to see whether Elliot had chosen the "queer" label at that time, which would have made for a more elegant fix, but alas, no. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Careful with ref names
Hi! Your edit here introduced a duplicate ref name error. (Search for 'error:' in the revisions before and after your edit regarding ref named :4.) I have since fixed this error. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Lesbian. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Equivamp - talk 08:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Space 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 diffs
 * 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! — Anita5192 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Graham Linehan. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Here’s a Barnstar for you! 😊
Boscaswell  talk  06:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

FiberHub is the Kiwi Farms web host; I believe this is an important point! : )
Hi, thank you for your work over at the Cloudflare article. Just wanted to mention, that I do think it's important to differentiate between the web host (FiberHub) and the CDN (Cloudflare) because the #DropKiwiFarms campaign is applying pressure to both companies. Making a distinction is important! People following the situation closely are aware of this fact, but the casual observer is not going to know the difference between the two unless it is made clear. Thanks again for your help on the article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Editing other user's comments
Hi, I notice you have been editing other people's talk page comments here, here, and here. The first edit made Sideswipe9th's comment ambiguous, and the second and third edit removed clarity from mine. See WP:TPO; please stop doing this. Endwise (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Your recent editing history at Talk:Kiwi Farms 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. 0x Deadbeef 08:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't "discuss" a BLP violation without triggering the Streisand effect. You remove it immediately. PBZE (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll have to block you if you continue. Take it to BLPN if you are so sure. Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only from the talk page, not site wide. Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Watch your sourcing, and avoid original research
Hi, PBZE, you've been around for a few years now, and you should be pretty solidly on board already with the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Of those, two of the most fundamental and most important are WP:No original research (part of the second Pillar among Wikipedia's Five Pillars) and the principle of WP:Verifiability, which ensures that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and not on the musings or opinions of Wikipedia editors. As it happens, two of your recent edits hit my Watchlist, and in each case I had to undo your edit because you appear to have added your own opinion or reading of the facts into the article rather than anything backed by sources:
 * In this edit at The Holocaust, you made a change implying that not just European Jews were targeted in the Holocaust. Besides the fact that you didn't even attempt to justify this, in a highly sensitive and controversial article subject to discretionary sanctions and monitored by over 2,000 watchers, you made your change right in the lead sentence of the article. I undid this edit as a violation of WP:OR. You should know that the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body, and any such change should follow content in the body of the article. More important than that, however, is that of WP:Verifiability; it would have to be backed with a citation to a reliable source, which you didn't provide.
 * In this edit at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, another highly controversial article, also under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, you made a highly controversial change, once again to the WP:LEADSENTENCE of the article, which was not covered anywhere in the body of the article, and which entirely lacked a source, thus pure WP:Original research. I undid this edit as an WP:OR violation as well.

I haven't looked at any other edits of yours, but I hope these two cases are not an indication of a blasé attitude towards WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research. Wikipedia takes these policies very seriously, and I would recommend that you re-read those two policies carefully, and resolve to follow their recommendations going forward. Further violations of this sort may be seen as disruptive, and could lead to a suspension of your editing privileges.

In order to avoid this, I would recommend laying off making changes to the WP:LEAD of an article until you have a better handle on the basic policies involved, and most especially when they involve articles on controversial topics, or are covered by discretionary sanctions. This is just my own opinion; I'm not an admin, and you are free to follow my advice or ignore it; but the intention is to keep you in good standing as an editor, which imho will be at risk if you continue to follow the pattern of your recent editing, whether intentionally, or not. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my Talk page, or ask questions about editing Wikipedia at the WP:Help desk. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit to the article The Holocaust is justified, I believe. I thought it was self-evident, but in the article text there are sources indicating that all Jews in Europe were targeted. There are other sources saying "European Jews", but that phrase is more ambiguous; it could be interpreted the same as "Jews in Europe" but not necessarily. To me it was just a matter of writing style and making the lead sentence less ambiguous. To non-exhaustively list some sources, emphasis mine:
 * Jack R. Fischel (Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, 2020): "The Holocaust refers to the Nazi objective of annihilating every Jewish man, woman, and child who fell under their control. By the end of World War II, approximately six million Jews had been murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators."
 * Timothy D. Snyder (Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, 2010): "In this book, Holocaust means the murder of the Jews in Europe, as carried out by the Germans by guns and gas between 1941 and 1945."
 * United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2017): "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." (note the absence of the adjective "European")
 * David Wyman (The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941–1945, 2007): "Between June 1941 and May 1945, five to six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators." (note the absence of the adjective "European")
 * For my edit to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, I got lazy and paraphrased a sentence I found in another related article, copy-pasting the citation after that sentence in that article. I also assumed the article text was good enough to say it was pseudoscience. I apologize for that. For the record though, I have found a source saying it is pseudoscience. PBZE (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. If you have sources for The Holocaust  that you believe justifies it, I'd raise this at Talk:The Holocaust. For the most part, you can just copy your comment above directly to the Talk page there, so other editors can see it, and comment. Given the highly controversial nature of the article, a change like this is unlikely to pass unless you discuss it first, which you're free to do. Others may agree with you.
 * Another thing to keep in mind, is WP:DUEWEIGHT. In a topic area with a literature as vast as that of the Holocaust (one local Holocaust library I'm aware of has 30,000 books, not counting all their other documents) it isn't hard to come up with a few sources that support more or less any viewpoint you wish to put forth. In a case like that, even adding citations to reliable sources isn't quite enough. You also have to demonstrate that these sources are, in fact, representative of the majority view on the topic by reliable sources. If you can show that, then you should have no trouble adding your assertion to the article. But all of this would be better discussed at the article talk page, rather than here, where no one will see it. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Where I think you are most likely to succeed with the change you wanted to make, is in using the term targeted narrowly; that is, if you can make it clear that non-European Jews such as Americans in POW camps in Germany were "targeted", even if not annihilated or sent to death camps, that could work. Afaik, there is no documented case of an American Jewish prisoner of war being sent to their death at Auschwitz or Treblinka, for example. Otoh, the Germans clearly tried to separate Jews from other American POWs for even worse treatment, mostly unsuccessfully; but that isn't the Holocaust. All POWs were treated pretty viciously, and this article about Jews at Berga has a good account of the Germans tried to single Jews out for worse treatement. This article discusses the treatment and survival of 60,000 American Jewish POWs in German captivity. But I think what you have to be careful about here, is making a distinction between inhumane, vicious treatment of American POWs, even attempts to separate the Jews from non-Jews, and what the article topic is, namely the Holocaust. Vicious treatment of American Jewish POWs that isn't about their extermination isn't on-topic for that article in my opinion, although it's clearly well-documented and could be part of another article. But it's worth raising that at Talk, also. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, about ROGD: more or less the same thing, although the literature is a tiny fraction of that of the Holocaust, so determining WP:DUEWEIGHT should be far easier. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, your source for ROGD (Ashley, 2020) is purely an opinion published in a journal of social research, not a study of any type; not even a single candidate was studied or evaluated. It looks like that has already been referenced in the Academic reactions section of the article, but seems pretty weak. I don't think you could extend that to a mention in the LEAD, but you're welcome to try. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Standard notice about editing articles related to Eastern Europe
Hi again PBZE. The following is a standard notice applicable to anyone editing in this topic area. Please read it and follow the links. After that, you may remove it from your Talk page if you wish, which will indicate that you have read and understood the notice. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles
You last received one of these gender-related notices in June 2021 (above), but given the remarks in the section above about Sourcing and Original research, it looks like it's time for a reminder about possible sanctions related to editing gender-related articles.

Standard notice about editing articles related to pseudoscience
Last one, I promise. You can delete it after reading and following the links: Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alerts - gender and sexuality
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. 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. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminism – April 2024
You ought to be aware that the usual practice where an edit has been challenged is to take the matter to the Talk page, not just to revert. Also, you should know that the onus is on those who want to include material to get consensus for this, particularly on a page where there is an edit notice reminding users that the article is subject to the contentious topics regime. I suggest you self-revert and start a discussion on the Talk page if you wish to have the transgender sidebar on the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)