User talk:Stephanie921

Welcome!
Hi Stephanie921! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Stephanie921 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RRR (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Do not remove sources and tag using misleading edit summaries. There is nothing called WP:INDIANEXPRESS, instead WP:INDIANEXP, which is considered reliable at WP:RSP.'' Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I'm sorry for removing the IndianExpress source, however I wasn't tryna be disruptive. I was reading through that list earlier and thought it said the Indian Express was unreliable. However, I must have been thinking of something else. But why did u revert my other edits? Citation needed tags aren't necessary there - they all have sources at the end of their respective sentences. Stephanie921 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. Let me clarify "considered the major filming location" is not written in the accompanying source and "photographed by Dinesh Krishnan", that is Dinesh Krishnan's name is not mentioned in  or . If you want, you can remove those parts or reword them per sources, or if these are mentioned in another source somewhere in the paragraph, then please add an instance of it near them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay :D Tyvm for clarifying that. Imma charge my phone cos it's at 7% but I might do it tomorrow. However, yer ofc welcome to make those edits you suggested before me, if ya like :) Stephanie921 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can make those changes tomorrow . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Fox News
I believe you are misinterpreting what is written at WP:FOXNEWS. It does not imply, as you said in an edit summary, "Fox News is advised against for political claims in general". It says that "There is no consensus..." There is no reason that Fox News cannot be used as a source for such a benign claim as Pence being Trump's running mate. Furthermore, the WP:BRD cycle is Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you discussing this with me but - and I mean this sincerely, not condescendingly - I don't think I'm misinterpreting the source. As you pointed out yourself - Fox News is advised against for political claims in general - meaning it's policy to be weary of Fox News as a political source. That's the same as saying Fox News is unreliable for political claims - you can use it for political claims according to Wikipedia legality - but it's advised against morally, which is why I am against using it.
 * As it says there, most editors view it as unreliable for political sourcing - and I am one of them. If it's not reliable generally, it's not reliable generally - regardless of whether the fact on one article is true. An abundance of Fox News articles during the Trump administration said he was the President at that time - which is true - but that doesn't mean we should use those articles as sources and divorce them from the purpose of the article and station. Also I didn't think I was bold-reverting for the reasons outlined here. If I did, I would have discussed rather than reveting again :) Stephanie921 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that Fox News is advised against for political claims. I was quoting your edit summary.  There is no policy that Fox News is generally unreliable for political claims. Your reversion of my edit was unwarranted. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but from my perspective the link you pointed to still clearly states it as morally unreliable but legally okay by Wikipedia standards. I do not believe it was unwarranted. Everyone else is weary of Fox News' reliability and use in political contexts on this site, and I am the same. Stephanie921 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Mass changes of "director" to "directress"
Why change every instance of "director" to "directress" on pages where the subject is female? If you want to change it, and do so properly, I'd suggest running an WP:RfC, then, if it succeeds, a bot can do it instead. That would probably take less time than doing so manually, without first obtaining consensus for the mass change (which, I would hypothesise, would likely take an infinite length of time, as, based on what I've seen previously, you'd probably be blocked before you got a tenth of the way in). To get this change to occurr, the majority of reliable sources need to refer to female person who directs films as a "directress". Just because a dictionary does, doesn't mean a lot. I'd suggest you read Right great wrongs as well. Also, you've been warned before about WP:BRD, and, though based on your revert of Czello, you haven't paid much attention to that policy. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you be nicer to people from now on, since I clearly stated I was not going to edit-war, hence why I discussed this with you and explicitly stated that Stephanie921 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I did the same thing with Czello too after my initial revert Stephanie921 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Just saw your comment on your talk page about having not seen my new section. I apologise for what I said about you needing being nicer, since you hadn't seen the message I was talking about Stephanie921 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * All good, I've done much the same previously too. I think that something that may be relevant here is the section (coincidentally the one immediately below MOS:GNL) on contested vocabulary in the manual of style. I think that this may fall into the category of uncommon usage of words, since the most common term for a woman who directs films (by far) is still "director" (like Wikipedia users are known as "editors"). Who knows, maybe at some point, the word "directress" will catch on and become the most common term for a woman who directs films (and other stuff too, like boards), or perhaps it will never become commonly used, having been superceded by a new word that hasn't even been coined yet. For now, even though it is present in a dictionary, it isn't used enough to justify a mass change. Another page that might have some relevant details is Writing about women. Cheerio. When you reply, if you hit the "reply" link, and then type the @ symbol, and you'll see a little drop down list. Select my username, and then, when you send the message, I'll get a "ping". An alternative way is to do it like this . You can do the same to "ping" any registered user. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ring
Sorry, I reverted your changes to the lead of the four parts of the Ring. If you think the sequence is lead-worthy, please begin a discussion on the talk of one of them. I believe that a click on Der Ring des Nibelungen clarifies the sequence. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that's necessary. It's basic information about The Ring Cycle and not something people could have an issue with. Ik it's already written about on that article - but so is all the other info about the individual operas - yet they're on their pages cos they're relevant, necessary info to talk about those operas - not the whole cycle. We don’t know if people have read the Der Ring des Nibelungen page.
 * For example, on the Star Wars sequel trilogy page - the lead says what films are in the trilogy. Then on The Force Awakens' page, the lead says it's the first installment and that it had a sequel - The Last Jedi - and what date it was released. On The Last Jedi's page - the lead says it follows The Force Awakens and was succeeded by The Rise Of Skywalker - whose page says it is the final installment and was succeeded by Episode VII and VIII.
 * This is just standard practice. What do u think?
 * @Gerda Arendt Stephanie921 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I think. Please say exactly this on Talk:Das Rheingold, and find out what others think. Opera and films don't automatically compare, - actually Ring and Licht are the only ones coming to my mind where this would play a role, but for Licht, it's simply the seven days of the week, so the order is clear. What I think - in case you are interested - is that someone completely new to Die Walküre has to look up the Ring article for context, which provides the sequence. - I just heard Siegfried from Bayreuth on radio last night. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Best wished for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might good for your health if you - at the beginning of your Wikipedia career - would read a bit more and find out how it works. I had to revert you again, now for Richard Wagner. When you see a little star in the upper right corner of an article, you can tell that is a Featured article, the highest quality the project has to offer, checked and checked again. - Possibly you don't know that the lead (lede, introduction) is a summary of what is more detailed and referenced below. To leave the lead of that composer without any mentioning of the Ring is just impossible, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't worry ik that :) I thought I'd added the tildes at that page but I only realised I hadn't next time I checked the page. Thanks though! Stephanie921 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Talkback
82.132.215.149 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing
Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Because this is an obvious violation of it. 82.132.216.72 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Please start assuming good faith before you send me and anyone else messages like this. You asked me why I asked Blackandbutterfly and then proceeded to send me this anyway, rather than waiting for my reply. That feels like you're talking to me and not with me. It's not constructive, and other people may not want to reply to you if you do. And yes, I am familiar with Canvassing. I did not Canvass because I asked Blackandbutterfly a question. It'd only be canvassing if I went to their page and asked them to back me up, which I didn't. I just asked them - neutrally - if they wanted to chip into the discussion. And there weren't other editors in that discussion - just one. I didn't ask that editor because I thought they'd already said their position on the matter - which was opposed to mine - in their previous message. I thought Blackandbutterfly's previous message hadn't explicitly touched on our discussion, which is why I pinged them. I thought I'd be getting the other editor to repeat themselves if I pinged them.
 * Messages like this, for the reasons I stated above - have been the reasons I stopped responding to you. In addition to ones like "I thought you were big on STATUSQUO". It feels like I'm being talked down to, in addition when you accused VictimOfEntropy of being vitriolic towards you in the Incidents noticeboard and told us to retract our views about the Wikipedia policies for mischaracterising you - as if we were accusing you of lying rather than having a conversation about our different readings of the policies in order to form consensus. You also said my readings of the policies were wrong in the incidents noticeboard and accused me of wrongdoing, which makes me not want to talk to you - or anybody for that matter - because no matter what we talk about, I feel like I can't talk and potentially change my mind without being patronised, even if u didn't intend to talk to me like that. I assume VictimOfEntropy feels the same way based off their messages. When you did ping me on my page about ur messages regarding Wendy Carlos' album, I responded to your messages on the page. U nicely phrased your message with "thoughts?" and your feelings. U didn't leave any comments on my talk page where I felt condescended to like "I thought you were big on STATUSQUO", so I felt like I was having a constructive discussion and wanted to hear your thoughts. I'd love to hear your thoughts about anything if u talk to me nicely, and I don't have any ill will towards you as a person despite how I've felt treated by you. It was kind of you to start that discussion with me about Wendy Carlos' album, but I will quit discussions if I feel patronised and if I feel like there's nothing I could do to stop the other person talking to me like that. It doesn't matter what they're talking about. Even if a person is saying facts, or agreeing with me on my opinions - I will leave - whether I'm on Wikipedia or not.Stephanie921 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:INAPPNOTE for what makes a notification improper. A notification can be unbiased and still fall under canvassing. Both Blackenedbutterfly and Double Sharp did not talk about including Carlos's birthname directly; they are removed from our dispute further down to the same extent, while still close enough to make an educated guess as to what their opinion would be; it was hence improper to just notify one of the two.
 * I find it quite rich that you find my conduct accusatory. Your first comment directed at me accused me of violating WP:ONUS, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:3RR ; even worse, the ONUS and 3RR charge were blatantly false. I told you to retract them because they were a mischaracterisation of my actions. This is not about different "views" on policies, as you say above, but plainly false understandings of them. Then you stonewall any change by ignoring my calls for discussion and just revert me. I find this behaviour pretty arrogant - as if responding to me is below you. I wouldn't be surprised to get a (admittedly quite snarky) message referencing what I perceive as hypocrisy in return.
 * If VictimOfEntropy wants to avoid their comments being described as vitriolic, they should not post comments such as Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts and You’re throwing around Wikipedia policies while making extreme edits [...] as an IP. Your behavior is destructive and entirely unjustified . Similarly, if you want to avoid being accused of wrongdoing at ANI, you should avoid wrongdoing. Your behaviour at Abortion in Vermont was poor: There is normally no requirement of you to interact with me, but if you are engaged in a content dispute with me, you have to communicate. Don't want to talk to me? Fine, but then don't undo my edits.
 * Am I sure you will remove this - I am not sure what you think the end game of this looks like. Your behaviour at the article in question can certainly not continue, despite your belief that I cannot do anything unless I get express consent by editors who will not deign to speak to me. It seems that my ANI post has resulted in greater activity both on the article and the talk page (in favour of my changes, what a surprise...) and that this will hopefully get resolved. This will sound patronising, but I highly suggest being more careful when interacting with other editors in the future, you barging in at Talk:Abortion in Vermont with a string of incorrect accusations or edit warring at ANI has been less than helpful. This could have been resolved if it didn't start with your accusatory comment followed by stonewalling. 82.132.216.72 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on my ANI comment
Hi Stephanie, I thought I'd bring my comments here to try to explain better my post at WP:ANI. You wrote I believed that I had explained my views on the article at the initial discussion between me, the IP and @User:VictimOfEntropy but I'm sorry if I hadn't clearly enough. You made a single comment on Talk:Abortion in Vermont that basically said you were reverting because the IP's edit didn't have consensus. I'm assuming you felt that the edit was against consensus because VictimOfEntropy had objected. VOE did at least make an attempt at arguing why VOE felt the content should be retained, but then abandoned the discussion. However, you continued to revert the IPs' deletions. If VOE doesn't agree with the edits, VOE can engage on the talk page. If you don't agree with the edits, you can engage on the talk page. The talk page discussion should concentrate on why or why not the content should be kept, not on who can or can't delete something or when...that's a meaningless tangent. You said in one of your edit summaries, "People not responding to you doesn't mean you can get your way. However, consensus-based editing doesn't mean you can declare an objection then refuse to discuss it. If we care enough about a topic to revert, we should be willing to engage with the other editor to compare our points of view and reach an agreement (or head to dispute resolution).Do you disagree with the specific challenges to the text themselves or are you just backing up another editor? Why didn't you object to this deletion? Was it because it wasn't an IP editor?Anyway, just some stuff to think about. I have to sign off for the evening but I'll watch your talk page in case you want to continue the discussion here.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't object to that deletion cos I agreed with the removal. I'll reply to the rest of ur msg later cos it's late in England. Goodnight and thank you for helping both of us. Stephanie921 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the removal of the text and believe it's completely relevant to the article. Stephanie921 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. Now, sometimes content disputes are clearcut: one editor makes edits that violate policies and guidelines and other editors object. That would include things like vandalism, copyright violations, and some WP:BLP violations (edits that meet the exemptions to edit-warring). The disputes on Abortion in Vermont appear to be the other kind of content dispute, the kind where neither side is wrong. Those disputes include differences of opinion on how something should be worded, how much weight to give one view or another, how detailed coverage of a topic aspect should be, whether something should be included or not, and the appropriateness of sources. Most disputes fall in this area. Those are the disputes that can only be resolved through discussion to reach consensus. It is perfectly reasonable for me to say I think an edit someone made is controversial and needs consensus from other editors interested in that article. It isn't reasonable for me to then refuse to discuss it. The discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not in edit summaries. Hopefully, other editors watching the article will also join in the discussion. The discussion should be about content, not contributors, and continue until the weight of community consensus is clear or until participants decide it isn't worth the time to persist or until the dispute is escalated into other dispute resolution methods.It is entirely up to you how involved you want to be in the Vermont dispute. But if you want to continue to object to the IP's edits by reverting them, you really should justify your reverts on the talk page by explaining why you think removing those sections is not the right thing to do for the article. The Terminology and Context sections aren't about "abortion in Vermont", they're about the general subject of "abortion". We can link to the Abortion article in the text for readers, so why should readers who are looking for information on abortion in Vermont have to read through hundreds of words not about Vermont before getting to the information that they want? That's what seems to be the IP's argument, so that's what you have to counter. They have a reason for excluding it, so those objecting need to have reasons for including it.Does this make sense? Personally, I tend to avoid the contentious articles because too often there isn't a right answer and people get too invested in "winning". Schazjmd   (talk)  14:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The difference between article Talk pages and User talk pages
Hi, Stephanie921, I had already worked out a sight addition to the section I just added here moments ago, but ran into an edit conflict when the section was removed. You are within your rights to remove any content from your Talk page you wish to (with rare exceptions like declined block appeals). You said you moved the removed section to the article Talk page "to prevent same convo happening twice", and although your instincts about not fragmenting a conversation are good, the destination was not the right venue for it. Article talk pages are for talking about content disputes, and would include the question of what wording to use in the article, such as whether other editors agree with your wording or not. Its perfectly fine to talk about that at the article Talk page. However, the topic of edit warring is a user behavioral issue; that should be discussed at a user talk page, and not at an article Talk page (except in passing, in order to link it to a user page discussion). See WP:TALK. The conversation you removed was about behavior (edit warring) and should have been discussed here (if at all). You're free to remove it, but please don't move it to an article page; that's not the right venue for it. (Now that you already did move it, you should probably just leave things as they are at this point, rather than confuse things even more by moving it again, but I won't object if you move it again, unless third parties have already responded at the article Talk page.) In brief: discuss article content at article Talk pages; discuss user behavior at user talk pages. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I hadn't yet read what you wrote just now at Talk:Billy Tipton when I wrote the comment just above, and I assumed you had *moved* the section about edit warring to the Billy Tipton talk page. However, since you started fresh there and created a new discussion confining your comments chiefly to the content dispute, that *is* the right venue for your comment, and there's no need to move anything now. Sorry for any confusion, Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Mathglot Saul Good Stephanie921 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to say I've bumped into you twice now on talk pages! Keep up all your good work :)

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi as well, Stephanie, and a month-late welcome. Thanks for being friendly! Ovinus (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
idk how i found you but here is a adorable kitten :D

Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 

Comments at User talk:Spafky
Any additional comments are no longer constructive. They've been blocked and their talk page access has been revoked. Drop the stick. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok ty. I wasn't trying to rile everyone up btw, I was saying that in good faith. But ofc I won't say anything else regardless @User:DatGuy Stephanie921 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've deleted my comment Stephanie921 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because they are blocked and TPA revoked doesn't mean they can't look at their talk page. They need to know that it isn't just admins "singling them out to prove a point" or "trying to make an example of them". This is a community and I disagree that any further responses from the community won't be constructive. It let's them know that the community won't tolerate this behavior and won't sit idle and let them disparage our fellow editors. On another note, Stephanie, I am so sorry you experienced this blatant attack. I empathize with you and support you 100%. -- A Rose  Wolf  19:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the indefinite block, declined unblock requests, and revocation of talkpage access is enough for them to understand their behaviour isn't welcome. The point in my section here is that there's no further reason for Stephanie921 (or you, as an uninvolved editor for that sake) to continue to discuss how despicable their behaviour is on their talk page. We know it's despicable. If you have new statements to add, such as suggesting a community ban or further evidence of their misconduct, the AN/I thread is still open for discussion. Otherwise, for everyone's sake, it's better to leave the dead to rot. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to say anything further. I said what I wanted to say. Have a good rest of your day. -- A Rose  Wolf  19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ty for ur advice @User:DatGuy. You're right, and I have moved that criticism to the AN/I thread. And @User:ARoseWolf. Tyvm for being incredibly kind and defending me. I'm doing great, and haven't been affected by their threat at all 😊 Stephanie921 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

My dear ____
Sounds German. Another cultural peculiarity. I speak a little German, though "redneck" is meine Mutterzunge -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmao. Ich spreche viel auch Duetsche, aber I'm English so my old woman tongue is more "guvna". I'm also a Tamil arivai, but I don't know a lot of Tamil. I'm learning it though :)
 * Also, when PhilKnight said "this is not a joke" I imagined him saying "You got one part of that wrong. This - is not a joke" like Walter White and blowing up Wikipedia and I became in hysterics @User:Deepfriedokra Stephanie921 (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Amazing, right? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yh lmao :) Stephanie921 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding credited name as a footnote
I notice you undit my edit at The Second Jungle Book: Mowgli & Baloo. However, until/unless there is another RfC with a different consensus, I think there is a general consensus (from past RfCs, and as a general practice on other articles such as Inception) to include the credited name as a footnote. It seems to me, the fact that there is an ongoing discussion which might lead to another RfC which might lead to a different consensus does not mean we shouldn't implement the current consensus. What do you think? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm just a watcher here and I apologize to Stephanie in advance but I felt like responding to your question was the best course of action. Each article is an island unto itself. There are general consensus decisions, called guidelines and to a lesser extent, policies, which apply to all of the encyclopedia, however, what is good for one article, though it may be assumed is good for all, is not always the case for another article. It is not an automatic, especially if it is currently being discussed which means it is contentious. The proper thing to do is leave an article where it is at the time the dispute is brought forward. Trying to re-edit the article to include what you want in it while a discussion is taking place can be seen as disruptive editing, even if the edits are eventually approved by consensus. It is just good practice to stay away from those areas of an article while discussions continue. -- A Rose Wolf  17:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise :) You didn't do anything wrong. I've had replying to Ficaia on my to-do list since I was asked but I've been disorganised lately, which is why I haven't replied. I'm not deliberately ignoring the question, and I understand if Ficaia has reverted my edit back due to me not responding. I wouldn't revert back ofc cos that would be edit warring, and I appreciate you trying to mediate between us @ARoseWolf Stephanie921 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left the article alone to see what happened; but as the discussions on the director's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography seem to have stalled, I think we should follow the past RfC now 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

PROD
I have removed your PROD tag for the following reasons;
 * Other stuff exists(or in this case, not). That other similar articles do not exist does not mean this one should not, it means other articles should be created. I would be happy to see other similar articles about non Western politicians if they too meet the criteria.
 * This is a notable event itself, which world leaders attended. Perhaps it's wrong that the death of a US President gets more attention than the death of a former head of state from a smaller country, but that is the media's bias, not Wikipedia's. The media coverage would strongly suggest that this event meets notability.
 * You seem to be arguing for a merge, not deletion. If this were merged, the already long George Bush article would be longer. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Dwayne Johnson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Why would you move this? &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite block
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this account likely having been compromised. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sad, no matter how frustrated you may be there is no reason to justify damaging the encyclopedia even if you knew it would get reverted. That's deliberate. There is generally good faith in your editing and maybe you have an explanation other than frustration, idk. I would like to know why. We all get frustrated and sometimes we say or do things we regret. It's going to take acknowledgement, acceptance, listening to others and a commitment to remediation to fix this. If nothing else I hope you learn that in life and are successful. -- A Rose Wolf  20:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * bruh Lolkikmoddi (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Indef block rationale subsequently updated to abusing multiple accounts; see Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened here?? In all our interactions Stephanie seemed totally pleasant. Huh. Ovinus (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hitler
Hello, Stephanie921! I only now got your old post about an alleged mistake of mine, which I cannaot retrieve again. What kind of mistake do you assume? Note that we muddled through three different biographies of Hitler in school. So, be careful, please. HJJHolm (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)