User talk:Sweet6970

Welcome!
[hostile "Welcome" message deleted]


 * I was astonished to see this ‘Welcome to Wikipedia’ template on my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia for more than a year, and I have previously engaged in discussions with you on the Talk pages of two articles, plus the MOS page. Your post above says ‘Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV).’ You have not specified the edit concerned, nor what is wrong with it.


 * I await these details. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Surely you know it's about the lead we're discussing? You didn't have a welcome message, that one seemed appropriate. Doug Weller  talk 20:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The “Welcome” template says ‘Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV).’ This does not make sense unless there is an edit of mine whose neutrality you dispute.


 * As regards a ‘Welcome’: I got an automatic message when I created my account. Your “Welcome” message is the most unwelcoming I have ever received. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 11:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As a private individual I do, indeed, have some interest in current American politics. However, I don’t know how you know this, since I have never edited any pages to do with post-1932 USA politics. Have you picked the wrong template?  Sweet6970 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn, that was meant for another editor, I've struck it out. Feel free to delete it. Doug Weller  talk 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose an alliance
Hi.

I wondered if you wanted to have an alliance to help each other.

On the "list of terrorist incidents in London" page, they keep removing a few bombing attacks carried out by the suffragettes between 1912-1914, because they think it's anti-feminist blah blah blah. If I reinstate it they will just keep blocking me, but if an established user (you) could revert their deletes then they wouldn't be able to make the argument that it's just me trying to reinstate it.

If you'd reinstate it, I'd help support your edits on other pages in return. I know that you previously tried to clarify on the 2011 London riots page that Mark Duggan's shooting was judged to be legal - I'd be happy to help you reinstate this statement in the intro again if you help me out.

Let me know ASAP. Soundofthedrums (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I edit as an individual and I do not wish to engage in an alliance with any other editors.
 * I refer you to  Canvassing  Sweet6970 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawn Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that edit!
I didn't catch that the user was fixing a quote per WP:NOTCENSORED when they edited the 2011 England riots article. I see that you restored the changes; I'm glad to see that you did this - thank you. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so nice about being reverted. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem! It was my mistake - you have every right to revert any of my edits or changes if they're wrong. :-) I hope you're doing well and that you have a safe holiday. Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 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. You're clearly POV pushing, we are done with having the same argument linked to dodgy or misrepresented sources. Numerous editors have dismissed your dubious claims outright. Please stop. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (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.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABacondrum
 * Dry up.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerking
Just as an FYI FFR: clerking is common at noticeboards. This link is to a failed proposal to formalize a system, but it explains the idea. It's fine to disagree that a particular clerical action was an improvement -- that too is common -- but clerking isn't unusual at many noticeboards across the project, including AN and ANI. You'll see people there closing discussions, collapsing stuff, asking people to strike a comment or revise it, whatever. We call that clerking. It's considered generally helpful. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the link you have provided. None of the ‘Services’ described in the list applies to my posts at ANI. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just explaining what clerking is. —valereee (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary interaction avoidance
I am hereby formally giving you notice that on the talk page of Forstater v CDG, I am for the time being withdrawing from engaging with you.

The current engagements with you are not constructive. Primarily the tone you use is hostile and aggressive. I also believe you do not engage in viewing me as making any edits in good faith. As a result, I believe the discussions that you and I are likely to engage in are not going to be helpful or constructive, taking up more time than either of us should be, and would be a waste for both of us.

This is not a though blank cheque from me for you to impose your preferred version of the article. I will simply not be interacting with you on the talk page.

I am prepared to revise this position should you demonstrate and/or show signs of good faith towards me and tone down your unnecessary hostility.

I feel it is impossible at this given you have demonstrated intransigence, hostility and bad faith assumptions towards me, to work constructively with you.

I look forward to hopefully working collaboratively with you, and that you can make a show of good faith towards this.

I thank you for your understanding here.

Sparkle1 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just a suggestion that your version of the article on Maya Forstater v CGD should remain unchallenged. I am not the one who is imposing my preferred version of the article. You have taken the existing version, and imposed a series of damaging edits on it, and refused to engage in discussion about my objections to them. You have also engaged in further edits to the article on 26 June, whilst attempting to ban me from editing it. Your latest edits also do not improve the article. You could demonstrate your good faith by restoring the article to where it was before all of your damaging edits. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The terminology and language you are using like "damaging" and sentences like "This is just a suggestion that your version of the article on Maya Forstater v CGD should remain unchallenged." only reinforces that you are not prepared to engage constructively. It also reinforces that you are a bad-faith actor here. An example of how little understanding you have is that have no idea how abbreviations work. You claim that they are not explained, when every single one has been explained in the first instance they are used in the article. This is standard use in English writing. You are also making things up and are creating a lot of accusatory rubbish with statements saying things such as "whilst attempting to ban me from editing it". This is just a load of hokum and evidence you are not looking at the article as anything other than a battleground. The above response to what I have said only reinforces that I have made the correct decision to not engage with you on this article and that I am unlikely to engage with you should we encounter each other on other articles. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this means there will be no more unpleasantness and fictional accusations from you, and if you are not going to engage with me, then that must mean that you will not be reverting my edits any more. Since you refuse to engage in collaborative discussion, it is not possible to have any fruitful interaction with you. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk: Bell v Tavistock
Didn't want to say on the BvT talk page, because WP:NOTFORUM, but wanted to let you know I too have been knocked back the last few days. Got my annual flu vaccine last week and been utterly exhausted since! It's OK to take our time to get the page right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been unwell several times over the last month. If I stop replying to you for a while, it’ll probably be because I don’t feel up to it. Regards. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Spiked
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Spiked (magazine). 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.
 * 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.

Boynamedsue (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Don’t be silly. You unilaterally changed a long-standing agreed version, with an edit summary which showed that your edit was based on your own opinion. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and it is now up to you to obtain consensus for your preferred version on the Talk page. You should not have reverted me – that is not the accepted procedure in this situation. You must know that 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 because this is in the template which you have inappropriately placed on my Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of category from article
I see that you have inappropriately removed a valid category based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. The category in question in simply a valid country sub category within an existing category tree, that the article was already included and clearly belonged in. Including it a country sub category was entirely appropriate and uncontroversial. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It would be better if you had kept this discussion where it started – on your Talk page. It is confusing when a discussion is spread across more than one page. Therefore, I am copying this response to your own Talkpage.
 * 2) You say that the LGB Alliance article was already included in a general ‘opposed to LGBT rights category’. It was not. Your statement is false.
 * 3) You say I removed it because I don’t like it. I don’t like it when Wikipedia gives false information.
 * 4) I also don’t like it when editors make false statements about me. You should address the issue, instead of inventing motivations for me.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is about your problematic and unjustified removal of a relevant category, and your subsequent edit warring against multiple editors. Your removal is obviously based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any valid reason, as multiple editors have explained to you. Your claim that the category wasn't already included in the parent hierarchy is false. It was included in a country sub category based on its inclusion in one of the thematic sub categories of the same category. The only new statement made through the inclusion of the country sub category was the country in which the organisation is based, which doesn't appear to be questionable or disputed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Copied from AAB's Talk page) See Talk:LGB Alliance. I came to your Talk page out of courtesy, to explain my edit. There is no further purpose in engaging with you here. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of category from article 2
You have also done the same thing to me, removing the LGB alliance designation as a far-right extremist by reputable sources. You cite "angreed changes", what does that even mean? Your editing is clearly biased. Please do not jeopardise the intellectual honesty of wikipedia and report false things by omission. Kindly leave this article alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken – the disagreement above was about Wikipedia categories – these are at the very bottom of articles. The disagreement we have is about the wording of the intro to the article (often called the ‘lead’ or ‘lede’). This article is much contested, and if you want to make a change to the intro, you should start a discussion on the article’s Talk page. There is currently a discussion going on, which you may wish to join. Please sign your posts by using this sign ~ 4 times.
 * I also recommend that you read WP:EDITWAR and WP:5P, wth particular reference to civility.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fake intellectual honesty. ObjectiveBiology (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

BBC Controveries
I think I meant "denounced" rather than "renounced". (I'll admit I'm not having much luck with this!) "Denied" just doesn't feel strong enough. It feels like they gamely accepted being accused and put forward the case for the defence, whereas I wanted to get across the point that the accusation of the slur(s) by the BBC caused offence and outrage in itself to the victims and community (after the police had already given their reasons for rejecting the accusation and closing down that part of their investigation).Romomusicfan (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that you wish to make the statement of denial stronger, but firstly, ‘denounced’ is not the right word, and secondly, Wikipedia has to be neutral, just reporting what the sources say. The article already includes the objections e.g. the statement that the parents have accused the BBC of ‘demonising’ their children. Looking at the section again, I consider that ‘victims’ should be changed to ‘youths’, because using the word ‘victim’ is not neutral.
 * How about using ‘categorically denied’ in quotation marks, since that is actually in the source? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Better idea - restored the original "rejected" to the bus party and changed the police reaction to "dismissed" Romomusicfan (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources say "victims", and you agree we should report what the sources say. How should we determine when not to use the language of a source? Doug Weller  talk 10:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr Weller. An interesting question, to which I think there is no answer which is generally applicable. But in this case, the word ‘victim’ is not neutral, because one view of this incident is that the people on the bus were the original aggressors.
 * The word ‘victim’ is used by the Jewish Chronicle. At it says There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics. This incident involved accusations of antisemitism on one side, and Islamophobia on the other. In view of the consensus that the JC is generally considered to be biased on these topics, and that ‘victim’ is a judgment as to who is right/wrong, I think that the word 'victim' should not be used.


 * However, I did not look at the Telegraph source, because I don’t have access to it. I now see that the Telegraph also uses the word ‘victim’ in its headline. But I still think that the nature of the incident, and the conflicting allegations, mean that the word ‘victims’ should be avoided, to preserve neutrality.


 * In fact, now that you have raised this point, I have looked at the section again, and I now think that the heading for this incident is biased – it should be ‘ alleged antisemitic incident’.


 * I await your comments on this matter.


 * By the way, in view of your comment at are you now going to interrogate me on my beliefs about antisemitism, Islamophobia, Israel/Palestine, life, the universe, and everything?


 * I’m biased, you’re biased, we’re all biased. The hope on Wikipedia is that we can correct this, because we can see other people’s bias more clearly than our own. If my bias affects my editing, then this should be apparent to people with the opposite bias. And the bias in my editing should be brought to my attention – by quoting the diffs, and by telling me what is biased about them. I should not be interrogated about my beliefs. And despite the onslaught against my proposal, I still believe that Wikipedia is not the thought police.


 * Sweet6970 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This issue does not necessarily relate to the Middle East - there is no specific indication that any of the antisemitic abuse related to Middle Eastern issues - if anything the abusers just shouted straight-up anti-Jewish slurs and spat at the vehicle.Romomusicfan (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I gather the non-use of the term "victims" by the BBC is also something of a sore point - the bus party and their supporters maintain that under any other context this word would automatically be used.
 * Also you have any reliable sources that claim that the character of the abuse was anything other than purely antisemitic? If not, in which case it is beyond dispute that the abuse was antisemitic, then "alleged" is redundant.Romomusicfan (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, but please don’t insert a comment into an existing post – it’s confusing. I have moved your comment here.
 * I’m happy with your latest change to the article (‘rejected’ and ‘dismissed’).
 * As regards the Middle East – my comment was about an entirely separate issue, which has developed into some heated exchanges elsewhere. As far as I can see, you have not been involved in this, so I would respectfully suggest that it may be best if you ignore that part of my post.
 * Regarding the use of the words ‘victims’ in the text, and ‘alleged’ in the section header: as far as I am aware, the police are still investigating this incident, so the facts are still, in effect, in dispute, and Wikipedia should not assume that a crime has been committed unless and until there has been a conviction. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I agree, if there's been no court adjudication this is a crime, we can't suggest that there are victims. Doug Weller  talk 17:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any issue that a crime was committed - the issue under police investigation is the personal identity of the perpetrators. We don't know who Jack the Ripper was but no one would say that his victims were "allegedly murdered." Romomusicfan (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * to Doug Weller :Thank you for your response. Do you also agree that the section header should include ‘alleged antisemitic incident’ i.e. we’re not disputing that the incident occurred, but that the question of it being antisemitic is still in question?
 * to Romomusicfan: This is a different kind of crime. There is no doubt that there was an incident, but it is disputed whether it involved antisemitism. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any such dispute going on anywhere other than here? Maybe one of the assailants was only pointing his arm in the air like that because he was waving to a friend? Romomusicfan (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF. I don't appreciate your question and what it insinuates. It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question. Doug Weller  talk 13:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Weller: I do not make insinuations – I prefer to be direct - and I’m sorry that you thought I did. I always try to assume good faith, and I aim to always act in good faith myself. I find it wounding that others so often assume that I am acting in bad faith. (I’m actually beginning to wonder if it is the fact that I always try to be simple and direct which arouses others’ suspicions.) My question was sincere. I am concerned about this kind of thing: and  which includes But if it is ideological purity to require Wikipedians to believe that homosexuality is not an illness, women deserve equality with men and transgender people are valid then I am an ideological purist. The UCoC requires this so that nobody is unwelcome on the basis of identity. I am not a liberal and am here to build an encyclopedia based on existing sources, not to "seek the truth". [emphasis mine] The comment of yours which I linked suggested to me that you agree that it is permissible to question editors about their beliefs. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not interested in moving that discussion here. Life’s too short. Doug Weller  talk 19:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is better pursued on the Talk page of the BBC controversies article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences in medicine
Please stick around there. A commitment to NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and a halfway decent understanding of sourcing rules is more than enough to be very effective and helpful. Other editors there also lack a medical background, and the ones that do can still make mistakes about NPOV etc., or edit like they are writing an academic article. Crossroads -talk- 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don’t want to edit that article – I wouldn’t want to read an article on medicine that I had edited (!) But I was annoyed by the casual misstatement about breast cancer. I apologise for oversharing my medical history – I thought I’d deleted that bit, but I was being driven wild by repeated edit conflicts. I don’t know how to deal with edit conflicts, other than to abandon my edit and try again.
 * I’ve actually been trying to avoid the gender wars. With mediocre and diminishing success. And I have a feeling that my intervention at AE may have made things worse, rather than better. My comments at What Wikipedia is not certainly backfired spectacularly. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as edit conflicts go, I'd recommend doing what I do: keeping a notepad open (whatever software or app you like) and pasting Talk page compositions into it before pressing "Publish changes". (In fact, I currently have a phone that sometimes loses my draft edits when I switch tabs, so I occasionally copy-paste to the notepad in mid-composition, to "save my work".) This doesn't eliminate edit-conflict aggro completely, but it does avoid the worst scenarios. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding edit conflicts – I usually draft my posts in Word, and copy and paste it. I don’t know what went wrong; I was pretty sure I’d deleted that sentence before I pressed ‘Publish’. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

AN/I
I raised your conduct at the administrator's noticeboard here. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I would very much like to see people engage in good faith, and look for common ground. My hope is we can dispense with this quickly and get back to constructive editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to drop it, and I appreciate your comment that your edit summary wasn't tactful. I simply would like people to engage with each other with a goal of finding agreement, and I don't particularly like to wade into these battlegrounds. And without knowing your editing history, it's possible you share the same view. My comment at ArbCom was very much to remind people not to get caught in the battleground, and that includes how you react to reminders about basic WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPOV. Something to consider before you get sucked deeper into the battleground and it becomes too late. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for your comment. I find myself being increasingly frustrated at being misunderstood on Wikipedia. I realise that it is extremely easy to be misinterpreted on Wikipedia, so I try to be simple and direct in what I say. But this is not the first time that I have had the experience of people thinking I mean the opposite of what I say. Once someone has assumed that, there is nothing I can say or do to convince them otherwise.


 * I think the problem with the expression-which-shall-not-pass-my-keyboard may be that it is used in a different way in the USA than in Britain, where I live. There also may be a problem in that I am much older than many editors, so that I have a different set of associations. I decline to discuss my political views, because that is not what Wikipedia is for, but I think of George Orwell as a well-known socialist. But I’m guessing that American editors think that this expression is only used by the right-wing, and has a completely different significance from my associations, which are simply anti-totalitarian.


 * I apologise for my edit summary, which was rude. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like I messed up the ping. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents as an American: that much of the American so-called left has in the last few years begun to consider opposition to thought-policing to be a "right-wing" position is extremely telling. Crossroads -talk- 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the apology and hope this can put things back on track. I was mostly focused on the edit summary. Explaining what the word "not" means is, at best, not actually helpful. Yes, some things are lost in translation. I find it pays to use plain language as much as possible, so as to not be misunderstood, let alone inflame things. It does take constant effort to speak plainly, and I know I don't always achieve that result either.
 * If you really think about it, drawing analogies to fictional books could only make a point less clear, as well as more dramatic. I don't think your "thought police" argument violates any conduct policies, but I do think it's an empty exaggeration that doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion. I remain a big fan of Orwell, but it just doesn't apply here. No one is ever sanctioned for thought crimes on Wikipedia. Of course, there is a massive pile of blocked users who violated every conduct policy, who still swear their only crime was their passionate beliefs. There aren't enough eyerolls for these blocked users, let alone the irony that BOTH sides of the biggest WP:BATTLEGROUNDs insist that they are being persecuted by the other side.
 * Even for the really agreeable idea that totalitarianism is bad, keep in mind that Wikipedia policy number one is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes, someone might be horrified if they had to live under principles like WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. But no one is asking you to live your life under these policies. (Step away from the computer and have fun.) They are only asking you to build an encyclopedia under these policies. "Well that's my honest viewpoint" isn't just a poor defense when you violate WP:NPA or WP:INCIVIL. Personal viewpoints are also completely irrelevant to the project (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX). The whole point of the project is to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic, whether we agree with those reliable sources or not. There are complexities in the details, but I imagine so many discussions would go better if people focused on those basic things. For what it's worth, I think the project would do better if editors did what you suggested and remember that Wikipedia isn't about our personal viewpoints. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair Play for Women/National Records of Scotland Judicial Review
Heyo. A while back we did some good work together on the Bell v Tavistock appeal and was hoping for some advice. Do you think the judicial review Fair Play for Women brought against National Records of Scotland is notable enough to warrant its own article? I'm not sure of the notability requirements for legal cases, beyond WP:GNG. The judgement was released a few hours ago, and there are a number of RS covering it BBC, STV, The Guardian, The National, The Herald, The Telegraph. I've already made a note of the judgement at 2021 United Kingdom census. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those kind words – as I remember it, you were the one who was doing most of the work. I’m perhaps not the best person to ask about notability, as I’ve never created an article, and as far as I remember, I’ve not been involved in any discussions about notability. In my view, Bell v Tavistock is notable because of the practical implications of the original judgment, and because there were many comments about it because of the general public interest in the issues involved. I think that the decision on the census does not have the same general level of relevance to the public, and the reports in the Guardian, the BBC and STV you have linked do not say much  about the judgment, other than just the fact of what was decided. I don’t think this counts as ‘significant coverage’. I don’t have access to the Herald and the Telegraph. So at present, I would say that this case does not warrant an article on its own. This may change if there is an appeal, or if there is further public comment.  Best wishes Sweet6970 (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. Even this brief sanity check/rubber ducking has helped. I think you're right about the impact, while it will have an effect on the Scottish census for most of the public it doesn't have much relevance. I'll keep an eye out for an appeal, but having seen some reactions from legal folks on social media I'm not convinced they have grounds for it.
 * For source access to the Herald and Telegraph, I've found a surprising amount of articles are full text archived in either web.archive.org or archive.today, usually within 24 hours of publishing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation
Hello, I realize the way I worded that may have been a bit more inflammatory than was necessary. Would it be okay if I just took out any reference to real living people? Endwise (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern was with a possible BLP violation, since your original version contained a statement which I thought could be interpreted as defamatory, even though I thought this was probably not your intention. I reverted it to be on the safe side. Thank you for amending your comment – the current version looks fine to me. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Conversation
I’m sorry that this account I am using put private info up. Me and a friend share an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoOldLadyFan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Have you or your friend added dates of birth to any other article?


 * You should not be sharing a Wikipedia account: you or your friend should create a separate account, and edit independently.


 * Wikipedia has lots of rules and procedures which may not be obvious to newcomers. I’ve been editing for three years and I’m still by no means an expert. A small point is that edits should only be marked as ‘minor’ when they do not change the meaning of the article, or the post. For instance, correcting a typo should be marked ‘m’, but making a new post on my Talk page is not a ‘minor’ edit in Wikipedia terms. And, on Talk pages (but not in articles) you should sign your posts by typing the ~ sign 4 times.


 * Sweet6970 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk: Forstater case
I understand what it feels like to run out of patience, but this is not a notably civil or constructive comment, particularly in response to interlocutors who have gone somewhat above and beyond to avoid snark, to AGF and to remain polite in the face of apparent hostility (e.g., I would not accept the outcome of a 3O).

Disengagement, on the other hand, is a good thing. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - biographies of living people
Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Mermaids
Hi, I have no idea what happened there, but my edit undid your edit. I was editing before you published, looks like a quirk of mobile editor. Completely unintentional, sorry.  Tewdar  20:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll do it again. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. It just let me overwrite your edit with no warning at all. Sorry about that.  Tewdar   20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One ‘sorry’ is enough (!) These things happen. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar, what are you doing? You've just undone all my changes- again. I'm trying to make the section consistent in referring to The Daily Telegraph each time. Do you have some objection to this? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 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)

Alternate account
Alternate account Sweet69702 created 13 December 2022 because I have had trouble logging-in to my account. Sweet69702 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sweet6970!


Happy New Year! Sweet6970, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and the same to you!Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Your edit to Metropolitan Police has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can’t see that there is much difference between my version and yours, and I don’t understand why you object to my version. Please explain. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Sweet6970. There were small bits of unique wording copied from The Guardian article that were easy to paraphrase. So I did so, as you could have/should have realized it was not okay to copy. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If they were small bits of wording, then I don’t see how I could have breached copyright. And by the way, I have just altered your revision of the wording about Chris Kaba, because it gave incorrect information. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mridul Wadhwa. 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.  Inspector Eevee  (talk) 01:24, 6 February 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.
 * It appears that either you have not read the history of the article, or you have not read the inappropriate template which you have left above. The template says about edit warring: This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. I have made one revert on Mridul Wadhwa. This is not ‘repeatedly’. I recommend that you read WP:NPA which says that personal attacks include Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alerts - gender and sexuality, biographies of living people
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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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.

These notes are just to inform you of the changeover from the former discretionary sanctions system to the new contentious topics system. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Separating damages and costs
Spot on - you’re quite right of course. Springnuts (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia
I often see you, always attached to smart edits. Thank you! Isthistwisted (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! When I saw there was a message on my Talk page, I assumed it was some kind of complaint. Pleased to meet you – you’ve made my day! Sweet6970 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2023 (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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

On classification of birds
Hello! I've noticed your edits in the Nanshe article, specifically their summaries in which you state birds are not animals. However, this seems to be a mistake - the class Aves is, in fact, classified as a part of the kingdom Animalia (as opposed to Fungi, Monera, etc). In other words, birds are animals. Hope this helps with further editing. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. However, the article on Nanshe is not about biology. In ordinary English, referring to a bird as an animal would be a mistake. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970 Huh? Birds are absolutely referred to in ordinary English as animals. How would you refer to them? Like, if someone were to list their favorite animals, and included, say, owls, how would you correct their categorization? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d refer to owls as birds, not animals. But I realised that some people refer to birds as animals, so I abandoned my challenge to the wording of the article. This seems to be one of those wrinkles of different usage in the English language, which I had not come across before. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I ask you only out of curiosity about this wrinkle, not to challenge you any further about editing: are reptiles, fish, amphibians, insects, and worms animals in the typical usage you’re familiar with? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that reptiles, amphibians, and worms are animals, but not fish or insects. I had never noticed this before, but to me an animal has to be terrestrial. Insects are borderline. I have discovered on Wikipedia that the English language is more curious than I had realised – there are many variations, which don’t always line up with the simple expected variants, like British (which I am) and American. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How interesting! Are amphibians not borderline? What are corals and whales? Would you say that you might, in this form of speech, divide life into groups including the animals, the birds, the fish, and maybe the insects (among others)? Thank you for answering these questions, and I hope you understand I ask them out of only earnest curiosity. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 21:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that my use of these words is logical, and I’m certainly not claiming that they are biologically accurate. It is merely my intuitive way of using the English language, learnt as a child.
 * When I think of amphibians, I only think of frogs – they have legs and move around on the ground, therefore they are animals to me. Coral, to me, is the mineral stuff that is made into jewellery. When I think of living coral, I have to remind myself that biologically it is animal, not vegetable. But that is adult knowledge. I have a vague memory of being taken aback when I was about ten or eleven, when I was told that whales, unlike sharks, are not fish, and breathe air. But they live in the sea! How can you live in the sea and breathe air? It’s not sensible. Nowadays I think of them as marine mammals – but that’s not an intuitive classification.
 * Birds, fish, and insects cover many different creatures, and therefore they seem to me to be mutually exclusive categories. Most of the animals that I was aware of as a child were mammals, which are definitely different from birds. So I think of the categories of birds and animals as being mutually exclusive.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You can read more here about capitalisation of ethno-racial colour labels
MOS:RACECAPS

As well as British usage:

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/style-guides/writing/inclusive/ethnicity-race/

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/capsandabbr/caps

https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/ethnicity-religion-and-nationality

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/key-areas-of-work/race-discrimination

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/digital-design-toolkit/editorial-style-guide

Freee Contributor (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware of RACECAPS which says: Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * 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,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed