Hello, Adoring nanny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction andGetting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page andHow to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete theWikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit theTeahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, orask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!Vsmith (talk)16:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mSrich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have aneutral point of view. Your recent edit toSocialism 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 onmy talk page. Thank you. –S. Rich (talk)03:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not addoriginal research ornovel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did toEurabia. Please cite areliable source for all of your contributions.Basically the sources need to discuss the subject of the article,which is very different from writing an essay where you can use sources not discussing the subject to build up an argument.Doug Wellertalk18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on the article's talk page.Adoring nanny (talk)20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it and replied. And removed a whole section someone else wrote where the sources were about something else entirely.Doug Wellertalk17:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)r[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleNASA Martian Bee Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASA Martian Bee Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.power~enwiki (π,ν)02:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edits to the subject page. They were fairly major edits. We can certainly discuss the matter further on the article talk page, if you wish. a one line mention of the article may be valuable however it's not something worthy of editing the lead or features sections.Labattblueboy (talk)13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJoey Watkins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Watkins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Magnolia677 (talk)18:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBrian Frosh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEmoluments Clause (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adoring nanny. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adoring nanny. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in theArab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or anypage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Wellertalk20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to any content relating to the conflict even if the article itself isn't devoted to it. I see you last few edits have been in violation of this. I'm presuming you didn't read the section headinghere.Doug Wellertalk20:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I missed that. Sorry.Adoring nanny (talk)23:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Doug Wellertalk08:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedKillian documents authenticity issues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Ralph Northam yearbook page with Klan robe and blackface.png, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.B (talk)13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedForeign interventions by the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAxis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to the talk page of the Murder of Hae Min Lee article for discussion about the edits..

Thank you,

Cynistrategus (talk)09:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once there was a small country with a mighty army. They fought with considerable skill and won many victories. However, the more victories they won, the more enemies they made, and eventually they were thrown onto the defensive. They continued fighting with considerable skill, but in the end they were defeated. Their terrific tactical skill, which is admired to this day, did not make up for their lack of grand strategy.Adoring nanny (talk)12:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened aThird Opinion Dispute on the Murder of Hae Min Lee page.

Cynistrategus (talk)17:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted an article that was sourced with reliable secondary sources. In addition many of the claims from Undisclosed and all from the Undisclosed Wiki and a Reddit AMA are not Wikipedia Reliable sources.

Cynistrategus (talk)08:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesBecause you may disagree with the content of a journalistic reliable source does not mean that you can just revert them away. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cynistrategus (talk)02:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also please review the one about BLPs above.EvergreenFir(talk)04:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The closer ofRfC: Taki's Magazine said: "There is also agreement that even as an opinion publication this source should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF)." The closer (ontalk page thread Taki's Magazine RfC said thatyour comment indicated that you do not disagree. Is that correct?Peter Gulutzan (talk)14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems about right.Adoring nanny (talk)23:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I was wrong. Thank you.Peter Gulutzan (talk)00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	You have a true and honest heart
	I'd just like to let you know that I appreciate your attempts at trying to keep the Daniel Holtzclaw article fair and unbiased. I too believe he's being treated unfairly, and that those who have been opposing you on your contributions to his article are being belligerently ignorant in order to maintain a "politically correct status quo."N432138 (talk)08:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use ofgeneral sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are describedhere.
Broadly,general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behaviour, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is loggedhere. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Wellertalk11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in theArab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Wellertalk11:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:WHO January 2020 Covid tweet.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to overwhelm/distract at the RfC, so I'll provide this information for you here. This is from the Mueller Report:

Conspiracy/coordination"requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." The Trump campaign did take myriad proven"actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests", but without evidence of a formal written or spoken agreement (the "more than the two parties..."), conspiracy could not be proven, even if everything done, and the results of those actions, indicated that such an understanding existed, regardless of whether a formal "agreement" existed. Conspirators usually avoid leaving such evidence.

Keep in mind that, already starting in 2015, EIGHT foreign allied intelligence agencies incidentally recorded numerous Trump campaign members and associates secretly meeting with known Russian intelligence agents (who were being monitored) and discussing the coming election. The campaign lied about all these contacts. Their conversations were so worrying and a threat to American democracy that those intelligence agencies reported their findings to the FBI (and maybe CIA). The Trump campaign was deeply involved with Russian intelligence in planning election interference to help Trump. That's collusion, no matter how it's defined. --Valjean (talk)17:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1]Adoring nanny (talk)19:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? One right-wing think tank doesn't trump myriad RS. We have WHOLE articles about this, and the RS in them tell a very different story. BTW, which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? --Valjean (talk)20:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that editors based in mainland China (if there are any, in the first place) comment the way they do out of fear of legal ramifications is not far-removed from the tired trope"do you have a connection to the Chinese state", and thus dangerously close to aWP:WIAPA violation. And your assertion that Xinhua is a "CCP organ" is aWP:SOAPBOX-level falsehood, asour own article states it isministry-level institution subordinate to theState Council, not any Party apparatus such as thePolitburo Standing Committee.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also disturbed by that same comment. Wikipedia allows people of all nationalities to edit, and suggesting that editors from one country be discounted goes fundamentally against the values of the project. -Thucydides411 (talk)20:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be certain that I don't like the reality of it either. But it is also factual. SeeRen Zhiqiang. If it would make the two of you happier, I could change it to something that is purely factual and leave the motivation part out, i.e. "participants from mainland China risk arrest and disappearance if they are too critical of the CCP." Would that be an improvement?Adoring nanny (talk)20:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating a critical essay written by a very high-profile tycoon (Mr. Ren) with Wikipedia editing, which I doubt the Central Government gives a hoot about it vis-a-vis surveilling dissidents, is a bad look, but, alas, I have come to expect that from the comments on RS/N.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPS:WP:Disinformation contains documented cases of government sponsored disinformation on Wikipedia. Always looking for new entries that are verifiable :) My opinion: the Chinese government does care about Wikipedia. If they have UPE on Wikipedia has never been determined, as far as I know, beyond suspicions. --GreenC14:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @User:Adoring nanny! I really don't understand why you think, that I have COI. Am I interested in the antivirus program topic? Yes, I am. Is it COI? I don't think so. I have joined the wiki community because I've read the wiki for a long time, and now want to develop it with other volunteers. Also, I've joined for fun, but not forWP:HOUND. Please stop depreciating my contributions. Your actions look likeWP:VD --Maketimus (talk)10:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. Additionally, you need to followWP:BRD.Adoring nanny (talk)12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @User:Ridwan97, @User:Jaredscribe, @User:JBW! I've seen that you have contributions in antivirus software topic. I have conflict with @User:Adoring nanny. Adoring nanny has reverted all my changesAvast Antivirus,MacKeeper,Panda Cloud Antivirus. Can you help us solve this conflict? I really don't know why this user blame me for CoI. --Maketimus (talk)07:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirectWikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.Guy(help! -typo?)19:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Guy Macon (talk)18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I foundthis recently and thought you might be interested. While I'm sure it wouldn't pass muster as a "WP:RS" - slowly but surely the facts are leaking out IMO. And it's really funny howthings get archived IJS.— Ched (talk)04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable" canard is hopeless, and I choose not to fight it. Just document the fact that reality is clear now, and let theWP:V folks insist that zoonosis nonsense is "verifiable".Adoring nanny (talk)10:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I normally avoid politics altogether on wiki, not sure why I felt the need to say "keep" at the the MfD, but I'm still glad it was kept. HAGD— Ched (talk)11:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,China COVID-19 Cover-up, is not suitable as written to remain published. The article raises concerns about neutralityWP:NPOV and due weight to an alledged cover-up. China's response has wide coverage across the Covid article spectrum, especiallyCOVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Propaganda. Therefore, this strikes me as POV-Fork. I may be missing something, hence moving to Draft instead of a Deletion discussion. I suggest to follow theWP:AFC process for an additional set of eyes. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page._pseudonymJake Brockman^talk00:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda is different from hiding information. A quick look shows that there is abundant sourcing on exactly the question of cover-up.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Adoring nanny (talk)00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to double check the "Propaganda" section. It goes into a lot of detail around censorship, handling of whistleblowers, questions around accuracy of data, questions around virus origin and so forth. All this can easily be a substitute for "cover up". Plus, there's alsoCOVID-19 misinformation which looks at all sorts of angles surrounding this._pseudonymJake Brockman^talk00:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cover-up is about hiding information. That is not the same as misinformation. Indeed, some of the material of the draft was deleted from the misinformation page on grounds that it is off-topic there.Adoring nanny (talk)00:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou.Shibbolethink^(♔♕)00:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to useTemplate:Sources-talk as it adds a second inner collapse inside the template, that contains all the sources within. You can do it like this:

{{ctop}}

(content)

{{Sources-talk}}

{{cbot}}

This has the effect of removing those sources from any subsequent references, but it will also "catch" any pre-collapse sources, so watch out for that. I love wiki-formatting, as you may have noticed! :) --Shibbolethink^(♔♕)16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip!

Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofDraft:China COVID-19 cover-up during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed atDraft:China COVID-19 cover-up. Thanks!Hatchens (talk)03:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very close to reporting you for using Wikipedia as an advocacy soapbox. Part of the obviousWP:NOTHERE evidence was linked at the current MfD. Since reports usually require a previous warning I wanted to make sure that you knew about it. Also linking the previously receivedalert. —PaleoNeonate –07:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KristinaLu has given you acookie! Cookies promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi there!

I really appreciate your comment[[10]] about how to keep only the best sources in Wikipedia in an unprecedented situation.

Also, while I was here I also noticedyour essay. I have started a user essay of my own, and while it's kind of along similar lines in that it is counter toWP:NOLABLEAK (I swear I didn't copy you idea haha!) the explicit intent is a bit different. The idea is to allow the scientific process to work on its own, while Wikipedia does Wikipedia's jobbased on common sense inclusion of sources rather than be inflexible beyond reason.

Would you be interested in contributing to the section about the joint WHO-China study? If so I'll let you know once I have something posted.

Happy editing,KristinaLu (talk)21:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not doing more along those lines for now. I fall squarely into one of the categories that is notWP:SPA, but I want to avoid any trouble along those lines.Adoring nanny (talk)02:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love the awesome rocket picture on your user page! I'm totally adding it to myrandom cool picture generator :D

––FORMALDUDE^(talk)15:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleChina COVID-19 cover-up allegations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/China COVID-19 cover-up allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sceptre (talk)18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was that youused square brackets in the section title. Ifixed it by using round brackets.VR_talk17:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk)17:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also its generally better to strike out comments, as opposed todeleting them, after someone has responded to them.VR_talk18:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the tradition. In this case, however, the comment has nothing to do with the discussion. That's why I suggested deletion and did delete after your fix (thanks). For a substantive comment, I would not have done that.Adoring nanny (talk)18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.VR_talk18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adoring nanny, I think you have grounds for an ArbCom case.LondonIP (talk)22:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. a general rule of Wikipedia is that it is best to take things calmly. I'm not going to ANI, let alone arbcom.Adoring nanny (talk)23:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without arbitration, I doubt your draft will pass, but I will try to help with the sources I've read. I recommend to start collecting diffs of all arguments made to POVDELETE content, like theWP:AGEMATTERS andWP:REDFLAG,here andhere. WP:ARBCOM is the right venue for this.LondonIP (talk)19:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too sure. It seems to me that it's one user strongly objecting and several others indifferent. In general,WP:AC is a terrible place for content disputes.Adoring nanny (talk)19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.[11] Removal of a source simply because you disagree with its conclusions is exactly the opposite of NPOV. — Shibbolethink^(♔♕)22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shibbolethink, The first step inWP:BRD is in fact B. There is nothing improper about making a bold edit. Getting into an edit war, without discussing, would be improper. I would add that your message misses the mark as I neither added commentary, nor my point of view, nor any analysis to the article. I request that you retract the insinuation that I did so.Adoring nanny (talk)01:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a POV warrior. Yes that explains the otherwise inexplicably bizarre behavior at[12]. FYI, I'll pursue a topic ban if this ever again bleeds into article space.VQuakr (talk)03:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:VQuakr, please strike perWP:NPA.Adoring nanny (talk)03:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack not found, unless we're talking about your baseless accusation at[13].VQuakr (talk)05:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Came here after noticing this raised at RSN, and then was pretty shocked to see this[14] removal of an obviously high-quality source (and also depressed to see people still banging on about this topic). Could be that AE is soon needed.Alexbrn (talk)15:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. It is allowed to make aWP:BOLD edit once. If reverted, one is supposed to discuss, which I did. It was one thing to have Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian disagree with me. But when DGG also did, the answer was clear. I have now accepted the general opinion that the source should be kept. I do still believe we need to explain Frutos' reasoning more fully. All of this is part of the normal editorial process.Adoring nanny (talk)15:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeWP:CAREFUL. An obviously bad edit to anyone withWP:CLUE, and apparently part of a disruptive pattern of POV-pushing. Your only seeing the obvious when a certain named editor gives their word too, rather compounds the problem.Alexbrn (talk)21:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a borderlineWP:NPA violation.Adoring nanny (talk)21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirectChina COVID-19 cover-up allegations and has thus listed it atredirects for discussion. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#China COVID-19 cover-up allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.ProcrastinatingReader (talk)12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inCOVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude^talk03:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isProposed COVID topic ban for User:Adoring nanny. Thank you.VQuakr (talk)22:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come on my talk page again. I respectfully disagree with your incomprehensible misunderstanding of my comments. You're certainly self-aware enough to understand that these are not personal attacks and also have enough introspection to understand how edits likethis one (to pick the recent one) do breachWP:NPOV andWP:FRINGE without me having to detail it out for you (just for clarity: "believe" is clearly the wrong word and "Most scientists" is really "Almost all of them with relevant qualifications", facts which you are also well aware).RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)21:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "say" would have been a better choice than "believe". Thank you for pointing that out. However, I would note that the second sentence of the article saysMost scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus. and appears to have been stable since at least August. Are you arguing that the only problem is the word "believe", which I agree was the wrong choice? Or is there a further problem?Adoring nanny (talk)22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to claim i have made personal attacks towards you, when i simply was incorrect regarding a topic ban (which i later corrected) and suggested that you reconsider your edit history. It seems you have been doing similar things (claiming things are personal attacks when they clearly aren't) to another edit quite recently as mentioned in the above section, do not continue doing so.Corinal (talk)15:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This[15] was a personal attack.Adoring nanny (talk)15:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly there is a personal attack? I was incorrect about your TBAN (it had only been proposed) but that is not a personal attack. I stated you had nothing to say but threats, my view regarding your message (not a personal attack). I mentionedWP:BOOMERANG, not a personal attack. Please quote directly what you believe is a personal attack.Corinal (talk)16:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"perhaps you should consider why you have sanctions on related topicsinstead of falsely claiming i do not understand policy and then threatening me." they were right, you. didn't understand. Thats pretty clearly a personal attack as there is no truth to the statement that AD falsly claimed something (nor was there actually truth to the statement about threats or sanctions but those aren't truly PA).Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack, even if you believe it incorrect. As stated numerous time, i have corrected my mistake regarding the TBAN. Please take the suggestion of another editor and end the conversation, rather than interjecting yourself into it.Corinal (talk)16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While they're adequate for warnings and non-canvassing notifications, and allowed more freedom than article talk pages, it's not really a good idea to confront other editors at their user page to continue content disputes (the article talk page is the place to find compromise). If the goal is to warn perWP:WARN, just do it with a clear message and move on; if they've been warned enough already, consider reporting them (of course it may not always turn out as planned, depending on how legitimate it is)... I post this advice because I've seen it happen several times lately. —PaleoNeonate –08:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaleoNeonate You're now the third editor to tell me that. Thanks. Apparently I needed to hear it. I also broke one of my own rules (take everything calmly). So thanks.Adoring nanny (talk)09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign your post in the RfC.Pincrete (talk)18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks!Adoring nanny (talk)21:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. If you continue your revisions, you will be reported perWP:EDITWAR.Hcoder3104 (talk)23:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Hcoder3104☭ (💬)15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—2022 Winter Olympics dragging incident—has beenproposed formerging with another article. If you are interested, please participate inthe merger discussion. Thank you.Vladimir.copic (talk)10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk)18:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reflections that there are certain situation where more is going on than we're being told, but I'd apply that same eye to alternative versions we're told from alternative mouths of the same motivators. We can engage further on this.Hyperbolick (talk)09:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[16]] CheersElinruby (talk)00:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,Filtration camp system for Ukrainians, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations fromreliable,independent sources.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is ofcentral importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft todraftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia'sgeneral notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Curbon7 (talk)02:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've reinstatedthis material, which is a dubious claim that has never been substantiated. Simply stating that SCMP and The Guardian are "perfectly good sources" does not address the problems I pointed out on the talk page. Many claims that are made in breaking news coverage turn out to be inaccurate. The SCMP made a claim in early 2020. The Guardian and a few other outlets related that claim, which does not mean that they independently investigated and verified it - newspapers often repeat breaking news from other papers. Subsequent investigations (such as the WHO mission) have not been able to verify the claim.

As you know, accuracy in COVID-related topics is something that we take seriously on Wikipedia. Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk)08:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this courtesy note to let you know that I've closedan RfC that you opened relating to the reliability of TASS. —Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk)03:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Close looks to me like an accurate summary of the discussion.Adoring nanny (talk)18:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on thediscussion page. Thank you.Gitz (talk) (contribs)11:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gitz6666 Thanks, but you might want to consider making two RfCs, one for each bit of proposed content. One RfC with multiple issues tends to get confusing.Adoring nanny (talk)15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've already opened the RfC. If you have any ideas as to how make the discussion more orderly and productive, you can share them there.Gitz (talk) (contribs)15:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opener generally has the right to withdraw the RfC. If the RfC had a lot of input, I'm not sure if this would be frowned upon or not. But in this case, where the only comment is someone (me) saying it should be two RfC, not one, I wouldn't expect any pushback. I further give you permission to delete my comment if you do decide to refactor it into two RfCs.Adoring nanny (talk)18:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I amended the RfC statement as discussed and I removed your comment and mine.Gitz (talk) (contribs)00:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiAdoring nanny! The thread you created at theWikipedia:Teahouse,Get past paywalls for WSJ, NYT, and similar, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done byLowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byMuninnbot, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page).Muninnbot (talk)19:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adoring nanny. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Filtration camp system for Ukrainians, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)23:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inabortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk)20:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?.109.111.237.2 (talk)14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adoring nanny. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Filtration camp system for Ukrainians".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Liz^Read!Talk!23:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adoring nanny, I'd like some advice from you on how to formulate the RfCTalk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. You already made a contribution to the discussion, so you know what it is about. What do you think of the following set of questions? Is there any way to say it more clearly and simply? Thank you.

This RfC concerns if and how the article should report about extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators of Russian forces.

Option 1 (status quo). The article should not include a section on extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators of Russian forces.

Option 2 (proposed text). The article should include a section as the one proposed here below.

Option 3 (different text). The article should include a section different from the one proposed (specify how).

Gitz (talk) (contribs)17:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposal is clear. You have used multiple options, rather than multiple questions. That's a big helper with clarity. I'm less certain that your wording is neutral. I would be inclined to use the word "killings" outside of option 2.Adoring nanny (talk)18:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt answer. I don't understand what you mean byuse the word "killings" outside of option 2. Do you mean that we should use the word "killings" instead of "executions"? "Extrajudicial killings"? I'm fine with that, but I don't understand your reference to Option 2 - option 2 doesn't mention neither killings nor executions.Gitz (talk) (contribs)19:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think "extrajudicial" is a word that tends to frame things in a certain way. Very few of the people who are killed in a war are killed after a judicial process. Think of a German killed by a WW2 resistance movement, or by partisans, for example. There was no judicial process, but would we call it "extrajudicial"? Anyway, it's your RfC -- that's just my opinion.Adoring nanny (talk)00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thank you - I did not realise that the adjective 'extrajudicial' was the problem. I will avoid it in the wording of the RfC. Regarding your observation, note that I used the word "partisan" in the proposed text, as one sources does (they also use "hit squads"). I believe that from the perspective of international humanitarian law, it all comes down to whether the targets are civilians or enemy combatants. Recently, there has been much debate on the legality oftargeted killings and some scholars have argued that in asymmetric warfare, leaders and members of terrorist organisations can be legitimately targeted. However, as far as I know, no one has ever claimed that civilians without military responsibilities, such as civil servants, can be legitimate targets. As for law enforcement officers, there might be some controversy, but killing an elected mayor because of his pro-Russian leanings? Usually the OHCHR is very cautious about labelling something as a possible war crime.Gitz (talk) (contribs)06:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articleLiberation of Kherson City has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Already covered by content in2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive andKherson.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.The Kip (talk)21:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onInvestigations into the origin of COVID-19. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.VQuakr (talk)23:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert message said that something wasn't present. The source said that it was. That's notWP:EW. That'sWP:AGF. I was assuming that you didn't notice wat the source said.Adoring nanny (talk)23:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Adoring Nanny, we were discussing the topic in the thread above, that VM opened asTalk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#And_again_with_the_POV. Why don't you move your comment there? So we don't duplicate the discussions.Gitz (talk) (contribs)00:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DoneAdoring nanny (talk)01:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inEastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mellk (talk)18:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adoring nanny. You mentioned a couple of articles that you are aware of that use "far-right" in the opening sentence, namelyDorothy Moon and theGatestone Institute. Are there others that you are aware of? I've been asked to compile a list of articles that use "far left" and "far right" as statements of fact to describe people and groups. This is unrelated to the RFC discussion underway. Perhaps, if this is an issue that has captured your attention to some degree, we could collaborate on such a list. Thanks.Philomathes2357 (talk)00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of others at present.Adoring nanny (talk)02:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a list of approximately a dozen others so far, some of which use in-line citations, like the Dorothy Moon article, and others which simply assert that the subject is "far" right/left without any citations at all. If you happen to stumble across another, and you think of it, I'd appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Thanks.Philomathes2357 (talk)02:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.Adoring nanny (talk)14:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent query. Shoot me an email, and I will try to send some scans (in Polish) from theNasz Dziennik in the weekend.TrangaBellam (talk)21:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Polish.Adoring nanny (talk)03:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAdoring nanny,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence.Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found atthe case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk)00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot 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 seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, seeWP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude(talk)09:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you did it intentionally, but please don't edit my user page directly. Warning templates are for the user talk page.The void century17:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination) and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.The void century18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did intend to do it on your talk page.Adoring nanny (talk)03:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and not a problem. Easy fix. The deletion discussion is a separate issue that I became aware of when I visited your user page. I think it's fine if you disagree with an article's consensus and gather sources to support that viewpoint. I just don't think an essay is an appropriate place for that. It should be proposed as a change on the lab leak talk page.The void century04:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		how do you subtract in roman numerals?Theheezy (talk)20:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce anarbitration decision, you have beenblockedindefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing blocks (specificallythis section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the followingprocedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Courcelles (talk)13:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly couldn’t figure out a topic ban broad enough to contain your misunderstanding of core policies. COVID, pseudoscience, American Politics? Not even sure that’s enough to be workable. So, the siteblock is the better solution for the project. PerWikipedia:Contentious topics protocol, the first year of this is an AE action, the remainder is not.Courcelles (talk)13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Based on what you wrote, it is difficult to tell. But is it possible that your perception is affected by the fact that the discussion in question was about a userspace essay, where standards are much different from article space, and criticism of core policies is permitted? Here, for example, I gather up a bunch of sources related to a question under dispute, even including one that goes directly counter to my opinion in the discussion.[17] My position in that discussion might be summarized by saying that the harshest criticism does not belong in the first sentence.Adoring nanny (talk)20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am now noticing that I gotWP:NOTTRUTH wrong in that discussion. In that particular instance I plead temporary insanity. Sigh.Adoring nanny (talk)06:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, bud! Just remember, nothing lasts forever and we both know hearts can change. And yeah,never be wrong!InedibleHulk (talk)23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely and please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content ofUser:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.DontKnowWhyIBother (talk)21:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.Please help translate to other languages.

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 thevoting 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, pleasereview 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)23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]