User talk:Psychloppos: Difference between revisions

Line 251: Line 251:

::::::I guess. What I’m saying is you need to convince other editors on the talk page that including it is a good idea. That’s all I was trying to say. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 15:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::I guess. What I’m saying is you need to convince other editors on the talk page that including it is a good idea. That’s all I was trying to say. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 15:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|QuicoleJR}} I’ve said what I had to say. My guess is that the name will be included by the end of the day, or at best tomorrow, and that this debate will look silly in retrospect. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos#top|talk]]) 15:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|QuicoleJR}} I’ve said what I had to say. My guess is that the name will be included by the end of the day, or at best tomorrow, and that this debate will look silly in retrospect. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos#top|talk]]) 15:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

== Introduction to contentious topics ==

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ”’articles about [[WP:Biographies of living persons|living or recently deceased people]], and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles”’, a topic designated as ””'[[WP:AC/CT|contentious]]””’. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ”contentious topics”. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]]. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

*adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Purpose|purposes of Wikipedia]];

*comply with all applicable [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]];

*follow editorial and behavioural best practices;

*comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

*refrain from [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]].

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ”procedures”, you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks’ noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!– Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first –> [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 16:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Psychloppos, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Psychloppos! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: yummy ! 🙂 Psychloppos (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your work expanding Freeman on the land. I see another user has expressed something similar above. I was reading the article, though, and came across this sentence which surprised me: “Two prominent UK freeman on the land gurus are male-to-female transsexuals, Veronica Chapman and “Kate of Gaia”, the latter being a Canadian expatriate who advances a New Age-flavoured version of the strawman theory.” Apparently you added it in this diff recently. I removed the sentence, but was curious – why was it relevant to the article to mention that these people are transsexual? That struck me as odd. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: hello ; well, as you may see in the source that I used, it is Donald J. Netolitzky, a legal scholar who has written extensively about pseudolaw and its avatars (I have made extensive use of his various academic papers on the sovereign citizen movement, pseudolaw, redemption movement and strawman theory articles) who wrote that “interestingly”, two prominent UK freeman on the land gurus are transsexuals. I was unsure what to make of it, but I thought it might be an interesting detail, as it illustrates how the freeman on the land ideology may attract marginalized people with unusual personalities (I guess there are not that many freeman “gurus” in the UK so I found it surprising that not one but two of the most prominent ones would be transsexual) ; and above all that it illustrates how the freeman on the land movement is more “progressive” than the original American sovereign citizen movement which is, for the most part, more right-wing (The freeman on the land movement being basically a reframing of sovereign citizen ideology for a more left-wing, “alternative”, anti-globalization audience). I agree that this is anecdotal, though, and that’s basically how Netolizky presents it (he does not elaborate beyond saying that it’s interesting).

However, what I found more interesting about Kate of Gaia was that this person :

1) is a Canadian expatriate in the UK, who first gained some notoriety in Canada as Wilfred Keith Thompson only to reemerge as Kate of Gaia in the UK : IMHO, this is an interesting reminder of the movement’s Canadian roots and it also shows that the movement revolves around a small number of people.

2) “advances a New Age-flavoured version of the strawman theory” (per Netolitzky) which illustrates the variations of “freeman” ideology.

3) was somehow involved in the billboard campaign in the UK, which as far as I could see remains a mysterious affair (where did they find the money for this ?)

That’s it, I hope I’ve been clear enough. Cheers ! Psychloppos (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful with material like this. Speculating about “marginalized people with unusual personalities” may not only stray close to anti-trans language, it also goes beyond what is found in the source and become WP:OR. It’s also worth noting that your wording in the article was essentially identical to that in Netolitzky’s paper, so copyright violations are also a concern. I appreciate your contributions, just be sure to double-check for the natural tendency to extrapolate beyond what sources say. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: well, apart from the fact that transsexuals are often unfortunately marginalized, I said “unusual personalities” for lack of a better term. Kate of Gaia does seem to be an unusual character, too. I have no doubt, however, that many transsexuals have ordinary, humdrum personalities just like you and me (or at least like me, as I don’t know you) so maybe “unconventional backgrounds” would have been a better term.

I stayed closed to Netolitzky’s wording precisely because I did not want to elaborate from what he said : if you think that can be a concern, thanks for letting me know. In the future, I shall try to deviate further from the wording of the sources I use.

I’d like to stress that my curiousity about that anecdotal information came from the fact that I have been working mostly on the sovereign citizen movement page, which is why I came across the freeman on the land page. If you have read the sovereign citizen page, you probably remember that the movement’s origins lay in far-right, white supremacist milieus : this is the organization where the “sovereign citizen” concept originated and this is one of the most notorious groups of the 1990s. Anything is possible, but I find it fair to assume that these people would not have gladly welcomed a seminar by Kate of Gaia. And even though the movement has now become very heterogeneous and includes African-Americans with idiosyncratic “Islamic” views, it is still associated with people like this. So I find it very interesting to note that the same ideology has now mutated into the freeman on the land movement which includes “New Age” gurus like Kate of Gaia. This is why I included this info, without additional comment which would have been original research.

Once again, since this is anecdotal I do not consider it a personal matter. What I found most interesting was that a Canadian freeman “guru” crossed the Atlantic to settle in the UK, hence bothering authorities in two different countries. If you have any idea how this little piece of information could be better reframed within the article, please let me know. If you think it’s better not to include it at all, I won’t take issue with it. Psychloppos (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s better not to include that detail at all. As to wording, the key is to give a summary of the text’s meaning without using any of the text’s language. It’s a tough needle to thread at times. The larger idea that “freeman-on-the-land” culture is not necessarily far-right, like other parts of the sovereign citizen movement, is worth including. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s duly noted, in the future I’ll do my best to use as little as possible of the sources’ wording. I figured that I already had, but I guess you can always improve as you go. 🙂

I had already included in the article the idea that freeman-on-the-land concepts (at least in Canada) are basically sovereign citizen ideology reframed for an alternative, left-wing, “new age”, cannabis-consuming audience, so I guess that’s all right. Psychloppos (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can comment at ANI, you go there to discuss what you see as user misconduct, and anyone can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your edits in helping bring that article to GA status! They are greatly appreciated.

Also, w/r/t Newsweek: it is not generally considered reliable post-2013 (when the company was taken over by IBT Media), but there may be quite a few exceptions to this rule. WP:NEWSWEEK says that content should be decided on a case-by-case basis (this is why it’s listed as “no consensus” on the scheme, not “generally unreliable”). So I wouldn’t worry too much about using it in the past, it’s just that more reliable sources are preferred (especially on Good Articles) —AFreshStart (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AFreshStart: you’re welcome, I really enjoyed editing that page. I thought I wouldn’t touch it again for a few days but since the GA review had ended, I took the liberty to add some more content today. I thought the page would look even better with Tom Hanks in the cast and a Lady Gaga soundtrack.

Thanks for the info about Newsweek. I didn’t know the quality of its reporting had degraded so much, as it apparently did for Rolling Stone.  🙁 Psychloppos (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

going sovereign thanks to your helpful primer! 2600:1011:B198:9397:85A7:6616:CD25:C103 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate the word citizen next to the word sovereign. That’s dangerous rhetoric 2601:C3:8000:1DD0:7513:6E5C:CA08:F047 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suggest you look up the subject a little. Cheers, Psychloppos (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the “prompt me when entering a blank edit summary” box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: hello. Indeed, I often tend to forget writing an edit summary. My bad. That was especially true of my earlier contributions; in recent months, I’ve been trying to at least click on the “minor edit” form since a great deal of my contributions are minor edits and typo corrections (my own typos, generally). Thanks for the reminder, however, I’ll try to keep that in mind. Psychloppos (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considerate reply. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop altering your posts once they have been replied to, it can change context. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don’t think it has changed context. I was just trying to explain my thoughts more clearly. Psychloppos (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve undone the circular mess your edits created at Barnier government. Have a look at the talk page and see if you can fix it to your liking… (I don’t object to the redirect… I think you’re right about that. It just needs to be done correctly and if you have the energy I’m happy to let you do it!) — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: hello. I did my best to fix that. I guess I had done the merging a bit too quickly because I was convinced that I had already moved some text into the target article. My bad. Psychloppos (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it looks perfect… Sorry for the confusion! — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – 2804:F1…26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand it’s been closed as meritless. – 2804:F1…26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meritless indeed. Psychloppos (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2021 Denver and Lakewood shootings, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Psychloppos, This is to let you know that one of your recent edit at Syrian revolution caused a citation error.

Do not add invalid url and use preview before saving your edit. Happy editing.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49: aw, shucks. I’ll try to fix that. Psychloppos (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychloppos, Fixed.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the article about the 2021 Denver and Lakewood shootings. However, I noticed when you attempted to reassess the article, you replaced the class= setting with an invalid value (“?“). Another editor replaced this value with a blank value, which is sufficient to cause reassessment. I have now reassessed the article as C-class. Also, I have reinstated WikiProject Death because the article is within the scope of that WikiProject because the article deals with the death of both the victims of the shooting and also that of the perpetrator. Had this been an article that was only about a perpetrator who was still alive, or never identified, such as Jack the Ripper, then it would have been out of scope. To understand which articles are within or outside the scope of a WikiProject, please read the applicable WikiProject’s documentation. Most have a scope statement of some sort. Also, please read WP:PROJSCOPE for more information. – Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Dewe: thank you, I was initially confused by the project Death. Now I understand better.

I thought that the article probably deserved to be considered C-class now : thanks for confirming it. Psychloppos (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean “islamophobic” 2600:480A:4A51:9300:64AD:7A09:8DCF:7C8E (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Psychloppos (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rapes of Gisèle Pelicot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia. 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) 19:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page’s edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the “publish changes” button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you’re satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the “publish changes” button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 02:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Cordless Larry. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sovereign citizen movement without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this edit broke a URL for the second time. I’ll leave you to fix it though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: sure, but before you revert people’s edits and leave such message, it would be helpful if you actually looked at what you’re reverting. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting your breaking of a URL, and I noted what I was doing with my edit summary (something that you failed to do). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: and I was referring to the fact that you reverted my fixing a duplicate reference problem. Psychloppos (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which you didn’t explain with an edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: I suggest that you read what you revert before reverting. Moreover, I don’t remember modifying the url you mentioned. If I did, that was a mistake. Thanks, bye. Psychloppos (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might not remember, but it’s there in the article history, here and here. We all make mistakes, so no problem, but please try to use edit summaries in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: I have no idea how my edit could have modified this url, because this is not not what I was seeking to change. Psychloppos (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All serious regime will defend itself from invasion, but in Alsace Lorraine they didn't organise any official resistance against the "French Imperialism" to for the "soviet republic" or anything else, and they even didn't do any significant work for the reconstruction of the society, which means, in 1918, there was an attempt to build a functioning council regime in there, but they never achieved any significant material progress. Auguest Bebel (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auguest Bebel: indeed, I don’t think we should keep the infobox “former country” as it is just misleading. Psychloppos (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, this is quite misleading, we need to remove it. Auguest Bebel (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auguest Bebel: I’m going to propose this on the article’s talk page. Psychloppos (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to let you know I appreciate your edits about Sydney Sweeney on the American Eagle page. A lot of them are good and I’m only disagreeing on the content of some of them based on policy. I don’t mean to come across as harping you incessantly. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: good, that’s comforting. I thought we were having a major disagreement ! Psychloppos (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: I wonder if the paragraph is not becoming too long, though. We might want to trim it a bit by condensing what some of the sources say. Psychloppos (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the other problem, I agree. That’s why I initially didn’t want to include quotes from individuals as adding them increases the length by a lot. Since you wanted to add quotes from some critics and Trump though, I had to add more in to provide a more rounded-out picture. I wanted to talk to you about this, actually. My recent USA Today and NBC News addition, I think, better address the totality of what critics were saying by quoting from a secondary rather than primary source. Whether or not we condense or just leave it alone at this point I’m ambivalent. We should move this discussion back to the talk page, though. BootsED (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: honestly, I don’t know if making the critics’ quotes longer brings much of anything to the article. Cheryl Overton’s quote, for example, is not made more relevant by being longer (though the “folks are nuanced” bit does bring some unintentional comedy, though). If we really want to report everything they say, we can always use the quote parameter in the references. But I don’t think we have to do this for everyone. We could also trim the NBC quote a bit, IMHO. Psychloppos (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit where I removed all the individual quotes and simply quoted NBC and USA Today who described the criticism of all the people we quoted individually. I think this works and covers what people said without quoting every single one. BootsED (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: I think we still have to keep a few of the individual quotes because some of them are so outrageous. They serve the purpose of giving an accurate depiction of the controversy. Psychloppos (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: please let me know what you think about the current version before I start a new RFC. I opened this because I got no feedback from you or anyone else even though I requested it. I would have loved to build consensus before I started the process, but there were no reactions. Having a version that satisfies most users before I ask them to vote on it would be the best way to proceed. Psychloppos (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ping me again! Auguest Bebel (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auguest Bebel: sorry, I did not ping you. No idea why you were notified. Probably some technical issue. Psychloppos (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You re-added a large amount of irrelevant and unencyclopedic information to this article falsely claiming it to be enyclopedic and completely ignoring my in/depth explanation on the talk page as to why that information does not belong. You also did so immediately after engaging with me on Talk:American_Eagle_Outfitters which suggests that you got to the article by going through my contributions history. Not only is your edit disruptive, You seem to have made it with the intention to send me a message, which is dangerously close to breaking site rules. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you had removed useful and sourced information. I discovered your message on the talk page afterwards and found it completely irrelevant. Nothing to add to this Psychloppos (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Darrell E. Brooks 2021.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: hello; could you help me out by letting me know exactly which rationale I should use in this case ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I could fix the problem. Indeed, the proper rationale was not in the right place. Psychloppos (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look i appreciate your contributions but please consider just dropping arguing to name the person arrested

It won’t go anywhere. That’s guaranteed Trade (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I don’t wish to add it to the pages myself but how can we avoid naming him once he’s charged ? Pretending that we need to wait for his conviction makes no sense, otherwise we wouldn’t have a Luigi Mangione page. Psychloppos (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi have already been nominated for deletion. Read the DR if you wanna know why he’s allowed to stay Trade (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: whatever the reasons, that should be a precedent (and note that I’m not advocating for the immediate creation of a page about the Charlie Kirk suspect) Psychloppos (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying that we need to wait for conviction, I’m saying we need a consensus among editors. I likely wouldn’t support or oppose inclusion in that consensus discussion, but it is necessary. Please stop trying to bypass policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: I was not trying to bypass policy, I was debating a point. Note that right now we even have his face on CNN’s frontpage. He has become de facto a public figure. How can we not name him ? Such a rigid interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME does not make sense.

Anyway, so far I said what I had to say. You may debate with other editors if you wish to, but I’m afraid this is just going to make Wikipedia look silly. Psychloppos (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m saying is that a consensus is needed. That means you have to debate your point on inclusion and convince people. I don’t have a strong opinion on the actual issue, I’m just trying to make sure we follow the proper procedure. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Well, isn’t debating what we just did ? You argued your point, I argued mine. Psychloppos (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. What I’m saying is you need to convince other editors on the talk page that including it is a good idea. That’s all I was trying to say. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: I’ve said what I had to say. My guess is that the name will be included by the end of the day, or at best tomorrow, and that this debate will look silly in retrospect. Psychloppos (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]