User talk:RandomCanadian

• New messages go at the bottom.
• If you have been redirected here from another project or language, please leave the message here to ensure I see it and answer in a timely fashion. Thanks!

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5 as User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

DYK for Christians, awake, salute the happy morn

On 4 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christians, awake, salute the happy morn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Christians, awake, salute the happy morn" is a hymn based on a poem that John Byrom first presented "For Dolly"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christians, awake, salute the happy morn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christians, awake, salute the happy morn), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

wild garlic

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. - The psalms: I think a general article about the psalms and their musical treatment would be desirable, telling such things as metric paraphrases, psalters, and certain composers setting series. In German, we have Psalmlied (psalm song), songs that can replace a psalm in the liturgies. Anything like that in English? - Specifically: could you add to Psalm 115? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There are the metrical psalters (Genevan psalter, for ex.); and of course a couple of paraphrases. I'd assume churches which favour exclusive psalmody would employ those. Anglicans of course have their brillant method; although AFAICS hymns based on psalms (such as those by Watts or others) are also otherwise employed - I do not know if there's any place (whichever denomination) where they are substituted as is for liturgical psalms, though.

Now, I am personally more involved in French-language usage, but I'm not quite sure that in that instance there is much more besides the old psalters, since there's essentially a dearth of hymns in French because the French protestants were mostly practitioners of exclusive psalmody... There are some translations of hymns from other languages (ex. "C'est un rempart que notre Dieu", and more on that same site). Of course in the Catholic parish where I'm organist the congregation is more used to stuff like post-Vatican II compositions from people like fr:Jo Akepsimas or fr:Joseph Gelineau or more modern ones, but they're all similar in that it sounds and looks (from a theoretical and melodic point of view) closer pop music (repeated notes, sometimes bizarre voice leading in the melody (harmonisations are mostly non-existent, or if they are there then the voice leading is even more dubious), irregular meter, ...) than the hymns familiar to English and German ears. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! A song recommended today is a paraphrase of Psalm 36, written in 1971 by a Catholic author, to a melody of the Reformation from 1525 (and one of the best hymn melodies ever, I'd say), - taking the best of two cultures. It played a role in my life when it was the first church comment after 9/11, before any word was spoken. Singing of "unlimited goodness" then was a challenge, - I remember that every time we sing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for improving an article about music significant in my life, Bach's motet Jesu, mein Freude by a fine image, among others! From the start to the Main page in 15 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The individual psalm settings in Psalms is random (pun intended) and useless. Why 126 by Rameau but not van Nuffel, and both knew that psalm as 125. Just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen Is there a reason for this act of random kindness or should I just enjoy the spirit? Thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been around a long time, and deserved it for faithful and constant service. I've noticed your edits for a long time, and you earned a pat on the back. Gnomes deserve love too. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Polandball

Hello, i'm DinosaurTrexXX33, I saw that in April, you deleted some part of Polandball in section "Other Countries". Can you please explain why you did this? Thanks, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: See WP:V. Information in articles must be cited to reliable sources. Given that none was provided for most of the statements, I removed the information, and summarised the rest. WP:FANCRUFT also suggests that specific details like that might be too much information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a listing of every fact about a subject. If you can find a reliable source which supports the information, feel free to add it back. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Alright, thanks for telling me that. DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

I have been noticing how good your edits have been and I wanted to drop you a note thanking you. Good job. You can expect a little something extra in the paycheck Wikipedia sends you^{[Citation Needed]} every week. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"Unnecessary archive pages"

Hi RandomCanadian, I created the "unnecessary" archive pages because there was a manual archive at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 1 and 2 automatic archives at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 1 and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 2. I was just fixing it so that everything is in order. There were 4 because things were in the wrong order some of the time. Hope you understand. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aknell4: That was because the bot was giving a wrong title (for an unknown reason). You could just have moved the two existing bot archives to nos 3 and 4 without bothering. Do check if there's any duplicates now. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I tested the order on a sandbox page, and for some reason the threads didn't line up. There were some threads in the manual one that should've gone to one of the automatic ones and vice versa. I organized things on a page in my talk page and then I divided things. I wanted all the archives to be the same size and I wanted there to be a maximum of 4, but that didn't work out and the 4th one was way overstretched. Thank you for cleaning things up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, although you probably didn't mean for this to happen, the expansion of the archive pages for Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis have messed up the archives. There are misplaced and duplicate threads across the archives. Just though I should let you know and ask whether I should try to clean it up. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a request

Hi, you marked my article as a G11, I am not mad, I wanted this to be my first Wikipedia article and I wanna get it right, can you help me out, not sure how to not make it seem like an advertisement as it wasn't my goal. I was wondering if you could give me some tips/advice. I'd really like to get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJames1989 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkJames1989: The bigger issue is that you need to cite independent reliable sources to establish whether the subject is notable. WP:GNG is what you need to take a look at. In short, primary sources, such as publications by the subject (youtube videos, self-published website, social media pages...) and interviews, are not enough. I hinted at G11 because of the poor sourcing, but on second look might have been wrong on that. In either case, I suggest you try to make a better article by starting a draft (Draft:YandereDev) and submitting it to the AfC (WP:AFC) process - editors there might have more time and experience to help you (I noticed your edit, here, since it caught my attention because it cited youtube and similar sources, which is usually not that good of a sign). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I appreciate your advice!! I'll do this for future reference. The Wikipedia editing game is a lot bigger than originally anticipated, I will be extra careful in the future and I'll make sure I have even more reliable references like articles and such. Have a fantastic day! MarkJames1989 (talk / contribs) 4:14, 16 May 2021 (PST)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear RandomCanadian,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page

Yes, I understand that however I am on a mobile device and it's very difficult for me to navigate. This guy is on a roaming up based in Florida and has been advised numerous times. I can recall a few years ago I made a "questionable " edit and all these people came out of the woodwork to admonish me and threaten to block or sanction me. Yet this person just gets away with it. Thank you for your advice anyway Doriden (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Dear Random Canadian, thank you for improving and maintaining the highest level of scholarship in all our Wikipedia articles related to SARS-CoV-2. In particular your reliance upon scientific scholarship has brought much of this work into the encyclopedia and made it available to the billions of people who read our site. It is no exaggeration to say that lives are saved as a result of the education people can receive here. Thank you! Darouet (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with POV-pushers

I greatly sympathize with your frustration dealing with the lab leak crowd. I've made only a couple of minor contributions to those threads, and I rarely edit medical articles. My only experience that might be relevant is in the area of race and intelligence, where the RfC this year went smoothly and painlessly and was snowball-closed after a week. The key was that, shortly before, the R&I article and its talk-page had both been given EC-protection for 6 months [1]. This kept out the SPAs, socks, and IPs and prevented off-wiki canvassing, all of which had been an issue in the 2020 AfD and RfC. I never attempted to get sanctions for any of the POV-pushers, although another editor successfully got one of the IPs blocked for attacking me at ArbCom with a cockamamie conspiracy theory. So one thing that might help would be to get all of the threads dealing with the lab leak theory consolidated into a single RfC that would be held at an EC-protected talk-page.

One thing I was worried about with R&I was that good editors would stay away because they'd see it as a time sink and a never-ending headache. But if an issue is dealt with all at once in an RfC to which SPAs, socks and the like don't have access, more good editors will see it as worth their time to participate. Many of the editors who've devoted a lot of time to getting the purely medical parts of the COVID articles in good shape must feel overworked, and so might not want to participate in a chaotic debate (in multiple threads on different pages) with the lab leak POV-pushers. In the case of R&I the magic bullet that solved a similar problem was an EC-protected RfC.

The case for EC-protection can be made at WP:AE rather than ArbCom, and you can describe a pattern of disruption by different users rather than having to build a huge case against any one user. Best of luck. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your RfC close at Ilhan Omar. Great reasoning in a messy context. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment on Talk of GameStop short squeeze

In the section GameStop_short_squeeze#Possible_Causes_-_Semi-protected_edit_request you mention "Using a source from 2016 here would appear to be WP:SYNTH". I am assuming you are referring to the line there "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", since the other is about multiple sources, and here only one source is mentioned.

The explicit statement of the source is for a more general scenario of a Cournot competition, which involves any group of producers/sellers of an arbitrary item. The WallStreetBets members were holding stocks, which is the item that could be sold to the market. Therefore they were the producers/sellers. The source also predicts collusion which is defined as "In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit." Here a "company" is any agent that produces a good, which can be a single person. Therefore it can be concluded WallStreetBets members colluded during the GameStop short squeeze.

You mentioned "would appear to be WP:SYNTH". In light of the above, could you elaborate on that?2602:301:772A:E580:9DB:5D8C:5A3C:7EF0 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If the source doesn't explicitly mention WSB, making links to it would be synthesis (SYNTH) or original research (OR), i.e. making a secondary analysis based on your own interpretation of different sources. To take the examples from WP:SYNTH, applied to here, if the sources do not make the connection themselves, then we can't, either, except maybe for blindingly obvious things (If a source says "The Sun is 700000 km in diameter" and the other says "The Earth is about 13000 km in diameter", we can say "The Sun is bigger than the Earth"). But complex analysis is not allowed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. However, the source is the study of what happened with WSB in the general setting, and established a possible cause in theory. Just as a general research paper may have discovered that dry plants ignite when lit on fire, and then stating that a cause of the Northern California fires of 2020 was arson, which is a specific case of ignition. That dry plants ignite when lit on fire is the general cause and is relevant to the Northern California fires of 2020, even though that research does not explicitly state the Northern CA fires of 2020. Hence, in light of more careful reading of WP:SYNTH, a specific conclusion should not be drawn from the source since it does not explicitly mention WSB. However, as I argued, the source does establish a general conclusion. And because of it's close relationship, the original proposal in GameStop_short_squeeze#In_Academic_Studies would be more appropriate: namely to place a link in See also to where the source is mentioned in Econophysics#Basic_tools. Should this new proposal be listed in a new section? 2602:301:772A:E580:9DB:5D8C:5A3C:7EF0 (talk)

The source you provided is this. That likely has zero relation to WSB, and using it to support material in the article would be original synthesis since what you would be doing is, in essence, analysing the situation based on information from an external source to draw your conclusions. Metaphorically, if a source says that "a duck looks like this, smells like this and quacks like this" but it doesn't say "[Specific example] is a duck", then we can't say it, pure and simple. We leave analysis and conclusions to the experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The source studies cases with increasing demand, which is what a short squeeze is. In short squeeze, it is mentioned "Purchasing the stock to cover their short positions raises the price of the shorted stock, thus triggering more short sellers to cover their positions by buying the stock." When more people buy after price goes up, this is increasing demand. Note this is also mentioned in Law_of_demand#Certain_scenarios_in_stock_trading. So the source is very much related to WSB, because it was a short squeeze with increasing demand.2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Except the study couldn't be possibly making any relevant claims about the WSB situation, because it's impossible for it to be directly mentioning the WSB situation. As I said, we can only include statements which would be obvious to any generally educated reader. 700000 > 13000 is obvious to everybody even if they don't have any specific formation in maths. "Cases with increasing demand, which is what a short squeeze is, which is what happened, ..." is not. We need to have a study which makes these claims in respect to the WSB situation. Otherwise, this would be WP:OR, and that is not okay (mostly because such analysis might not be as simple as it appears, might be missing multiple relevant factors, etc..., and we have neither the ressources nor the competency to check it, unlike academics writing in relevant publications). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The title of the page is GameStop short squeeze, which is about a short squeeze. In the article short squeeze, it is basic knowledge that this is increasing demand - it is explicitly stated in the excerpt I mention above in the wiki page. So I would argue that for this particular connection it is common knowledge, as that excerpt has no citation. Also, I suggest linking the econophysics section in GameStop_short_squeeze#See_also which does mention WSB. Note in GameStop_short_squeeze#See_also, the link irrational exuberance leads to the article which has no mention of WSB. So it appears the connection to WSB is not as strict as you mention in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. See alsos are a different matter, since they involve a bit of editorial discretion. Concrete article content, however, is bound by WP:OR very strongly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and feedback. It has been very helpful. One final question: should this modification of the edit to add a "see also" be a new edit request, or a continuation of the previous?2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Give me a few moments: just tell me which article you want exactly to add as a see also and I'll take a short look and add it myself if I think it fits. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The article I suggest adding is Econophysics#Basic_tools. In particular, the third paragraph of that section. Text that could follow the link would be something like "inevitability of collusion during increasing demand". That paragraph explicitly mentions WSB. Thanks again for your consideration.2602:301:772A:E580:4163:35FA:2205:4987 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done I feel it might be a bit too tangentially related of a link, but at least it seems plausible enough and offers interesting material to interested readers. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom Case Request Procedural note

As the filer of the case you get 1000 words at the Case request. Thank you for be conscious of these limits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Pahonia's case

@RandomCanadian: Thanks for your opinion regarding Pahonia's case. There was attempt to sort it out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda to the article of Pahonia, but you can check how much it was spammed with random information, pseudoscience theories. Administrator El_C told me that this is a Arbitration-level material. The Belarusian-side clearly will defend it because it is a Belarusian word, but it is inappropriate for the Lithuanians because it presents us as somehow worse, despite the fact that this article is centered around the Coat of arms of Lithuania. Without involvement of the mentioned anti-Lithuanian users, this dispute would have been easily solved because there already is National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia section, so why this section with a Belarusian word should expand into a separate article and this way present the Belarusian language superiority? Nationalistic absurd. I considered starting a Request for comment procedure, but clearly it would have ended in the same way as report at the AN because neutral users simply "drowned" in endless arguments there. Also, El_C noted that Wikipedia:Arbitration has words limits, so it would prevent such spamming. -- Pofka (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: As I noted there, claiming nationalistic agendas from other editors (WP:ASPERSIONS) isn't the best way to solve your problem. If other editors are engaging in disruptive behaviour (such as ignoring quality sources to push a point of view; or making personal attacks; or persistent disruption and edit warring), it should be simple to make such a request without going off on a tangent about what their motivations are. Also, ArbCom is for conduct (behaviour) issues, not for content, and your request (to make a specific page into a disambiguation page) is obviously a content request, not a conduct issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Well, as mentioned, Kazimier was tagged as a disruptive user and discussing with somebody who calls the Lithuanians as rubbish (1, 2, 3) really is impossible and requires third-party participation. I do not want to fight with him and others certainly should know that he is not a neutral user in the Eastern European topics. Also, Kazimier was banned multiple times at the Lithuanian Wikipedia (Kazimier's blocking history), so I already know about his abnormal hate for Lithuania and Lithuanians very well. He has been tagged as disruptive for a reason. You probably also heard about Lithuanian-Belarusian relations recently (hijacking of plane, etc.). Belarusian TVs presents massive anti-Lithuanian propaganda. -- Pofka (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: If this is under the scope of Eastern Europe (where there are already arbitration committee measures), wouldn't this then simply become a matter for WP:Arbitration enforcement (where word limits and the like are also present)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I want that one language's name would not be superior because there are many redirect and disambiguation pages for other names of this symbol. What is the difference between Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? You think it would fit better there? I'm not really familiar with these procedures. The most important aspect that it would limit words and neutral arbiters would solve this dispute. I really do not want to engage into a nationalistic war, spamming of arguments yet again as it already happened at the talk page and AN. -- Pofka (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

comment

I didn't want to say this there, but I don't think I've ever actually opposed at RfA before. My most typical participation is to ask people who ask silly or irrelevant questions why they're asking them, to try to decrease the general level of stress for candidates. I've written an essay about it, which you can read at Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? I have been involved in multiple discussions of how we can make RfA less toxic. As I've said more than once, this feels crazy even to me, but after Edgar181, I'm not sure it's crazy. —valereee (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

arbitration case requests

Asking the arbitrators or clerks for action would probably be more fruitful than posting at the incidents noticeboard. That being said, the arbitrators will see the request and deal with it. Everyone else can just ignore it. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: The case has, already, been dismissed. The NOTHERE/RGW issue which I point out at ANI is still present and requires action despite the obvious outcome of the frivolous Arbcom request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

They posted to enough admin talk pages that I imagine someone is considering best steps forward already. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Considering nobody had done something prior to now (the problem behaviour from that editor began before their frivolous request), I guess an additional outlook on the matter doesn't hurt.

Best steps forward doesn't necessarily mean immediate action; it can be keeping an eye on what happens next. Either the editor escalates or doesn't. But sure, more people being aware might help. Just fyi, I'm already watching for responses to this thread and so don't need a ping. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't remove case requests like that in the future, and please don't reply outside of your own section; the Arbs can do that, but others shouldn't. Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: I might have messed up the acronym (DFTT was probably what I was intending - I don't think a request like that one merited more of anyone's attention), but obviously, if the outcome is the same. Won't do if it poses problem. Wasn't aware of the other bit, my comment obviously assuming that "the usual format already appears to have been thrown by the wayside". Thanks for the tip, though I hope not to have to come to Arbcom too often, if you see what I mean. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Watson

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Watson is clearly a WP:BADNAC - please undo your close or I'll ask for it to be undone at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 08:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If you really don't like it you're free to undo it. The NC close was due to lack of significant participation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-revert and the subsequent redirect !vote, I appreciate it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you see why I didn't think delete was the right outcome... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by that comment? My issue with your close wasn't that you didn't close as a delete, considering I even mentioned a redirect in the nom, it was that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't contentious, the keep arguments literally hold zero weight. There was no consensus between delete and redirect (something which I should have made clearer in my original statement). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RNA Vaccine potential self promotion

Hi RandomCanadian, you recently answered an edit request on Talk:RNA_vaccine#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_2_March_2021 and I think rightfully determined the material in question was based on primary sources. The user has added this detail back. The username strongly suggests a personal link to the subject of the edit (Robert W Malone) and is potentially a conflict of interest/personal promotion. I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of settling these matters on wikipedia but would appreciate your input and assistance. --NullPhoenix (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@NullPhoenix: I've reverted and given a stern warning. If they keep going like this (using the same or yet another new account) you can report them to WP:ANI (and leave me a {{ping}} just so I know). I've watch-listed the RNA vaccine page for the foreseeable future. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 accepted and resolved by motion

The ‎Origins of COVID-19 case request you filed has been accepted under the name COVID-19 and resolved by motion with one remedy which supersedes the community authorized general sanctions with discretionary sanctions. Sanctions made under the previous community general sanctions are now discretionary sanctions and alerts made under the community GS are now DS alerts. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks very much for the notification and for doing the behind-the-scenes clerking. I'd already noticed it via having put ARC on my watchlist. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Purple cows

We actually have a page about the tactic used by both Stonk and the fellow you were responding to, but it's not an essay. It's an article. I always respond to examples of it being used on talk pages with nonsensical statements like that, because they're every bit as relevant, logical and useful as the comment they're made in response to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Case in point: [2] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Found where some of the hate might be coming from

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/326274116#326285738 Found a reference to you on the /pol/ board of 4chan from a couple of days ago, discussing your revert on the RNA vaccine article. Don't know if they might be resonsible for some of the harassment you have been receiving. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks, that also explains a bit of the recent attention on that article (which I've now watchlisted in case these turn up again - although ECP should put a halt to that). Also, shit, people are crazy - if those are actually real people expressing sincere nutjob opinions... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I question your claim that it's already in the article

In the comment for this revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1029294344&oldid=1029292138

you make the claim that the information in the article I linked is already in the wiki article. I claim that it is not. You claim you are being harassed. I am interested in the facts of the article. I am not interested in you. Where should we adjudicate this? (you should allow it on the talk page where I put it.

You also said "see your talk page" but you removed my comment on your talk page so that's not really participating in good faith, is it? 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I said to take a look at my user page (this is not my user page). It is already covered in the more appropriate article, see the bottom of the Wuhan lab origin section: A number of journalists and scientists have said that they dismissed or avoided discussing the lab leak theory during the first year of the pandemic as a result of perceived polarization resulting from Donald Trump's embrace of the theory.. Unless you want to add this somewhere else, but that would be needless duplication and likely off-topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

June thanks

Thank you for improving articles in June, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! I should definitively try getting back to music (it's [usually] less controversial, I find, than when politics and science mix - but you already know that...), mentioned in the edit summary here. If you're interested in writing something up about Bach, there's a nice paper about the state of court music in Köthen at the time - Hoppe, Günther (1986). "Köthener politische, ökonomische und höfische Verhältnisse als Schaffensbedingungen Bachs". Cöthener Bach-Hefte. 4. Köthen: Bach-Gedenkstätte Schloß Köthen u. Historisches Museum für Mittelanhalt: 13–62.- its in German, and although I could make sense of the most important points for my purposes, you're likely able to get the gist of it much quicker (can send it to you on request). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I'm so behind with reading that I feel it would go to waste at this time. Can't believe only one Brandenburg Concerto has an article ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Alex Rodriguez addition request followup

Hello and good day. In reference to my request, go to the Alex Rodriguez talk page for my follow up explanation for my request. It is in reference #80. The ESPN article mentions Jimmie Foxx. Thank you for your time and effort.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards grind you down

And have a nice break! Bishonen | tålk 07:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC).

Agreed. Sorry I haven't been of more help here. Your contributions in this area have been better than anyone else's at combating misinformation regarding SARS-CoV-2 at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, it's encouraging to be working with other reality-based editors on this topic. I consider you one of those, —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Take care in your break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that Vivaldi composed cello sonatas? I didn't until I took the pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 17:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Gain-of-function disruption

I think somebody (you or me?) may need to WP:RFPP that page. It's clearly gotten a lot more attention recently (see the talk page daily views graph) and a lot of random IPs/SPAs are coming out of the woodwork about that very specific line. ECP would be my request, but I don't have a ton of time to write that up atm. There is definitely consensus to keep that line in the article per the talk page. I will revert as much as I can those disruptions in the near future...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just saw that you already did! Thank you!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:(edit conflict) It's already at RFPP but the usual regulars (El C, notably) don't seem to have noticed it. Although now we have even more evidence that protection is needed. It's just the annoying new subpage format of RFPP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW although it was since deleted I found your comment at Peach's page useful for my own understanding, possibly enough for an adaptation to be useful on the relevant article talk page (up to you, of course, but content-related discussion is usually relevant there)... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Request Tools

Hello, a while ago I renamed my 2 request scripts. I am going to delete these old js pages. Please change the links in your common.js to:

importScript('User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool]]
importScript('User:Terasail/COI Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/COI Request Tool]]

Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 02:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the interface admin request) - if this user wants to import your new scripts that is up to them. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits in Date of index case of SARS-CoV-2

You have been actively editing the pages related to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, by citing wikipolicy to insert and revert edits relating to the inclusion/exclusion of information not sourced on MEDRS. Your reasoning has been along the lines of:

• From Diff1: "We can use newspapers for their usual expertise, which is recent events and global news (and, to some extent, they are sufficient to conclude that some mention of fringe theories is warranted, in the appropriate place). Not for FALSEBALANCE purposes on highly complex topics (virology, epidemiology, the origins of a disease) which require years of study and which are already covered in high quality sources."
• From Diff2: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." is clearly referring to scientific and medical information. I don't know how you're missing this. In either case, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDPOP are also clear that academic, peer reviewed literature is preferred, especially for topics of a scientific nature. The origin of a virus is a scientific topic, obviously."

However, your editing pattern using WP:MEDRS seems inconsistent, since the edits proposed in Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Date_of_index_case? actually go exactly in the direction of relying on MEDRS over NEWSORG. But you insist to show what to me is arbitrary or condradictory standards:

• From Diff3: "Also, I note that MEDRS is not required for everything. A newspaper (with attribution, if necessary) is enough to say "there were reports of earlier cases", although we should then use proper SCHOLARSHIP to determine how to describe those reports"

Please explain if I am misreading you. This behaviour can be indicative of WP:Gaming, in which the editor selectively enforces policies and takes advantage of loopholes (in this case, the ambiguity that WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI apply to some but not all facts). I am assumig good faith so I hope this is not what's going on, can you please respond and comment on your behavior? Forich (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: There was a recent RfC which I think you participated in and which clarified that MEDRS are not necessary for everything. As for your accusations of me being selective in my use of scholarship, see my edit here. I don't think there's a contradiction between using MEDRS for stuff like that and using newspapers (specifically, the newspaper which made the report - the same way we'd cite a primary paper if it is also cited by a secondary review) to say "there were unconfirmed reports of earlier cases". Especially when such information is reported in scientific publications:

However, this market cluster is unlikely to have denoted the beginning of the pandemic, as COVID-19 cases from early December lacked connections to the market (7). The earliest such case in the scientific literature is from an individual retrospectively diagnosed on 1 December 2019 (6). Notably, however, newspaper reports document retrospective COVID-19 diagnoses recorded by the Chinese government going back to 17 November 2019 in Hubei province (10). These reports detail daily retrospective COVID-19 diagnoses through the end of November, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was actively circulating for at least a month before it was discovered. Science. 2021 Apr 23; 372(6540): 412–417.

The authors, making an analysis of existing literature (thus a secondary source for this), don't seem to make any statement or conclusion on whether these are actually confirmed cases or just reported cases, but the fact that they do mention the newspapers is a sign that this is worthy of mention. Additionally, the best way to avoid misinformation is not by entirely omitting this information, surprising the reader who would be puzzled by this omission, but by putting it in context so that readers are correctly informed about the entirety of the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your explanation responds decently to how to present information on the early cases, I can live with it. You seem to put high trust in the Non-MEDRS source cited (Pekar et al, 2021), and your argument that they "don't seem to make any statement or conclusion on whether these [pre-Dec 8th] cases actually confirmed cases or just reported cases" relies borderline on an "absence of evidence to show evidence of absence" and WP:SYNTH. But since no other editor has picked up why I insisted on the simplicity of using index as "confirmed+documented in MEDRS" I guess it is not a big deal. I am surprised in part because in previous unrelated edits in which I removed the date in which a research was made diff1, good editors (Bakkster Man) quickly jumped to revert with this explanations: diff2 and diff3. The reason espoused there was the exact date was notable, and that not enough time had passed in order to make it irrelevant to replace the exact date with my edit of "early January". I find it logically sound that citing the exact date of the index case of the worst pandemic in a century (defined as the first documented case) is way more notable than the exact date in which a group in the United States demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2. These inconsistencies bother me a bit, but they are not your fault I can only point them out and move forward. Forich (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Pekar et al. aren't exactly MEDRS, but they're publishing in a good journal (Science), and they're certainly within the realm of respectable WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and they're cited by actual MEDRS for their conclusions, so I think they pass muster. That said, I agree with the rest of your comment about inconsistencies and dates: my opinion is that there's usually very little reason to get stuck up on precise dates, as these only ever stay relevant for well documented and precise events (for something such as a fast-paced military engagement, you might even want to be precise up to the hour: this is usually information which is available even for battles from centuries ago).

Of course, that's only an example, and it is somewhat on one extreme of the scale, but this gives an idea of the kind of writing we should be aiming for. Applying this to the case of COVID, I can see a case that, with the situation changing over timescales of weeks or months, (compare lockdowns in early 2020 vs. relaxation in the summer vs. second wave vs. ...), that would be the degree of precision we need when describing this and major developments. Given that we don't even know many things precisely, I reckon being much more precise than this wouldn't be helpful, either. So I'm in favour of getting rid of most exact dates and simplifying them except for important events (like the WHO declaring it a pandemic, or the like), or when narrative flow would be inconvenienced or confusing if the timing of events is not accurately described. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

California Recall Election

You seem to be choosing favoritism in your recent edit. You're removing negative information on Newsom. The information is relevant to what is happening in my state of California. Lostfan333 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lostfan333: I honestly don't care much if at all about US politics and the perpetual shenanigans they generate. What I do care about is avoiding recentism and undue focus on events in the news, as this is an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed that various reverts are tagged with "rollback" so wondered if the actual rollback feature was used. If so, WP:ROLLBACKUSE lists when it can be used (it would be unnecessary additional drama if someone reported this so you lose the right, and it may still be helpful when patrolling)... Also, to revert multiple revisions manually without rollback, one only has to select the old revision from the history via the timestamp link, then edit and save. —PaleoNeonate – 21:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Other people have already made the comment (usually, they claim I've been abusing the tool, so it's nice to see a change in the reason), and I hate quoting verbatim, but it's rather clear: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." Again, thanks for your concerns, but there's no issue here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't usually see this, so was confused by these tags too... —PaleoNeonate – 00:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough

Why are you closing a dispute or discussion[3] about an article that you are involved on its talk page?[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Dealing with unambiguous disruption by a (likely not - see similarities with Special:Contributions/Bearsfan101, but nvm) new editor frivolously asking for deletion of a page they don't like, with no attempt by them to engage on the talk page (I've never interacted with them before, their posts on the FTN were posted before any of their subsequent edits on the talk page, and the previous sections on the talk page do not contain any dispute about the factual accuracy [or lack thereof] of the article subject's comment) - is not being involved, it's a correct application of DFTT. Given that there was already unanimous objection to them, anyway, I don't see the purpose of keeping those threads open, except maybe inviting more of the same COVID-treatments disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned that it was McCullough himself making the request to BLPN under WP:AUTOPROB and that the door was being slammed on him. After reviewing the article, I have some BLP concerns about the heavy reliance of primary sources without an accompanying secondary reliable source on several of the assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: The edit was made to WP:FTN. Nowhere in their edits did they claim to be McCullough (the previous account even denied it), nor did they even suggest a WP:PROD (that would be quickly contested, so would have led to an AfD) - they just outright suggested deleting the article, because they disagree with it. As for the issues with the article, you're free to fix it. I think some of the content based on the primary sources was included by an IP, to whom I've been suggesting on the article talk page that such content is unnecessary recentism. You're free to go give them the same message. Deletion isn't cleanup, in any case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reiterated that point to the IP on the talk page while removing the debated paragraph. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

An Integrity Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For many well-reasoned and level headed interactions you've had around here recently. But definitely for this rename close [5], which I thought was very fair and nicely articulated. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For an excellent job closing Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Requested move 26 July 2021. It was not the easiest discussion to be a closer for, but you were impartial and neutral in your explanation of the consensus.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an excellent close. Good job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Cuban protests

Thanks for your help and comments at 2021 Cuban protests and Talk:2021 Cuban protests. As for this, pretty much everything is attributed in the whole article and I think it is fine for the time being. Once we get actual scholarly sources, it can be rewritten and summarized according to them, without having to rely on news sources and attribution. Davide King (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD

Regarding your comments here, do you plan on nominating the male version of the template? If you are not, it will likely be closed as no consensus (allowing, of course, for a bundled renomination). (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, I went ahead and nominated the men's template, see here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"consensus against the proposal"

Quite. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chalmers Automobile/Temp

Hello, RandomCanadian,

ANY time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/MFD/TFD/etc.) you are obliged to inform the page creator of this tagging. If Twinkle doesn't notify them when you tag a page, then you must do so yourself. In this case, it would be preferable for you to contact the page creator and ask them whether this page was no longer necessary. Do not skip over communication with content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry, didn't notice that it wasn't done this time. @Akrasia25: Since this is about a page which you seem to be involved with... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#24_hour_wait_proposal

2 weeks is not equal to 30 days.

And this isn't :"requests for votes", it's "request for comment". And there was still ongoing discussion before and even after you decided to close it. As you closed it, I have no doubt you read everything and thus are aware that several people said they were still giving this idea some thought, and some were still asking each other questions. We are learning about what the community members think. Which, I presume, is more important that worrying about an up/down "vote".

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable."

I respectfully request that you undo your close to allow for the discussion to continue. - jc37 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37: Not done - You don't need me to undo my close to add a ===Post-close discussion=== afterwards. It's clear the proposal wouldn't have passed/won't pass anyway (there are also plenty of far less equivocal comments on the matter), so I don't see what undoing my close would achieve besides that. As for "closure not required", the RfC was advertised on the WP:CENT template and it was quite well attended, so IMHO closure was an appropriate thing to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply - already existing threaded ongoing discussion.

per WP:SNOW - "Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness."

I'm not sure what the hurry to close this is. - jc37 23:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is no minimum or maximum duration for RfCs, so this is not an "early closure" and duration is not a reason to overturn it. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, so first, this isn't a request to "overturn" a close. It's a request to allow the threaded discussion to continue, per Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs.

  "... if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action." - As noted, the discussion had not "run its course", and there are comments right before and right after the closure, and several unanswered questions.

  As I mentioned above, I'm not certain what the hurry is. - jc37 23:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  The threaded discussion can continue in a new subsection, as I was saying. You certainly know how to use {{ping}} to give a heads up to the people you wish to discuss with. There's no hurry, but given it took you nearly a week before posting here, surely, it isn't such a vital thing, and there's no reason to waste time either with a foregone conclusion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion continued during that week, which actually shows this isn't merely a case of a proposer just wanting to re-open on those grounds.

  But whatever. I hope, that since you seem eager to close things, that you take a moment and continue to help out at WP:CR. There are quite a few things there that actually are beyond the time period of a unilateral snow close. Good luck, and happy editing. - jc37 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Toto Wolff

His ethnicity should be explained since it's part of his formation, like many other articles do. Take a look at Footballers, Managers... Same thing, i think we should end this right here. Bubishist (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Ethnicity is usually avoided if it has no bearing on a subject's notability. Wolff is best known for managing his F1 team, not for anything related to his or his parent's ethnicity. So I see no reason to include this information which, while true, is not really important. As I was saying in my incomplete edit summary, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarise the most important bits, not list everything that is known about a subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, summarize the most important aspects of a personality, Toto's parents are important and their ethnicity too like many other sportsmen, managers etc. The ethnicity of their parents(or of the subject) are ALWAYS shown. The article has been this for almost forever. Bubishist (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Well then that's the typical WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, there's surely a bazillion other sportsmen where the ethnicity of them or their parents (as opposed to nationality, which is relevant for international sports) has no bearing whatsoever on the subject's notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Kylian_Mbappe

Take a look at this, should also this be edited?

I really don't understand what are you trying to do. Bubishist (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that if ethnicity is just a trivial detail which doesn't change anything to the article, there's no real reason to include it. Anyway, you seem to not be hearing me, so there's no point wasting my time further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bubishist: Based on your edits on the Wolff article and other articles (incl. Siege of Plevna), I have the strong feeling that his parent's ethnicity is only of particular interest to you as his father is of Romanian descent. Please note that neutrality is one of Wikipedia's key policies, and Wikipedia is not a place for pushing your own agenda.– NJD-DE (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Siege of Szigetvár. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. I've left a more in-depth comment at the relevant talk page; but if you persist, then you're just digging your own hole.93.136.115.120 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)