User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trump BLP

Just so you know, I think the lead to the Trump bio is just about as bad as it gets, but truth is, this is what was placed by the consensus of editors so it is what it is. Its so bad I jumped out of participation on that page mostly, only returning today after I heard that one of Trumps aides had tested positive for COVID, figuring that considering who the aide was, Trump might likely turn up positive as well.

95% of Wikipedia is wonderful resource, but in my 15 plus years here, articles such as the Trump bio have always been some of our worst. I'd spend as much time away from places as the Trump bio as possible by editing articles on things you like, otherwise all you'll face is disappointment.--MONGO (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MONGO I agree. When it comes to things like photosynthesis or film summaries, Wikipedia is great and I'm sure the talk pages are civil. But when we get into more contentious topics--ahem politics--things start to break down. And it's not just the Trump page. I've seen blatant bias on many pages. But, of course, as long as the 'consensus' agrees, then who am I to fight them? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Charlie Kirk (activist)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit 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 the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Username

I almost filed an WP:AN/I report about you since I figured you were a troll based on your username. I'll WP:AGF and say you aren't, but you should highly consider changing to something more mature. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

MJL Dang, I'm sorry. Thank you for assuming good faith. I spent over an hour trying to come up with a great username, but you may be right. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

All good! I would just go with something that can't be connected to you personally but would still feel good enough that you wouldn't mind it being used for a quote in The Guardian.
BTW, your ping failed due to the whitespace. Try using {{re}} or {{u}} when responding to editors. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your username is hilarious. It's nice to see a different username that doesn't follow usual username formats, and it doesn't break any of the that I know of. If you're fine with it, don't worry about it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you so much! It does seem really unique, and I do like it. I just wanted to make it memorable Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you certainly win the prize there. (talk page watcher) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Any chance my name could help promote me to admin? After all, not too many users have a Ph.d around here . Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't Dr. redundant with Ph.d? Or is that part of the joke? And is also a joke to leave the d lowercase in Ph.D? And to omit the space after Dr.? After all, you wouldn't want people to think you're an uneducated Ph.D. ;-) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: In casual conversation, I allow people to knock off the post-nominal letters and just refer to me as Dr.Swag Lord. If you know me quite well, then "Dr.Swag" would suffice. However, under no circumstances, is anyone allowed to refer to me as mister. That's why I added both the "Dr." part and the "Ph.d" part--just to remind people. As for the lowercase "d", that's simply how it appears on my diploma. Best $20 I ever spent. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Since no one else has said it...

Hi there and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from our intro page which provides helpful information for new users. If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Otherwise, you can also reach me directly at my talk page. Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On Turning Point USA

Hey there! I saw that you removed a section from Turning Point USA because it didn't directly cite the ADL or SPLC. While I understand what you're getting at, there's no requirement to cite these two sources directly - since they constitute primary sources, it's preferential to cite secondary references about the ADL and SPLC's positions on the group, as to avoid original research. Even without these concerns, those sources still support the statement that the ADL and SPLC have described TPUSA with those certain descriptors, so it shouldn't be removed without good reason. Would you mind self-reverting? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Hey, I really appreciate your respectful message. Many editors get quite enraged when I edit on the TPUSA or Charlie Kirk's page. What's the exact policy on using secondary sources to back up primary sources, because the article has many instances where only a primary source (ADL or SPLC) is cited? Additionally, per reliable/perennial sources, Newsweek post-2013 really isn't considered a RS. Even so, it seems a bit like cherrypicking since the Newsweek article is mostly about how Kirk tweeted out a video where Biden said there are at least three genders, and then there's a brief description of TPUSA. Same deal with the WJLA article. It's mostly about executive privilege, and then Kirk is introduced in the last 1/3 of the article. And only in the very last line does it mentions TPUSA's alleged involvement with the alt-right. Could we at least find some mainstream sources? If not, and if you really think those sources are solid, I'll happily revert myself. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Wikipedia's policy on secondary sources is available at WP:PSTS - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. I should say, it's more or less fine to use the ADL and SPLC as primary sources there (in terms of using in-text attribution) since they're subjects of the section, but there's also nothing wrong with using secondary sources as a reference for the ADL and SPLC's classifications. And yeah, Newsweek is generally considered an unreliable source, however it's subject to a specific exception where we can assess its reliability on a case-by-case basis - I think that it's reliable enough for that statement here, especially since it's been corroborated by the WJLA source. And in terms of cherrypicking, what exactly would you like to see? The two sources don't discuss in-depth these classifications, so at most, you'd be adding the WJLA quote "There's no violence on the conservative side. If there was we'd expel it and we'd hold these people accountable." which is irrelevant to Turning Point USA as a group, since they're not a political violence group (such as Proud Boys). Anyways, the section is about the ADL and SPLC's descriptions, so the only other perspective we really could add without going on a tangent is TPUSA's response, which I'm not aware if they actually have responded. If you don't mind, I do think that it's best to restore it here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Fair enough. I restored it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Thank you. —GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Synthesis, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Youtube, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Fox News, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristi Noem

Hi, I've reverted your deletion of a reference in The Times. Please could you explain what your reasons were for the deletion? Thanks in anticipation. Arrivisto (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: Hello. If you are referring to this [1], then the sentence was, in fact, not sourced to The Times. It was merely sourced to the Wikipedia article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The entry was a summary of a critique in The Times, as the citation makes clear. Arrivisto (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: I'm a little confused myself because I see that you been here for a long time. What I'm trying to say is that you did not cite your source properly. There are specific guidelines when you cite and you didn't follow them. Please read WP:CITE. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maza BLP

With apologies due to my recent adoptees... less than ideal way of bringing this up (to say the absolute least), This edit is no bueno. WP:ABOUTSELF applies here, and there is obviously reasonable doubt that Carlos Maza truly would describe himself that way (just having the words "Marxist Pig" without context in a Twitter bio doesn't inherently mean Maza is describing himself). As for the other source, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.
I am incredibly disappointed you attempted to get this content added to a WP:BLP article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Hello. I was unfamiliar with WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA policies. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. As I explained in Carlos Maza Talk Page, I agreed with another editor [2] who--respectfully--said that the way a BLP describes themselves on Twitter is probably undue and may be misleading. Did I argue with this editor? No. Did I cast aspersions at this editor? No. Did I question this editor's motives? Also no. What did I do? I listened to this editor's comments and I found another way to improve this article. Under no circumstances have I ever inserted a "slur" into a BLP. Now, are you gonna confront the editor who baselessly questioned my motives? (BTW, if you're unfamiliar, this editor is on the verge of being T-banned for this type of behavior: [3]) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. Of course you are familiar with this editor and their conduct--you adopted them. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said.. not ideal conduct from IHA there.
Part of my commenting here is to display to them the proper way to express these kinds of concerns to another editor. The other part of it is that I was the one to formally welcome you to this project, and as such I find it is my duty to ensure you are connected with the proper basic resources in order to have a decent time here.
Either way, there is a bit of common sense required to edit. It's pretty clear that Maza doesn't define himself as a literal animal, and including content that says he does simply misinforms the reader. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I know you mean well, but I'm starting to lose my cool. there is a bit of common sense required to edit...It's pretty clear that Maza doesn't define himself as a literal animal--thank you, I'm aware Maza is not really an animal. If the reader believes that Maza is really a 'pig,' then they are the ones who lack common sense--not me. I merely wanted to include Maza's ideological beliefs, and I found a better source for that. Instead of WP:HOUNDING me on a moot edit, go chastise your "adoptee" for their constant BATTLEGROUND behavior, POV PUSHING, inability to AGF, and general incivility. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm usually much nicer than this, and I always welcome constructive feedback, but I am not the person you should be lecturing right now. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel I am hounding you. That was never my intention here, so maybe that last comment went a little too far. What I meant to say was, the edit was wrong notwithstanding the sourcing concerns.
As for my adoptee, it's a work in progress. I have been trying to steer them away from engaging in disruptive behavior, but there is a bit of an ongoing civility concern. I feel as though I walk a delicate tightrope with IHA. On one hand, I see a passionate and dedicated editor clearly capable of improving the project, but on the other I see someone who sometimes falls short of the expected conduct norms for how best to communicate with other users here. Though, I find those conversations are best held in private (which is why you don't see so much public interaction between us despite our daily correspondence), so IHA can be more free to express themself. Needless to say, I have already explained my misgivings of their treatment towards you, and I am working on a solution at the soonest possible opportunity. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you for your response. I don't mean to take out my frustrations on you. IHA is the one whose made Wikipedia a very hostile environment for me. You're probably already aware that I have a long history with them. I guess you can say I'm more of a proponent of retributive justice rather than restorative justice. So, I think this whole "adoption" thing is really more of a privilege rather punishment for their actions. I seriously doubt any good will come out of it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit is not an accurate representation of the source at all and appears to in fact directly contradict it. From the source: “There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, there’s no ethical production under YouTube either,” Maza tells The Verge. “My goal is that I can survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs. I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube. If there’s a way so that not even YouTube would profit off them, I would be happy, too.”. I'm not sure where you got the information you included in the article ("Maza financially supports himself through Patreon subscriptions, and has stated that "[t]here’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, there’s no ethical production under YouTube either."), but you need to not cite content to sources that do not support them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Feel free to ignore my post on your talk page...we can discuss it here if you prefer. I am very, very confused on how my edit "directly contradicts" the source. It states that "Maza doesn’t expect to earn much money from YouTube. Instead, he’s going to do what plenty of other creators on YouTube have done in the past — use Patreon to find supporters and hope he can make enough to keep his channel going and pay rent..."My goal is that I can survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs. I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube." How did I not accurately convey the source? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly he was making money off of Youtube, since he says it was not a "big chunk" of his income, and we have no indication at all how much that is needed to "financially support himself". Also, the source explicitly says that making enough money off of Patreon to "keep his channel going and pay rent" was a "hope" of his at the time. Your edit also ignores any speaking fees, even though the sentence you just quoted as apparent support for your edit says "survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs". Finally, your added content also ignores his past employment at Vox as well as any other savings or previous sources of income he may have. If that is the only source from which you based your information, then that seems to be a seriously significant departure from the content in that source. Given that the source only discusses possibilities from an article published almost a year ago, we cannot make unsupported inferences of what we think his situation is now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I had a response to your orginal text, but you moved the goalposts so much there's no point in responding anymore. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: "Clearly he was making money off of Youtube, since he says it was not a "big chunk" of his income"--this is incorrect. The source states "I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube" Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: On another note, you can financially support yourself through multiple avenues. I never said Pateron was the only way he financially supports himself. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My only changes to my comment made it clear that the source article was almost a year old and that he was no longer employed at Vox. Your response in no way addresses the unsourced speculation you added into the article while ignoring content from the same source such as speaking fees. I think this is an example of you needing to be much more careful with the content you are adding and what sources you are citing for that content. I'm not interested in the disingenuous arguments about semantics. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's rather insulting...

Sockpuppet Harassment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For you to accuse me of misrepresenting sources when your edits multiple times failed to represent the tone of the coverage correctly. Falwell's statement was particularly irrelevant given that in the article itself, "Falwell and members of his family are not involved in operations at Falkirk, according to Liberty’s spokesman, Lamb. “Nor was he involved in the daily operations of Falkirk while he served as the President of Liberty University,” Lamb wrote."[4] I politely suggest you self-revert. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Thank you for reaching out to my TP instead of continuing to edit war. Firstly, any comments I made were strictly aimed at your edits--not at you. I try my best to never comment on contributors. I am not sure what you mean by the "tone" of the coverage. Like the "tone" of the source, the "tone" of Wikipedia should always adhere to neutrality. Next, if you don't want to include the quote from Falwell, I'm more-or-less fine with that. The only reason I included that quote was b/c I wanted a brief description of the goals of the think-tank (which is why I made sure to attribute the quote to Falwell, and not write it in Wiki's voice). The source said: "Press materials about the center described it as a national think tank with the mission of equipping "courageous champions to proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ, to advance His Kingdom, and renew American ideals." So, it wasn't just me who thought the quote was notable. However, your other edits were very problematic. For instance, you accused me of "cherrypicking" a quote, when, in fact, you cherrypicked a quote when you repeatedly included this phrase: "a think-tank "notable for their strong political focus and amplification of culture war talking points." This is incorrect; the source states that ...its advertising tactics are notable for their strong political focus and amplification of culture war talking points. However, did I remove your quote? No, I merely fixed it for you: [5]--and I'm not sure why you kept reverting it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Please review the edits again, as it appears you are not understanding the problem (or perhaps the article itself)? Your writings come off as attempts to only include the most positive bits that can be cherry-picked out, when the main thrust of the article is that the "think tank" violates ethical norms and comes right up to the line of legal violations. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: I'm a little disappointed that you didn't acknowledge any of my previous comments...I even showed some will to compromise by agreeing to remove the Falwell quote. Your writings come off as attempts to only include the most positive bits that can be cherry-picked out--this is incorrect. I'm really not sure what "positive bits" I included. Unfortunately, you edits attempted to portray the think-thank in a negative light, which runs contrary to WP:NPOV. Here: [6], I never removed the part where you wrote that the think-thank may have violated the law. Again, I fixed it. Per MOS:ALLEGED, we have to make it clear that the think-tank has not violated the law. Even though we writing about a 'think-tank' everything in the article must adhere to BLP policies. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "you edits attempted to portray the think-thank in a negative light" - No, my edits were to represent the article correctly, which from the start to end covers the fact that the think tank's pattern in communication and advertising is outside of ethical and legal norms. If you think that's "a negative light"... that's the WP:RS, and it must be accurately reflected. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Unfortunately, you did not summarize the article in a neutral way. Now that I'm looking at it, I think we are giving way too much attention to this think thank. Remember, we are writing about Charlie Kirk--not the Falkirk Center. At most, we should have 2 neutrally worded sentences about Kirk's involvement with the center. It's really the same reason why we don't listen every TPUSA controversy on Kirk's page (i.e, UNDUE). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC) I did, in fact, summarize the article in a neutral way. I suggest you sit down and read the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: I suggest you sit down and read the article: I consider that to be a personal attack. Would you please apologize? I did read the article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Wow, okay so I looked into this a bit and neither of you are completely in the right. (1) IHA, this is far from neutral. I strongly believe that ethically and legally dubious is pretty much a violation of MOS:WORDS. You have to attribute claims like that if you make them at all. (2) Swag Lord, this was not that good either for pretty much the same reasons (I can point the specific violations upon request). Both of you should review that guideline in more detail. (3) Neither of you captured the opinion of the Inside Higher Ed article which was that while this ad campaign was probably legal, it certainly was unprecedented and pushing the limits on what is acceptable for a nonprofit. Regarding the conduct of both of you, I have to say I am not seeing either of you reflecting your best behaviour. While I will still be speaking to IHA about this matter offwiki, I have to say that an escalation of this matter will likely just lead to sanctions against you both. Needless to say, that is not a result I would like to see. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC) @MJL: I'm not denying that my edits weren't perfect. If it's the Falwell quote you didn't like I 1)attributed it and 2)agreed with IHA that it should be removed. For the rest of the edit, I really didn't change it all that much. I made sure to adhere to MOS:ALLEGED, and I simply wanted to convey that the organization did not actually violate the law. I really didn't have a problem including a sentence that noted that the center may have "pushed the limits" with their ads. However, IHA never proposed such an sentence in a neutral manner. Anyway, I find all of this moot, because most of these edits (including my own) are simply WP:UNDUE. As I explained to IHA, this is an article on Charlie Kirk--not on the think tank. If the think tank ever gets its own article, then we could the improprieties their (or we could possibly insert them on the Liberty University page). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC) If the other party in a dispute does not suggest an alternative, then it is left to the remaining party to make such a proposal. Either way, Kirk's involvement in the think tank should be noted to such an extent allowed by WP:RS. The center likely should still be covered, and the article on LU is one such possible location. As for the problematic edit I had concerns about: allegedly violate Liberty University's 501(c)(3) status due to their political content, although there is a consensus among experts that the ads "probably don’t cross into being 'functionally equivalent to express advocacy.'" - Violates MOS:ALLEGED. - Violates WP:WEASEL. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Interaction ban Hi there. As you know MJL approached me about the problems you and IHateAccounts are having. In talking with you on Discord you indicated that you would be open to a no fault 2-way interaction ban. Can you confirm that here? IHA, are you also willing to agree to a 2-way interaction ban? While this ban would be voluntarily entered into, it would be enforceable should either person break it. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: Sure, I confirm it. Thanks for the mediation. --Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: There was already one arranged on Discord and Swag Lord already broke that one in multiple pages but go ahead. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts I'm aware. That one was kind of customized. This will be a standard one. It is, as I indicated, also enforceable by any administrator should there be an issue with respecting it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) It has now been logged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Discord?

Do you have a Discord (suggest consider making a fresh one anyways per WP:PREVOUT)? If so, join the English Wikipedia server. Lot's of friendly folks there! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Lol, you're really good at changing your tone of voice so quickly. Sure, I'll join. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT Bestsellers

Sockpuppet Harassment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please be aware of the sources you are using. Specific problems with your latest edit on Charlie Kirk: "Business Wire" is a distribution service for promotional press releases and is not WP:RS. Anything on it is WP:USERGENERATED, WP:SELFPUBLISHed content with no editorial control or fact checking. Any entry on the NYT Bestseller List with a "dagger symbol" has been shown to be only there through bulk purchase shenanigans. Case in point, Kirk's: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2020/03/22/hardcover-nonfiction/ For more on why you have to be careful checking see: [7] [8]. Listing reference to a book that has the dagger symbol as a "New York Times Bestseller", if that is its only claim to notability, is almost undoubtedly WP:UNDUE since the book only reached the list through fraudulent practices. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Hello. We're allowed to use self-published sources in BLPs for very basic, non-controversial facts. We even use Business Wire as the very first citation in the Charlie Kirk article. There is zero controversy that Kirk wrote a book called the "MAGA Doctrine" in 2020. And it's a basic fact that the book made the New York Times bestseller list. I am not endorsing the book in any way. And The New York Times is not saying that the book is 'good' or 'bad.' It appears that the 'dagger' symbol is simply put when there's been bulk orders of the book--not necessarily due to "shenanigans," as you saw. If you find a source that concludes that the book only made the best sellers list due to "shenanigans," like the sources you provided me for the Don Jr. book, then of course we could include that. Please also see:Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#cite_note-bestseller-4 Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: You both might need to head over to the talk page. It seems whether or not Kirk's book is on the NY Times best seller list could reasonably be considered controversial and/or WP:UNDUE. For example, I am not seeing any mention of its status as a best seller in either of the reviews I read,[9][10] but there might be more I just don't know about. Still, the footnote in WP:NBOOKS should not be overlooked. Either way, it might be better for a larger community discussion to be held about this since reasonable minds could disagree about what to do in this scenerio. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "If the New York Times believes a book has made its way onto the list in a way that seems “suspicious,” it places a small dagger symbol next to the title: “Institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases, if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List Desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting and other statistical determinations. When included, such bulk purchases appear with a dagger (†).”"[11][12] IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: None of those sources mention the book. We have no idea (unless you have another source) why the book has the dagger. That's called Original Research. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "We have no idea (unless you have another source) why the book has the dagger." This is nonsense. Any book indicated by that symbol is given it because the circumstances for its reaching the list fall into the categories listed by the NYT as suspicious. This appears to be a larger issue, in that many of your edits (especially to pages on alt-right personalities and alt-right connected pages) appear to miss that wikipedia is WP:NOT a venue for advertisement or promotion: "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." IHateAccounts (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Which alt-right pages have I edited? Charlie Kirk? Dan Crenshaw? What are you even talking about? Who am I advertising or promoting?? All I said was the Kirk wrote a book. His other two books are listed on the article with no problem. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for handling the semi-protection on Charlie Kirk's page. Thank you for sharing resources dealing with page protections with me! This Barnstar is well deserved. Keep up the great work! PrecociousPeach (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrecociousPeach: Thank you so much!! I'm always happy to help! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Two-and-a-half months is an eternity in WP time but welcome, belatedly, in any case! Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thank you so much! I noticed you commented to the WP:RSN for Gay City News. Is that how you found me? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, your comment in the RC Media thread, in which I also commented ... I was making my monthly pass through RSN and always like to see new editors there! Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Oh yea, I forgot about that one. I'm baffled by the amount of garbage sources that we allow on this site, but, for no reason whatsoever, RCP is considered an unreliable source. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a campaign, not a battle! Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For strict enforcement of WP:BLPSOURCES at Jo Jorgensen in the face of my short-sightedness, and for doing the same in other articles. Keep up the good work. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Maria Bartiromo

Re Your Maria Bartiromo edit: [13] Your use of "advocate" instead of "propagandist" is ok by me. No war gonna occur by me. I was trying to clean the section up by removing someone's personal, simpleminded use of "cheerleader." [14]. Although, the links in the section makes it clear she is a propagandist. At some point, I think the entire section will need to reach a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as it is a hot topic section. To be clear, I don't have a political motive to any of my edits. I normally add internal page links and stay out of the BOLD stuff. Cheers ;) P37307 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@P37307: Hello. Thanks for reaching out to me! I did find the "cheerleader" verb a little inappropriate, however, "propagandist" seems significantly worse to me. According to the sources, Bartiromo seems to be repeating some of Trump's talking points, and she tends to give him easy interviews. Yet, if you want to make the jump to "propagandist," you're gonna need multiple, high-quality sources that make that claim. We're not writing about Joseph Goebbels over here! Anyway, happy holidays! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes

Hi - I'm not sure if you're aware of the pending changes function, however, if it is of interest you can request the right here. There is often a dearth of PC reviewers on WP, and qualified editors applying for the right. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Hi. Sure, I'll make a request. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ds alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

—valereee (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: What article did I edit that triggered this? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage was the article -- it hadn't had a ds notice on it before this morning, wanted to make sure everyone who had edited recently realized it was covered under that. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oh, I haven't touched that article in like a week. This is the second time an admin had to issue a gold lock. Way too many POV-pushers for my liking. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I went back about a week to make sure I'd gotten most of the recent editors. —valereee (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Congratulation. P37307 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@P37307: Thank you! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Congrats for getting PCR granted! Cupper52 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For exercising uncommon due diligence in finding this CfD, even when it meant changing your mind regarding Talk:Nick Cannon. More experienced Wikipedians should follow your example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being an anti-vandalism beast and general, all-around fine editing Chetsford (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: It's tedious work, but somebody's gotta do it Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of request edit template at Concord Law School

Hi. I noticed you closed the request edit template on the talk page of Concord Law School. However, at the end of the section I proposed new text to add to the article, but you did not implement these changes. Do you object to the proposed text? If so, can you comment on the talk page to clarify your objections? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Did I close this one: [15]? If yes, then I agreed with the complaints of the other user who commented. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The proposed text is in the section entitled "Edit request – – Related to updated state accreditation status" at the bottom of the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Oh, I didn't even look at that one. I thought I closed the one in the "Two proposed revisions" section because that's where the edit request was located. Sorry about that. Feel free to reopen your edit request. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not my ticket, this is just an old request I was trying to complete. I was going to implement the changes and close it but you beat me to the close! Does this mean you don't object to my implementation of the suggested prose? Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Like I said, I haven't even looked at that section. It seems well sourced, so, by all means, if you think the proposed text is warranted then go ahead and add it! I was just trying to help clear the edit request backlog. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Andy biggs

I think the editor from Andy Biggs had decided to follow me. They have now been alerted to DS and edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Quite common. Looks like they promptly deleted your edit warring notice: [16]. I was a little nervous that they might be a sock of "FideKoeln," but that's when I noticed that they changed their username for some odd reason. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well they have been around for a few years so if they are a sock, it's an old one. Personally I don't see that so much as someone who decided to go to two articles I'm involved with and take contrary points just because. Note the argument here [[17]]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Given that was their first edit to the talk page (they have no edits to the main article): [18] it's quite obvious that they're hounding you. I've been in similar circumstances myself. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Learn to use a talk page, don't template people

See title, read it, understand it, talk on the talk page, put down the edit war mentality, you can actually contribute to wikipedia that way. Of 19 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Of 19, I've already informed you multiple times that you need to self-revert. Also, this: [19] is a threat. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy article

You allowed this post to remain:

"I saw that Bakersfield,CA, Kern County was considered a sanctuary city,/county by Jeff Sessions. Since when were we considered that or put on that list???? As far as I know we, meaning the people of Bakersfield never took a vote on this nor do we harbor any illegals or prevent ICE from doing their job.... I'm just curious as to how we made this list and how do we get off of it... Roney800 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

But deleted mine on the grounds that you're not supposed to post anything that isn't relevant to the article. The drivel above isn't either, relevant that is, to any discussion of Kevin McCarthy but you allowed it to remain. Why?? Because you agree with it? You don't live in McCarthy's wretched district where people like the one above keep sending this man back to Congress. I do. So I would like to hear your explanation as to why you think this post passes muster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.58 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@47.138.88.58: That comment was made 4 years ago. I didn't even have an account back then. I guess you could consider that nonrelevant to the article, so if someone wants to remove it, that wouldn't bother me.

However, your post was 100x more egregious. You could frankly get banned for saying something like that. Never make a comment like that about living people on Wikipedia again. It's strictly against policy. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And McCarthy is an egregious man. Or haven't you noticed that. I will make comments where I choose your Lordship ("never make a comment like that again"...... LOL) and if you wish to ban me, then do it. I don't edit on Wikipedia and it will be no loss. BTW, you and yours shouldn't go around hat in hand begging the public for money then turn around and snarl when the public posts something YOU don't like. Biting the hand that feeds you and all that..........very poor form. I suggest you adopt a more conciliatory tone. Most Sincerely, Ms. Smith (no Ph.D.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.58 (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikilove!

	A trophy!
	Thanks for letting me test this button! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting

In the future, please pay attention to what you're reverting. My first edit fixed a typo; my third added a constructive link. I assume you don't object to either of them so I've put them back. Gershonmk (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, My apologies for reverting your helpful edits. I'll respond to the other parts of the edits on the talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility

I didn't deserve it, and I really appreciate it. Another reminder that it's a small world on here, and just about everyone will be reading what we edit. Gershonmk (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, No problem! I despise hounding, and I just wanted to make sure you knew that I had no personal animus against you :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Reliable source for editing wikipedia on living persons (Dylan Sprouse).

Hello, I was notified that my recent edit on Dylan Sprouse's wikipedia page was not backed up by a reliable source, but I think it was. I chose an article from insider.com, and another one from Yahoo! Are you able to look into this more? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerclive24 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tmerclive24. Oh, I see what you did. You put the sources at the top of the page. Citations normally go right after the sentence. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea, That was my mistake. I forgot to do my in text citations. I re-edited the page, so you can see the citations in the sentences and on top. I also deleted a few things because I was not able to confirm the information I found.

I have another question: I want to create a wikipedia page on "Occupy City Hall" (now called Abolition Park), because I am shocked that it has not been created yet amidst the racial protests. I am from New York City and I actually went to the Occupation at City Hall and protested there this past summer, but I don't know where to start or how to write the page in words. I am new so i don't know if I am allowed to do this. Do you have any advice you can give me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerclive24 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tmerclive24, No problem! Everything you need to know about writing your first article is written here: WP:FIRST Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Coffee

I agree with your recent coffee edit. I would suggest commenting on the talk page since there was a prior discussion and consensus is leaning towards inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Will do. That page is prone to a lot of vandalism so I always get nervous when I see an IP making large edits on it. As a side note, I noticed you opened an AE complaint for ND. Do you want me to make a statement, or should I just let leave it alone? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the coffee concern. The problem is if you don't comment then your voice doesn't weigh in on the consensus to include or not. As for the other question, you have to decide on your own due to CANVAS. Springee (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I mostly see it as a WP:COAT if we include content Rittenhouse or other people who wear BR clothing. I'll weigh in on the TP. Good point on the potential canvassing. I try to avoid AE and other drama boards as much as possible. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the coatrack concern. It isn't really something about the company. What is this meant to say about the company? It somewhat reminds me of a RfC from a while back.[[20]] At issue was if A is mentioned in an article about B does that mean B is DUE for inclusion in A? I wouldn't call the situations in question trivia but they are similar to trivia about a company being included on the corporate article. Springee (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I see it like this: if we include Rittenhouse in the BR coffee article then it's pretty WP:OFFTOPIC. If we include in the Rittenhouse article that he was wearing a BR coffee hat, then that's pure trivia. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal at CPAC

Hi there. Just wondering how you thought the content at CPAC you removed was WP:UNDUE. I'm not fussed you removed it. IMO, it's just some borderline conspiracy theory, which I tried my best to cover using sources I could find. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234, Hi there! I appreciate your concerns. I found it UNDUE due to the poor quality of the sourcing. The cited source was this Forbes article. As you can see, this was written by a Forbes contributor. Per WP:FORBESCON, a contributor is an unreliable source (it's basically just a blog post). I realize the second source was a fact check by Snopes. However, since there is no real coverage on this "controversy," there's no point in including a fact check. The whole purpose of Snopes is to fact check nonsense claims--but not every nonsense claim deserves to be in the article :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I knew about FORBESCON and knew that some of the articles they published were unreliable, but didn't quite know how to do identify which were from generic contributors and which were from actual journalists.

On another note, I have a suspicion that more sites will pick up the story sooner or later so the article might be updated. The issue is that there's an awful lot of room for POV pushing and the like so that snopes article could come in handy. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234, My rule of thumb is to only use articles written by the "Forbes Staff" which is normally indicated in the byline of the article. You may be right that more reliable sources may pick up this story. But as of now, only sites like The Daily Kos & TMZ are reporting on this--so that should really tell that this is a fabricated controversy. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Doc, I think your wish to remove the content is correct but this is, barely, a 3RR violation. If you can, I would suggest self reverting and then suggest starting a RfC on the topic. Springee (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I would have happily self-reverted but the user promptly restored their edit and accused me of "vandalism" [21]. I forgot I'm not on a BLP--otherwise I would have been covered by WP:NOT3RR. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't vandalism but I don't think being combative at 3RRN is a winning plan. Given teh edits were on different days and just under 24hr apart I can see this being an accidental violation. Springee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be combative. Just in the first and third reverts, I removed content sourced to WP: FORBESCON. And in the second revert, there wasn't even a citation! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just hold yourself to (at most) 2RR except for deliberate vandalism (like where they add text; not remove it). You'll never get accused of edit warring that way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work on the CPAC article. Keep up the good work! Thomas Meng (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow

Thank you for your note on my talk page. My reply is cross-posted there.

I'm unclear on the reasons behind your revert. Here's why I removed that term in my first edit:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a worldwide readership. In the other English-speaking democracies, and in Europe the term "liberal" has a different meaning than it does in the U.S. Where I live, "liberal" implies a centrist politics, which usually translates to a centre-right government (which is invariably neoliberal). Maddow, herself, is likely well aware of this, having obtained her PhD from Oxford.

The first reference is an opinion piece. In the second reference she refers herself as "a liberal," but qualifies that as being "... in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." That is a nuanced view, worth mentioning in the article. I don't see why the label should be included in the lead though, given that the word has very different connotations around the world and has become somewhat loaded with a segment of the U.S. population.

Maddow herself says that she works hard to ensure that her reporting is fact-based. That is apparently more important to her than her political views. Thus, I believe that the liberal tag is misleading. If you disagree could you share your views with me? Sunray (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sunray. Thank you for reaching out to me!

• In response to the first part of your concern, you are correct that "liberal" could have a different definition depending on where you are in the world. However, in the Maddow bio, "liberal" is linked to liberalism in the United States. Readers are able to click on the link and learn about the American version of liberalism, and there's no reason for them to be confused with the European variant.
• In response to the second part of your concern, you are again correct that Maddow defines herself as a liberal and qualifies that statement with the "Eisenhower-era Republican party platform" sentence. I do think that's a noteworthy nuance. In fact, we include that very nuance in the lead. However, even if she is a "nuanced" liberal, she is still a liberal. In order to remedy some of your sourcing concerns, I included this USA Today article, and this New York Times article that both affirm the liberal label. In addition, Politico, BuzzFeed News, Newsweek, The Financial Times, and The Washington Post all refer to her as a liberal. There is a consensus among sources that Maddow is a liberal.
• In response to the third part of your concern, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Even if Maddow ensures "facts" are presented on her show, how does that negate her status as a liberal? I see no reason why one person can't be liberal and present facts at the same time. So, no, I don't find the liberal tag misleading. Maddow is, undoubtedly, one of the most well-known liberal TV hosts in America.
• Again, thank you for reaching out to me, and I really hope I could answer your questions! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to verify and document this. The usage certainly supports the use of the term "liberal political commentator" and I withdraw my objection. I realize that my removal of the term was probably aspirational. It would be nice if we lived in a world where there were just "political commentators," but in fact, there few who can reach that bar. From the vantage point of a country outside the U.S., it would seem more accurate to call her a "progressive" as she is not a member of a political party, but I realize that the usage in the U.S. is to call her a "liberal." Thank you for your work on this. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting New Democrats

Hi! You reverted an edit I made on the New Democrats page. My reasoning was because the senators listed were already on the Conservative Democrats page and seeing as New Democrats and Conservative Democrats are two separate beliefs and are not organizations, it didn't make sense for senators to be on both pages. If you think they should stay then I won't revert your revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarBoyX (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

StarBoyX, Hello! Please remember to use an edit summary when making changes or removing content. Seeing that there's a lot of overlap between the Conservative Democrats and the New Democrats, I think it would be fine if those senators remain on both pages. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! Marquardtika (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Heritage Foundation on Statehood for Washington

Hi! I'm a little confused, please explain why my addition to the Heritage Foundation explaining their policy opposing statehood for Washington because they think citizens would have an undue influence because of their yard signs is biased? I cited the source, it is factually correct. It is quite timely as well, Zack Smith (of the Heritage Foundation) said this himself while appearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on this subject this week. Thank you! Davidrayedit (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Davidrayedit, Hello! I don't believe they oppose DC statehood simply because of citizens putting up yard signs. Please try to accurately summarize why they oppose DC statehood, and please try to use a secondary source instead of relying on a primary source. Thank you! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Here's another source, but a spokesperson for the Heritage Foundation literally said that. Should I quote them directly? Here's another source by the way: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/washington-dc-statehood-heritage-foundation-1145321/ --Davidrayedit (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try revising it as "one of the reasons" and then use a direct quote? Would that be better? --Davidrayedit (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Davidrayedit. This seems somewhat undue. This was such a minor aspect of his testimony, but it looks like it got a little attention from the media since it was somewhat of an obscure argument. Also, I'm a little concerned because this isn't what the Heritage Foundation said--this is what Zack Smith said. Smith seems to be a minor figure in the Heritage Foundation (he doesn't even have his own article). If the testimony was given by someone like Kay Coles James, then there might be an argument to include it. But, as of now, this seems like regular news reporting to me. What do you think? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC

Hey there. The way the RfC is going at Chris Cuomo, you should probably withdraw it per WP:SNOW and just add it at Andrew Cuomo like people are suggestng. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, You're probably right. Seems like whitewashing to me, but I'll respect the consensus. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too, but the community has spoken. We’re not above consensus. Where do you think it belongs at Andrew Cuomo: official corruption or personal life? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, Definitely not personal life. This was done in his official capacity as governor. Official Corruption doesn't seem like a bad place, but are sources calling it corruption? With the number of sources we have, it might be worth making a new subsection under controversies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. A new section is probably best. I leave it in your good hands. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic training is no substitute for truth

Madison Cawthorn has been accused of sex with an underaged girl and with human trafficking. The fact that you have a PhD does not change that reality. It is very dangerous to allow your personal feelings to deny truth. Calmecac5 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Calmecac5, Your edit had nothing to do with "human trafficking." Please go troll somewhere else. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Kapelushnik has been accepted

Benjamin Kapelushnik, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ya! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Greg Abbott

I get that you didn't like that I added that category to him but that's what he is. Greg Abbott is a far-right Republican. He lifted COVID-19 restrictions so he can blame immigrants (which makes him a racist). Here's the source for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI3CmMYkRAE I'm just glad I don't live down there anymore. We have great music but are politics are fucked, we haven't had any change in the state for a long time. We haven't elected a Democrat as Governor since the 1990s.

DYK for Benjamin Kapelushnik

On 16 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Kapelushnik, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benjamin Kapelushnik, also known as "Benjamin Kickz", sold sneakers at age 16 to celebrity clients such as DJ Khaled, Drake, Travis Scott, Floyd Mayweather and Kevin Hart? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Kapelushnik. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Benjamin Kapelushnik), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Freedom Caucus

About the reversion you did to the edit to the Freedom caucus. The fact the Freedom caucus is far right it actually in the title of the article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/emerging-far-right-no-caucus-house/. If you want me to find more evidence. I'll be happy to send you more sources. Zman19964 (talk) 8:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Zman19964, Please read: WP:HEADLINES Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Aren't the sources for the fact it says its simply right wing also news articles? (Zman19964) (talk) 9:12, 16, April 2021 (UTC)

Zman19964, That's not what WP:HEADLINES means. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Zman19964, There is also concensus to omit "far-right" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

They do have far right factions. Yesterday, it was reported that certain members of the caucus are planning on establishing a far right caucus that has far right beliefs such as nativism, and Anglo Saxon supremacy. Even by the definition of your own consensus, it is far right. Perhaps add right wing with Far right factions. (Zman19964) (talk) 10:14, 17, April 2021 (UTC)

Zman19964, That's not the same thing as the Freedom Caucus. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		You frequently edit in contentious areas and yet have a remarkable ability to remain cool, professional and to work through processes, even the slow ones. Chetsford (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Vot's dis???

I was just leaving a note for Love of Corey and noticed your sense of humor and tact. You know, Ve haf vays of dealink vid dis! Activist (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Activist, Ok I'll bite. Which page are you referring to? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"You and I could also send a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to give us $1 million, but, again, the chances of that happening is also very, very low. Additionally at his time, according to your source, Nancy Pelosi has made no indication that she will actually do what Pascrell is asking. We typically refrain from speculation here at Wiki. However, if in the future Nancy Pelosi does indeed refuse to seat those 120 Republicans, then we can definitely include it in the article." Activist (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Activist, Oh yah! That was the best scenario I could think of. I think he got the message after that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, messages can break through the fog. Today I discovered a "good faith" editor removed the word, "controversial" which I used in the Judge Emmett Sullivan article to describe Enron/Arthur Anderson appellate defense attorney and "Uncle Ted" Stevens fan Sidney Powell, that editor grousing:

curprev 04:25, 6 May 2021‎ Docsavage20 talk contribs‎ 35,476 bytes −14‎ →‎US v Flynn: Editorializing about Sidney Powell not supported by cited source undothank

So this character had solely removed the adjective which I used to characterize America's sweetheart, Powell. Reverting his (?) erasure, my new source has the headline: "Trump reportedly considered appointing controversial lawyer Sidney Powell to lead election fraud investigation," Yahoo News, Tim O'Donnell, December 19, 2020. Retrieved May 20, 2021.

Powell helped me make my case when her defense attorneys had her saying, per National Law Journal,

Facing Defamation, Sidney Powell Says 'No Reasonable Person' Thought Her Election Fraud Claims Were Fact “Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump,” Powell's attorneys wrote.

Activist (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Activist, Received and replied. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 ( UTC)

Thanks so much! Activist (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

For some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation issued

I have a talk page for that article I created that you reviewed. I kindly invite you to respond to what I need to correct on the talk page, along with respectfully telling me where I did things correctly/factually. I am still fairly new to editing and hope to see what I am doing right on top of constructive criticism. If I am repeatedly told I am doing things wrong without pointing out what I am doing right and having a respectful dialogue, I will respectfully take the experience as a sign that Wikipedia is not interested in properly assisting new editors.

Thank you for taking the time to read this Updatewithfacts (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your good work! Marquardtika (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shannon Bream, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Raw Story

Hi, I added a paragraph to The Raw Story article using the study you sent earlier. Maybe you could check and see if there are any issues? Isi96 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, Good job! I just made a few tweaks. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jordan Geller

Hello! Your submission of Jordan Geller at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! lullabying (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Palmer report questions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why can’t we add in that tweet ? Since it pretty much confirms he attacked the page Look https://mobile.twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1411144313183080454 JohnPaos (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC) JohnPaos, As much as I would like to, the answer is no. We would need a decent amount of WP:SECONDARY sources to first write up on the event. Otherwise, it would be undue. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Ok someone edited and it’s ok JohnPaos (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Someone deleted the link Can you posted it https://www.businessinsider.com/the-palmer-report-bill-louise-mensch-2017-5?amp JohnPaos (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC) It was about him attacking people JohnPaos (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC) JohnPaos, Yea, I can re-write it later. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you JohnPaos (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report

Given all the commotion on that particular article, I'm thankful I didn't edit it that much. I hope you're safe! Isi96 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, Yea. It's a good thing I hardly touched that page. I'm going to try my best to remove all that right-wing bias. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

One of his followers has also tried to dox me (thankfully, @MJL was kind enough to warn me, and I don't live in the US). Hope you can stay safe. Isi96 (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for calling out eraserhead JohnPaos (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Geller

It's really funny that an editor with a username like yours wrote an article about Jordan Geller! Just wanted to tell you that someone noticed 👍. Cheers. JBchrch talk 16:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, Oh thanks. When I emailed him for photos, I accidentally signed my name as Dr. Swag Lord. I'm surprised you know who Jordan Geller is! Did you like the article? I nominated it for GA. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer report

Why are you removing a tag when the article is currently falsely accusing Palmer of being a conspiracy theorist? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean what the fuck are we waiting for before we accept Palmer was right about Trump going to prison when charging his company with being a criminal conspiracy isn’t enough? His arrest? When he actually gets convicted? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, Your personal conspiracy theories are of no interest to me. Do not include that tag again without consensus to do so. Everyone on the talk page disagrees with you. Drop the WP:STICK. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How the fuck is it a conspiracy theory when it’s a documented fact that his company has been charged with being a criminal conspiracy. This literally happened this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Eraserhead1,Please do not post on my talk page again. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Dale

Hi, would it be possible for you to take a look at the Daniel Dale article? I significantly expanded it a couple of months ago, and I'd like some feedback if possible. Isi96 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, I'm not too familiar with him, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Isi96 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'll check out the sources you mentioned. Isi96 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, sent Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at them. Isi96 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

He's also mentioned on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article, if you need any further info. Isi96 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, were you able to take a look? Isi96 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, Oh sorry. I was out the entire day for the 4th of July. I'll take a quick look now Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, I just did a pretty detailed copyedit. It would probably best to address the tags I inserted. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Isi96 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96, Good job. You followed all of my suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. Isi96 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jordan Geller

On 8 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jordan Geller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jordan Geller owned 2,388 pairs of sneakers and was recognized by Guinness World Records in 2012 for having the world's largest sneaker collection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Geller. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jordan Geller), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dr. Swag Lord inappropriate behavior on Palmer Report page. Thank you.

Thread started by 50.237.188.194, but they failed to properly notify. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Funny. You were the one to give me my first AE notice. And now you're the one to give me my first ANI notice. You're almost out of noticeboards. ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I can rustle up a few more if need be Thanks for your hard work on the Palmer Report page, despite all the unpleasantness. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert Schalkenbach

Hi I am new to editing and saw that you took issue with a recent edit I made to the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation entry. Please advise me of your concerns. Thank you RSCCHOETRENTON (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RSCCHOETRENTON, Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears as though you have a conflict of interest with the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. Please read the conflict of interest page carefully. You must disclose your conflict of interest and whether someone is paying you for your edits. Users are highly discouraged from editing pages where they have a COI. Additionally, you have inserted highly promotional text in the article, such as this edit. These types of edits violate our neutral point of view policy. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for helping me out. I revised the edit (went back to the original) to make it more neutral. My intent really was to just update the article (since it wasn't updated since 2019) rather than asking others to do it for us. I updated my user page to reflect my COI. RSCCHOETRENTON (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RSCCHOETRENTON, Thank you for disclosing your COI. Unfortunately, I had to remove a good chunk of your edits due to a lack of adequate sourcing. Please familiarize yourself with our core content policies and take a look at this: Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. Also, you may want to try out the Wikipedia adventure. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Claim Obligates Rewrite, Reversions Unjustified

You've recently twice reverted my contribution to the article on chris pratt.

If the edit actually had an NPOV problem, you have a responsibility to rewrite the article into a "neutral point of view", and to not damage the article by deleting the edit entirely with a reversion. But my edit doesn't have an NPOV problem, it merely presents true, relevant, negative information about mr. pratt that reveals a flaw in his character of public significance. Though the information itself can certainly be perceived as embarrassing, the facts are not presented in a biased manner.

The incident was notorious for it involved numerous actors at the top of the Marvel Cinematic Universe behaving in ways a significant portion of movie-goers and Marvel comic book readers would despise. Because of this, dozens of roles, thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars, and which movies do or do not get made can be affected in the big business of Hollywood. That is why the incident is so important, and should not be deleted from the article about chris pratt, because it easily meets any notability requirement.

Every part of the edit was sourced properly with reference sources wikipedia accepts.

I do not yet have a burden to seek a consensus to include this information, because you have not yet specified a dispute, you merely deleted the information with reversion. You need to name at least 1 of your concerns. Your overly broad claim "literally everything you wrote were severe NPOV vios" fails to specify a single one, even though my addition to the article was very small, a mere 8 lines and less than 1,500 letters, far smaller than this very comment I'm leaving on your talk page. If you have a real dispute with the content, you must specify what that is. Providing links to WP:ONUS & WP:BLPUNDEL and ordering me to go read them doesn't help when you haven't specified how either of those policies have been violated. Although I'm already aware of those policies, I have just reread them as you have asked. Yet I still don't see how any part of my edit could possibly violate either one of them.

Do not conduct an edit war. Take it to the talk page. If you have specific, valid complaints, propose alternative language for the sentences. We can talk about what is acceptable and what is not, in accordance with wikipedia policy. You will find I am receptive to legitimate proposals. ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 14:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ace Frahm. I appreciate that you're trying to work with me. You seem to be a little confused on a few matters

• I do not yet have a burden to seek a consensus to include this information... Yes, you do. This is the whole point of WP:ONUS
• it merely presents true, relevant, negative information about mr. pratt that reveals a flaw in his character of public significance It's completely fine to include negative information on a person. In fact, the Zoe Church situation was already included in the personal life section before you started editing. However, we do not try to reveal "flaws" in a person's "character." At the core, this was what was wrong with your edit. We, as editors are supposed to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Furthermore, we need to write in a style that neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject and we need to present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Stating things like ...all of whom failed to address the underlying issue with Zoe church's homophobic policies or Pratt's moral responsibility to use his fame and fortune to fight those policies clearly undermines our NPOV policy.
• All of these policies are amplified when we are dealing with a living person. In particular, BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
• Again, I thank you for reaching out to me. It seems like other editors have removed most of the NPOV vios with your edits, but I'll be making a few more tweaks. Best, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• But the reason you presented for the very first reversion you did was NPOV, not ONUS. If ONUS was your real reason for reversion, you would have named that policy to start with. NPOV burdens you with a rewrite, yet you simply reverted. Then your second reversion was your ONUS claim, which is illegitimate, because the value of this addition is obvious to all: it speaks directly to the character of the man covered by this article. I addressed that ONUS right here on your talk page, up there. But ONUS requires that a dispute exists, before a requirement to meet an ONUS arises, no dispute about the content itself exists. No one has made a contention that any of these actors didn't send these messages on social media. No one has made a contention that VOX or The Mercury News have any facts wrong.
• "Stating things like ...all of whom failed to address the underlying issue with Zoe church's homophobic policies or Pratt's moral responsibility to use his fame and fortune to fight those policies clearly undermines our NPOV" That is fair enough, the section was rewritten in such a way that these assessments ( while correct ) are NOT included in the presentation. But I already edited that out before I just read your complaint about it here, on my own. You had an obligation to help me rewrite the article because of NPOV, reversion did not do that, and it did not specify where the problem was even if the NPOV complaint was fair. Reversion deleted other content in addition to that phrase, and even if that phrase was to be rewritten for NPOV and not included in the main article, the phrase more than adequately establishes ONUS.
• "BLPs should be written responsibly," OKAY. And…? This is true, but it is an overly general statement. Does it have some specific relevance to the content that isn't already addressed by the NPOV fix? I trust it is satisfied now.

♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ace Frahm, You have edit warred and been reverted by a multitude of editors for the exact same policy reasons given by me. And now, you're partially blocked from the Chris Pratt page. It would be best for you to familiarize yourself with our core content policies and our BLP policy before returning to the Chris Pratt page (or any page dealing with a living person). Thank you! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alex Jones on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ricky Schroder on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Palmer Report

On 7 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palmer Report, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in a 2018 survey of 38 news organizations, the Palmer Report was ranked the fourth-least trusted news organization by Americans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palmer Report. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Palmer Report), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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) 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicki Minaj on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

38.103.204.42

Hello I was just letting you know I have found a source for the Northeast Correctional Center. Thank you.38.103.204.42 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Great! Try to add in the source before you submit your edit. Otherwise, the system flags your edit as suspicious. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Cuomo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Research Policy (journal)

On 29 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Research Policy (journal), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Research Policy is regarded as the leading journal in the field of innovation studies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Research Policy (journal). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Research Policy (journal)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mawra

Hello ,

I have made edits on the page on social media updates and these numbers are actual social media followers as per her official social media accounts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrameezb (talk • contribs)

@Mrameezb: Hello! Please refrain from doing that. You would need to provide a reliable source that's independent of the subject's social media account. You most likely won't find such a source, that's why we typically don't include someone's social media followers in their biography. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hugh Jackman on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note

Hi there. Just wanted to make a quick note: Fr24 News is an imposter website of France 24, not the real thing (see also: MBFC). I've seen Newsweek explicitly refer to it as "Fr24 News" in their reporting, but the similar name to the French Public Broadcaster while not having a connection to it makes me suspect that the website is trying to use the France 24 brand to portray itself as more reliable than it actually is. I see that you added the source to an article in this edit and I wanted to make sure that you are aware of the distinction. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Oh, crap. I think you're right. Thanks for catching that. We should probably have an edit filter on that or something. There could be potential WP:COPYVIO problems too by linking to that site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential WP:COPYLINK is concerning. It's not immediately a problem for articles (WP:EL explicitly exempts citations in articles from being caught under the policy), but it being a copyright-violating site would generally be bad for discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've opened up an RSN thread on the topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Let's Go Brandon on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Grayzone page

I undid an edit you made of the Grayzone page, and you marked me as having started an edit war over this. This is a conflict of interest. You are allowing your political viewpoints to impact the neutrality of a highly opinionated Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackword (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop blanking mass amounts of sourced content. You are also edit warring which violates policy. I do not have a COI with the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Democracy Manifest on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2018 Italian general election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jordan Geller

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jordan Geller you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jordan Geller

The article Jordan Geller you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jordan Geller for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Capitalism in America

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Capitalism in America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Capitalism in America was shortlisted for the 2018 Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capitalism in America. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Capitalism in America), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jordan Geller

The article Jordan Geller you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jordan Geller for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Antisemitism in Europe on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine DYK

Hello, I have just finished the initial review of the nomination, and noted some problems with it. I also left some tips, which I hope will prove helpful.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I did not write a hook for this article because I do not feel qualified. I have passed the nom with the present ALT0 hook. If you supply an ALT1 hook, I will have to review that also. An ALT1 hook that was a condensed ALT0 would obviously serve nicely. So, I recommend you pop over to the nom, and either accept it as is as GTG, or write your ALT1.

I am very impressed with this article. The Chinese Famine is such an important piece of history that it richly deserves to be more widely known, and your action in portraying it is commendable.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Georgejdorner. I originally had a more condensed version (Special:Permalink/1059317027) of the current ALT0 hook but it was changed by an admin. I feel satisfied with the hook in its current state so thanks for approving it. The Chinese Famine is incredibly important piece of history and it saddens me that there have been attempts to whitewash it overtime. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In a personal vein, I am old enough to recall American college students waving around Mao's Little Red Book during the Vietnam War. Nothing like invincible ignorance.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The nomination is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

prior accounts

False Accusations of Sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 22:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @Nableezy, Nope. Have you? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Nah, but will see you at SPI in a bit. nableezy - 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @Nableezy, Thanks for the notification :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Nableezy, don't waste your time. I know for a fact Swag Lord isn't even based in Israel if you are thinking Icewhiz. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Who said Icewhiz was based in Israel? nableezy - 22:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz nableezy - 23:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vlach language in Serbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Politics of Austria on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Mo Brooks

Look, I understand that on the surface, my edit of Mo Brooks' page may not have seemed in good faith, but the sources provided cited both his reported enjoyment of the activities on Jan 6th as well as FBI officials referring to the event as a terrorist attack. Why is "terrorist sympathizer" not an appropriate label? Dahumorist (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dahumorist Why is terrorist sympathizer not an appropriate label? For starters, see MOS:TERRORIST. But more importantly, it's not appropriate label because not a single source has called Brooks a terrorist sympathizer. You're relying on pure original research and synthesis to include a defamatory label in a WP:BLP. Please do not edit any biographies again until you fully understand our BLP policy. You may also post your concerns to the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Socialism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Francisco Franco on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People Animals Nature on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is JohnPaos

I don’t know who this JohnPaos guy you mention in my DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Swag, feel free to share any pertinent observations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnPaos. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Harsh Vardhan Shringla on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bucha massacre on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nikol Pashinyan on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United Arab Emirates on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lee Soon-ok on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Steve Kerr characterization

I found many sources, domestic and international, that describe Kerr's massacre response, appropriately, as "exasperated." I'll add one. Activist (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Activist. Please, just keep it neutral. If you're adding something non-neutral, just try to use direct quotes, attribute, etc. and avoid saying it in WP:WIKIVOICE. Very much appreciated! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Depp v. Heard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request Tool changes

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Dr. Dot

On 5 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dr. Dot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr. Dot started to give her mother "bite massages" at the age of five? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dr. Dot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dr. Dot), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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) 00:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,693 views (653.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Technoblade on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jessica Cisneros on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Celebrity Studies

On 15 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Celebrity Studies, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a study published in the journal Celebrity Studies examined Pippa Middleton's buttocks using Marxist and Freudian analyses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Celebrity Studies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Celebrity Studies), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

To be clear on the joke

I just want to make sure, because you can never tell with text, that you got the joke? It's the first time I'd seen your username and you probably get that kind of thing a lot, but the Dr. --- Ph.D. gag is one of my favorite deadpan jokes if done well (and I am incapable of doing so). The Rumpole reference is kind of along those lines, though not quite the same thing. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry I got the joke. But I'm more familiar with the Big Bang Theory verison ;-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Holly Woodlawn on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William, Prince of Wales on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mark Finchem on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libertarian Association of Massachusetts on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dan Wagner on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Open Syllabus Project

On 24 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Open Syllabus Project, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the Open Syllabus Project, the most widely taught novel in college courses is Frankenstein? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Open Syllabus Project. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Open Syllabus Project), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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) 12:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Diana Hacker

On 3 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diana Hacker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the Open Syllabus Project, Diana Hacker is the second most-read female author on college campuses after Kate L. Turabian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Hacker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diana Hacker), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Czech koruna on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello I am here from a recent edit of yours

On mintpress news you removed a edit of mine based on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1121923903

Which didn’t take into account WP:NIS and Acceptable uses of deprecated sources of wp:INDEPENDENT and wp:RS

Can you join our talk page on mintpress news as we are currently talking about the edits of its content tab Bobisland (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland Responded on talk page :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Justin Bieber on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jason David Frank on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Linda Gerdner on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Celebrity Studies

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Celebrity Studies you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Celebrity Studies

The article Celebrity Studies you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Celebrity Studies and Talk:Celebrity Studies/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Celebrity Studies

The article Celebrity Studies you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Celebrity Studies for comments about the article, and Talk:Celebrity Studies/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent reversion at The Grayzone

Hi there. I see you reverted my edit at the Grayzone article, and said something to the effect of "this is definitely not NPOV". Can you expand on that point, please?

Expanding on why I felt the need to remove the word "false": I'll admit, I haven't paid for full access to the academic paper cited, but I have read the source quote cited to justify using the word "false", and the source quote does not even address any specific claims the Grayzone has made about Syria or Russia, much less explain why they are false. It simply asserts as fact that some unspecified claims the Grayzone has made are "counterfactual", with no supporting argument or evidence. That is why I felt that the inclusion of the word "false" is not in keeping with NPOV. Since you seem to disagree in good faith, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter before I take the step of making an RFC. Thanks.

Edit: perhaps it would be more constructive for you to reply to this post on the Grayzone talk page, so that others can see and possibly join the discussion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 Yes, I have responded on the talk page :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, doc :) I appreciate you disagreeing with me, in no uncertain terms, while articulating your position in a way that I can understand, and without accusing me of being a POV pushing hack, lol. Hope you'll stick around for the RFC I make on the Grayzone soon. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Applied behavior analysis on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jenna Haze on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)