Jump to content

User talk:LilianaUwU

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please reply on your talk page if you're not extended confirmed and need to reply to my messages.

category line so it doesn't disappear

PP request

Please add my Talk page to the Temporary semi-protections for Persistent sockpuppetry. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

for the page protection request. I didn't even know you could do that 😄 Knitsey (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've known about it for a while. :^) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know! If I need it again do I just ask at page protection? I've requested pp before but it never occured to me that it can be applied to talk pages. Knitsey (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you just ask for it. Most of the times it'll be granted. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I disruption

Come on, Liliana. I've now had to 1) warn you for no-summary rollbacking a comment that had first been removed by the person it criticized, 2) revert this utterly gratuitous shit-stirring, and 3) hat these forum-y political comments, all at AN/I; the first and second were in particularly frought and sensitive threads, at that. AN/I is a noticeboard where users dealing with serious or chronic disruption go to report their issues to administrators and to those non-admin community members who have something useful to add. If you continue to disrupt that process I will p-block you from the noticeboard. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time with words, so please don't take the way I'm wording this the wrong way, but I'm sorry. I won't post cringe anymore. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I see you closed my ANI, but I still have questions that haven't be resolved. Can you reopen? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you can close it now. Thanks so much! Nemov (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: hello LilianaUwU. you have been trouted — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion (talk • contribs)

Come on, DimensionalFusion, it's not nice to trout without signing... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here, have a signature @LilianaUwU :3
DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Karine Jean-Pierre‎

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Karine Jean-Pierre‎ page. The obsession these accounts have with her is really depressing and emblematic of the larger problems in the US at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

Hello there!

If you had a fursona, what species would it be and why? Brat Forelli (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: Probably a cat. I already consider myself a catgirl, after all. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

question (very serious)

I'm part of the Transfem Cabal now, when do I get my membership card and complimentary goodie bag? :3 – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dudhhr: Second door to the left. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
great, now I'm in my living room, without a card or goodie bag. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit. Uh, it should be arriving in 6 to 8 weeks. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wait, you know my address? Off to oversight you go. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought every trans woman had a trans address book? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. I guess that comes in the goodie bag I haven't gotten yet. Is that right? – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's been seven and a half months, and I haven't gotten my goodie bag yet. Did you mean 6 to 8 months, or should I file a complaint against the Transfem Cabal's Goodie Bag Department? – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I haven't gotten mine... and it's been almost six years. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you should file a complaint! – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 22:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really should. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

Cloudy142 the user page, do you think it's an attack page or bio? I was going to use CSD then thought I would get a second opinion. Knitsey (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knitsey, that's definitely G10. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you, Knitsey (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries on La Trobe Student Union

These are not in keeping with Wikipedia's principles:

  • "not only did you not improve the article, but you also have a COI? ok, sure"
  • "ISSUES. NOT. ADDRESSED"

Please use summaries to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes, and without being intentionally abrasive or shouting. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Fall 2023

The Center Line
Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted Suggestion

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Of course I can edit your talkpage, I'm omnipotent after all. XD A09 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Junlper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junlper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Paragon Deku (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

I apologize for the response on my talk page. I did not mean to offend you when referring to you in the DRV as the "appellant" or using the "their" possessive pronoun. When editing on the project I never use gender specific he/she pronouns to refer to other editors because I do not want to misgender. I see now that it is important to you so I will remember if I we find ourselves in the same threads in the future. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fine. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For canvasing and battleground behavior related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M43 (Durban) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F102 highway (Nigeria), you have been blocked for a week. I particularly find the attempted retaliation here to be beyond the pale. This block was almost and indef because of it. Since it is based on private information, this block counts as a Checkuser block. I am willing to share the evidence of canvasing with any CU who is reviewing the block. Additionally, the evidence has been sent to arbcom-en. You may appeal this block directly to arbcom or via the unblock template. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put into words how happy I was to see you back

I am so happy you are back. Wikipedia is blessed by your presence!

Me waving back to you

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

73.27.191.165's contributions

Hi LilianaUwU, I'm not sure if all of these should be more-or-less blindly reverted. I'm currently failing to find a consensus for QLDer in NSW's mass adition of what 73.27.191.165 has removed (see also the bottom of User_talk:QLDer in NSW#73.27.191.165's_reverts, permanent link). If you know of one, please let me know. When in doubt, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS probably apply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I could always self-revert. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that would be the best approach for now; I lack background information about the current consensus if one exists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently discussing this on the Republican Party's talk page; we have been for months now. QLDer in NSW (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QLDer in NSW, are you saying there is no consensus and you (silently?) did this during a running discussion, in the background? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Drmies because he reverted one of my self reverts. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. These are old edits. QLDer in NSW (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the edit cause it seemed like a perfectly acceptable edit to me. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So did I, but I guess it's a mess of a situation I happened upon, which seems to happen a bit too often on here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was where I was coming from too. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. What a chaos. I guess blocking 73.27.191.165 for 31 hours wasn't too horrible of a decision, but this all is a mess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, September. Noone had objected to these until now, but that might have been caused by a lack of attention. (Re-)adding the disputed content without a citation and apparently without the article content supporting it either (such as in Special:Diff/1184699703?) may perhaps not be the best approach, but I may also be overlooking something. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree, @QLDer in NSW: I found two discussions (here, here) on Talk:Republican Party (United States). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Chronological order: Special:Diff/1173457636, Special:Diff/1173462906, Special:Diff/1173467553, 10 days of silence, first reply to the discussion. I'm not sure how to describe this; perhaps "very bold" is accurate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Old PROD notice on Talk:Oliver Emanuel

I just wanted to inform your decision on this edit [1]. During the spate of sock assault on the article, I placed that notice, not one of the socks. I don't mind whatever you want to do with this, but: sock placed PROD on talk page, I removed it (misplaced though it was), and added the tag to indicate that someone else had already PRODed and was challenged. I felt the benefit was that the article could not be PRODed again, and would need to go to the AfD process. I respect your decisions, and I don't mean to keep you from continuing improvements. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should say that it's not that I feel in anyway personally harmed by an association with a sock. Everybody knows that's not true. I meant to propose whether or not the 'Old PROD' tag is beneficial to preventing further harm to the article. Again, I repect your decisions. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't associate you with a sock, I saw a sock mention they put such a template on that talk page and assumed it was them who put it there. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, LilianaUwU. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Good Luck.
Message added 07:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-Lemonaka‎ 07:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are ANI threads closed?

I've had an ANI thread open about me for almost four weeks. It seems for the most part to be dead but for some reason is still open. Is there a reason why it is still open? Is it because consensus has not yet been reached? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TabahFromMalaysia13

Erm, if you were to look at the creator's contribs, it is obviously a testpage and not a draft. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Liliana :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Also I'm cool with playing Mario Kart again whenever you feel like it Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've reverted the edits of 88.230.98.112 (talk · contribs), thanks for that. I have tried to contact them various times with no response. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was this IP 88.230.111.58 (talk · contribs) which I suspect is the same person. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is the same person, LibStar. They're called the bilateral relations troll, and are at ANI currently. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LilianaUwU, is there an SPI page for this? They are back here. CMD (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Best, CMD (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I'm heading to Havre-Saint-Pierre starting tomorrow, so y'all may not see me as much for a week or so. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on the road back home, approaching Forestville. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm back home. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. I hope that you and I find ourselves working together in the new year! Lightburst (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your comments on Tryptofish's neutral vote over at the Clovermoss RFA: I found them hurtful. This is a great project and it likely needs both of us even if we occasionally disagree. In spite of this I do really hope that we get to work together and that we learn to respect for each other. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I don't know what causes you to think that "At least you didn't oppose, unlike a certain someone..." is a helpful comment to make while badgering an oppose at somebody's request for adminship, but please don't do stuff like this. It's just pointless flamebait and has about a zero percent chance of causing any reasonable conversation to happen. If somebody makes a comment that annoys you enough to warrant bringing it up on-wiki, I would recommend doing what I do, and writing a message to them about it on their talk page (in fact, I am doing that right now). Or, at the very least, bringing it up on the talk page for the RfA -- there's really no point to being rude to people and subtweeting them in the middle of what's supposed to be a discussion about the candidate first and foremost. jp×g🗯️ 08:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello LilianaUwU, we need experienced volunteers.
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
  • If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
  • Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volkssturm, POV

You seem to have put a POV tag on Volkssturm. It would be useful if you gave more detail on the talk page on the specific phrases, paragraphs or sections that you felt were problematic. (Hohum @) 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Are you kidding me? Have you even read the article? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, the most egregious phrase (On some occasions, members of the Volkssturm showed tremendous courage and a determined will to resist, more so even than soldiers in the Wehrmacht., the very reason I put the tag) was removed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) {{POV/doc}} states The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion[...]the tag may be removed by any editor. Regardless of how obvious the issue might be, you should always bring it up on the talk page. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note of encouragement

I’m angry and tired too, don’t let it consume you. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To cheer you up...

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello LilianaUwU, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 13:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 13:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikiversary, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I share your view that the NYT is massively overrated as a US paper of record, but this is likely a problem of the English-language media ecosystem that is upstream of Wikipedia, the kind that would take a mountain of peer-reviewed criticism to resolve (and even then would probably draw a lot of tendentious back and forth). If you can find it, I highly recommend My Times: A Memoir of Dissent by John L. Hess, a former journalist there that paints a less-than-shining portrait of their editorial policies. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Wikimedians Discord

You mentioned an LGBT Wikimedians Discord server over here. I'm curious. Could I have a link? Loki (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar, it's listed as "Queer Wikimedians" on Wikipedia:Discord#Other servers. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! Loki (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, you've been mentioned in a thread at WP:AN. (For unclear reasons, the person who posted it didn't think it was appropriate to notify you; this post is to rectify their oversight.) --JBL (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Special:Diff/1193746163. Enjoy your trout with your beans :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Been a while. I've quite literally been all over eastern Canada, from Havre-Saint-Pierre to Sorel-Tracy to Rouyn-Noranda to Lively, Ontario. I might be back by the same time next week, or I may pop in this weekend between (actual) truck loads. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your report at ANI

 Whack!

You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts.

Don't take this too seriously. I just want to let you know you that you did something silly.

Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The spiteful message above notwithstanding, thank you for at least trying to deal with such an obvious problem. It's too bad that the community didn't have the stomach for actually doing anything. But the trout above will be useful for next time as evidence that Lightburst's 'can't we all just get along' schtick is insincere, so one day you may yet be vindicated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the comments of others

Please do not edit the comments of others on article talk pages unless it is for removing trolling, vandalism, or unless you have the editor's permission. [2] The guideline for this is very clear. XeCyranium (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XeCyranium: redacting comments that contravene WP:BLP is allowable per WP:TPO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the comment contravene BLP? By my reading it pretty clearly doesn't. XeCyranium (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XeCyranium: yes. As I said in my edit summary, WP:BLPNAME and MOS:GENDERID apply here through WP:BDP. Benedict's former name is non-notable, and per the second paragraph of GENDERID should not be included on any page, including talk pages. We treat former names of trans and non-binary people as a privacy interest separate from and greater than their current name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason then that it doesn't include talk pages within the pages it's referring to in said second paragraph? All of these seem to be referring to article space. XeCyranium (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Templates and categories aren't in mainspace. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue, and as the intro to WP:BLP states, it applies to all pages, including talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that BLP didn't apply to details of a deceased individual unless the details are "contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends" which from what I can tell this isn't. XeCyranium (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it more generally applies to people who died in contentious circumstances. Examples include suicide, homicide, or an unexpected death after an alleged assault. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty clearly not what it says. It applies to the details of murders/suicides that could cause distress for the family/friends, it does not simply apply to anybody dead who's ever been the victim of a violent crime. XeCyranium (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this recently closed RfC on the current consensus interpretation of BDP. Specifically in the close The community strongly supports the position that WP:BLP should, by default, extend to deceased people for a certain amount of time after their deaths. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now that's something different, shame nobody's updated any of the relevant pages, but if it does apply to non-contentious but private details regarding dead people for some yet to be determined time after their death then it seems you did the right thing indeed. Hopefully there will be an actual set timeframe in the future, but either way if that's the newest version of the policy then that seems fair to leave it as it is. It still would have been preferable if the editors had linked to that in the first place. XeCyranium (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XeCyranium: You think I'm gonna let a flagrant GENDERID violation stand? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify where in GENDERID it forbids the mentioning of former names that have been reported in reliable sources on article talk pages? By my reading, you're being overzealous. XeCyranium (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph: it should not be included in any page (...), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. (emphasis mine). Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. As far as I know, talk pages fall under "etc." LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like "living" is the operative word in that sentence. XeCyranium (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARB

Hi, thanks a lot during Arb investigation. Though nothing serious happened. Thanks for your mail. -Lemonaka‎ 09:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Green (2nd nomination)

Hello, LilianaUwU,

I think of you as a reliable, sensible editor so I'm bewildered why you thought it was appropriate to edit an archived AFD discussion as you did with this edit. This is just not done unless in the rare occasion where there is some objectionable content and even then it would be redacted or struck out. But we don't edit archived discussions on noticeboards or archived deletion discussions. I don't see anything here in the remarks that warrants removal. Do you have an explanation? Please do not do this again. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, that's a very likely sock of one of the usual suspects, with an offensive username. I didn't use an edit summary to try to not give them attention. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on 2024 New Jersey earthquake

Thanks for your revert to 2024 New Jersey earthquake.

Welp - there were also BLP problems with that "popular culture" section. Maybe it can be brought back if it can be written in a neutral manner with due weight. Awesome Aasim 04:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's gonna come back. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit summary needing redaction. Thank you. Notification on behalf of IP Lightoil (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You rock!

Thanks for helping with that sockpuppet! Cjhard (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to quickly say--

I completely understand your position on the Nex Benedict article. I completely agree that the actual cause of death is obvious, but as it has been (somewhat ridiculously) ruled a suicide, I do think the inclusion is appropriate. Sometimes simple formalism is just for the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. It's why there should be an independent investigation ASAP, but until then, I guess every RS says it's a suicide, so we gotta follow that. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

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

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Notifying on behalf of IP. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 22:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Wow! Such much niceness. DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

I don't get why you deleted this comment. I had a point, of course, but it wasn't about frustration with the system or meant to disrupt. Not the most necessary thing I've said, but in a talk about TPA revocation and ruder words, it seemed relevant, at least. Anyway, no big deal, just curious. If you'd rather delete this than answer it, that's fine, too. I'll wonder quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the burial I refer to happened back in the day, well before the shitshow you might remember from last year. And I found your section by "stalking" Black Kite, not you. We were trying to get a dead and late footballer posted to RD. That was in AN, not AN/I, but this section was close enough (in contribution history) to pique my interest. You creating it was just a coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the shitshow from last year, understand why I was worried that it's about that. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I learned better from that one, too, but was allowed to Talk it out. Regret both just the same in other ways. Sorry again, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Explaining CTOPIC notices

Hey LilianaUwU. First of all, I wanted to apologize for getting too hot-headed in the discussion with you. My edit where I responded to you was uncalled for and I am sorry for it. I wrote it as a hothead and definitely should not have done that.

If you are up to it, I would like to continue the discussion, but in a calm and cool manner, discussing/answering any of your concerns. Specifically, I would like to discuss/answer why you may think I am targeting you.

So, I made a mistake and did not add a contentious topic notice to the article right after it was made. That was my mistake. I recognized my mistake coincidentally off of the accusation of WP:OWN on the AfD nomination. {Quick reference note, GenevieveDEon and myself had a discussion (where I was definitely too hot-headed), but we have worked it out and the accusation is no longer a concern to them and I do not consider it an accusation any further.} Following my seeing the AfD nomination/wording of it, I realized that I forgot to add the contentious topic notice to the article, in which case I did. Per WP:CTOPICS, specifically, the "Awareness of contentious topics" section, editors who edit in the CTOPIC for the first time or who have yet to receive a CTOPIC notice should be given an alert regarding it. In suit, I did that, alerting not just you, but every editor in the AfD as well as any editor who had edited the article. A few already had the climage change CTOPIC notice, but anyone who did not yet have it received one.

I wasn't intentionally targeting you or any other editor. I made a mistake by not adding it in the first place. When I corrected that mistake, the timing made it appear that I was targeting you. I hope that clears up the timeline and mistake I made. If you do have a question regarding it though, or you still feel I am targeting you, please ask or let's discuss it. I want to discuss and figure this out in a non-hotheaded way. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... again, sending a bunch of CTOP notices to people who have !voted to delete/merge your article wasn't a very good call. If anything, someone else should've sent those. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, it isn't "my" article. Editors do not own articles. Secondly, technically, I was sending the notice to people who basically agreed with me. If anything, I was closer to canvassing than targeting, since I too did a formal !vote of "Merge", meaning the CTOPIC notice was sent to people who have views similar to mine (you included). Basically, timing was the whole issue from what I can tell. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I do see what you mean. I should have asked for someone else to do the CTOPIC notifications, rather than myself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman comment by Certes

Hello, I hope I'm not adding to anything rough you've been experiencing. I'm commenting under your talk page only because we've interacted before along with your familiarity with a banned user, and nothing else; I'm a little uncomfortable talking to "strangers" over heavy matters. If you suggest I notify a more appropriate user I will oblige.

You're familiar with Chris troutman and was involved in the AN/I discussion leading to his infefinite ban. Almost a month ago Certes made a thank you comment that briefly engaged what I believe is conspiracy and defended his comments. I took notice and just made a reply; maybe it was better that I didn't, but I get really uptight about any form of speculativism or conspiracy and I believe some counter-response has to be made to cut whatever bad influence could come from it. Regardless if I should've or not, I don't believe Certes's comment was known to anyone else so I needed to tell someone about this. I wish you a good rest of your day. Carlinal (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana, I am sorry that you have been troubled with this matter. Although I have now retired from Wikipedia, I noticed Carlinal's message as I occasionally check for pings and felt obliged to respond. Both contributions have now been reverted. Certes (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

If this was a non-political event he absolutely would not have an article. Lots of editors fail to understand our BLP policies as evidenced by the AfD discussions. It's shocking how many editors fail to understand BLP and more interested in treating Wikipedia like a tabloid. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules don't matter for American editors as long as they can shove American politics down the throats of the other countries' editors. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even copyright concerns have been thrown out the window. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the intrusion, but I can't help agreeing--I think the definition of a reliable source should be updated to include "at least two weeks old." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially disagreed and thought just avoiding breaking news would be fine, but after giving it more thought and seeing edits like this: [3] there is clearly far more benefit to the project than any harm by waiting 2 weeks to update articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an old thread but I just stumbled onto your talk and have to ask: was the anti-American potshot really necessary? Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do think there's a very heavy American bias on Wikipedia, but that wasn't necessary. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re referring to English Wikipedia, the USA is the largest English-speaking country on Earth; that’s a bit like saying there’s a heavy Metropolitan French bias on French Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
India would like a word. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone was going to say that; India is an extremely multilingual country where English is mostly a lingua franca (and Hindi has a strong claim to that status as well). The US is easily the most populous country of the core anglosphere. Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trump4prez2024

I blocked this account for a commonplace promotional username violation. In my view, trying to argue that this username is hateful as opposed to simply a promotional username is unnecessarily divisive when a straightforward outcome is clear. The account is indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I recommend you read Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Then you might understand why I consider such a username hateful. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of those topics on and off-Wikipedia, and I have no hesitation to express my personal opposition and indignation off Wikipedia. I have been a supporter of trans people's rights and dignity ever since I first met a trans person at age 17 back in 1969 in New York's East Village. I am not a trans person but am an unwavering supporter of their rights and dignity. I subsequently lived in San Francisco for many years and continued my support which continues to today. But the Neutral point of view is among our most important guiding principles. Dealing with these issues neutrally, in accordance with our policies and guidelines, is by far the best way to respond here on Wikipedia. Non-neutral POV pushers reveal themselves and are blocked for that reason. Cullen328 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA case page started for your "bilateral relations troll"

I saw in one of your 2023 edit summaries a remark about the "bilateral relations troll". I believe that same person is described in the new case page which I started: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Demographics vandal. The sustained interest in Romani diaspora combined with a fascination in race/ethnicity/demographics was the common thread I was following. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, this does match somewhat with what I saw. The IPs almost exclusively edited See also sections of bilateral relations articles. Here's my latest ANI post on them, which was archived. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, lots of historic IPs to sort through. I'll chew on this info when I get some spare time. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BRT guy is active today.[4] The BRT person may simply have intersections of interest with Demographics vandal. I need to spend time and sift through contributions. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe these may be two different people, yes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments on Talk:Trump International Golf Club shooting

Speaking as someone who detests Trump and everything he stands for, your comments appear inappropriate. If you are having difficulty commenting on, or editing articles pertaining to subjects about which you have obviously strong feelings, I suggest you refrain and move on to other topics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only opinion is about the article's notability... which has nothing to do with my opinion on Trump. Meanwhile, I think Sofeshue got off extremely lightly considering their use of "its" to refer to a trans person. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ASFAIK we have articles on every confirmed assassination attempt on a US president including the two on Gerald Ford, one of which never involved a shot being fired. You are of course free to send the page to AfD, but as an experienced editor, I believe it would be snow closed as a Keep and you would be fortunate not to end up being trouted. I have issued a level III warning to Sofeshue with no previous warnings. That's a pretty sharp rebuke. If there is any further commentary of a similar nature I would likely indef them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page stalker here - @Ad Orientem, While I don't agree with the presentation of the otherstuff argument here, a person trying to kill a (former) world leader is justly so relevant in its own right. Doesn't need Gerald to back it up.
Of late, I've been seeing Liliana's more recent comments, including those Ad Orentium has referenced, and I'm frankly concerned about the vulgar nature of them. Profanity is not always uncivil, (hell, I myself use profanity in a tone of jest on this site), and the general attitude this user has shown seems to be helpful to the encyclopedia. But there are concerns. See here at an LGBT -> LGBTQ category renaming discussion, where she is quoted as saying "Again, the article should've remained at LGBT, so don't fuck this up further." in response to a renaming bid, which characterized the nom's (User:HouseBlaster) suggestion as a "fuck up". Not very civil-seeming to me. User:Omnis Scientia did reprimand her for this, so due process has occurred. (I don't want this to look like I'm digging stuff up to incriminate this user without reason) But, this behaviour is concerning. Pair this with Ad Orentium's concerns as spoken on above, I don't think this can be boiled down to just an isolated case.
Liliana seems like a wholesome, helpful contributor overall, but I can't help but notice some of her more recent comments have been sub-par to the civility policy. I think it might be constructive to take the dog for a walk and come back with a fresh mind, no?
With much love, BarntToust (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I busted my phone screen.

This doesn't affect my physical ability to edit (I edit from my computer 99% of the time), but this is taking a huge toll on my mental health. Expect me to be even less active, and maybe even more short tempered. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I encourage taking a break, period. If you expect yourself to be snappy towards other editors because of a phone getting busted, the best thing to do for yourself and Wikipedia is to have some time off. Remember, on Wikipedia, civility is required, notwithstanding anything else including the mishaps of personal life.
A break provides more time to collect your thoughts, focus on self-care, meditate, to do whatever it is that may improve your state-of-being. I suggest listening to ambient music, like Minecraft – Volume Alpha, or the works of Brian Eno, to relax.
See Wikipedia:WikiBreak for some lighthearted prose on this concept.
Hoping for the best for you, friend. May life's troubles not hinder the joys to be had. –BarntToust(Talk) 20:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE issue

Hi, your userpage.js popped up in Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications. First off, let me salute you for the creative abuse of conventions on display there. ;) Joking aside, please apppend <noinclude>/userpage.js</noinclude>, this will fix the DISPLAYTITLE issue. Lastly, display:none does not work, this behavior has been suppressed since 2013. You can use font-size:0 instead to achieve the desired effect. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to fix this, but I'm running into issues. So, do I use <noinclude> on the entire userpage.js to get the DISPLAYTITLE issue fixed? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? No! That would defeat the purpose of transcluding.
Just append the string "<noinclude>/userpage.js</noinclude>" right after "UwU</span>''" and before the closing "}}".
I've put a (slightly tweaked) ready-to-use sample at /custom DISPLAYTITLE. Just copy the source of the page to your userpage.js, then blank/delete /custom DISPLAYTITLE.
BTW: <templatestyles src="User:LilianaUwU/userpage.css"/> is redundant, your userpage.css is applied to your userpages by default. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. In any case, I transferred the DISPLAYTITLE back to the main page, and since it's fully protected, there's no huge risk of it being screwed with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. See you around! Paradoctor (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Your comment at ITNC was out of line. This is not the first time I have had to address your penchant for rude and politically charged comments. I do not want to have do so again. This note should be understood as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and comment retracted. On a semi-related note, I'm tired of pretending that creating an article on every current event in American politics (and forks about individual parts of those events!) is fine. People should realize that Wikipedia is not breaking news. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And on your closing point, I agree with you. That's been a sore subject with me for years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that Ad Orientem just formally cautioned you about a talk page comment being out of line less than a week ago, I would strongly suggest you retract your recent baseless accusation of "whitewashing" [5], which you have now doubled down on [6]. – notwally (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for striking your comment. I would also suggest that you refrain from describing other editors as "opponents" [7]. Considering that you were blocked last year for a week for battleground behavior, I would assume you have read the related policies on civility. – notwally (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean... one of the key components of civil POV pushing is to make others angry and get them sanctioned. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure you have made a lot of useful edits, and I think if you looked at mine you would feel the same. I try to be very neutral here, and so it is probably easy to misjudge my personal political views. AGF is an important concept, and I think it would lower your stress when editing. Getting angry because someone requested that sources are provided in a talk page discussion (and one that had been a constant sniping back-and-forth between editors without almost any discussion about actual content prior) is only going to cause unnecessary stress. I have my own block log, so I know how things can be. And trust that I am very passionate about political issues when I'm not on Wikipedia. I hope you were able to get your phone screen fixed, and I wish you all the best. – notwally (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than start a new section--please remember that BLP rules apply to talk pages--[8] calling people far right when they aren't doesn't help your case here. You make an interesting point here about civil POV pushing and making others angry... Contentious subjects are best dealt with dispassion--this approach has served me well. SmolBrane (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sensing a pattern with your most recent comment on my ANI report suggesting that an editor calling someone a misogynist wasn’t a personal attack. I’m not going to go so far as to suggest your behavior is intractable, but hopefully you see why someone might. Kcmastrpc (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that was a dumb comment. And yes, it's a pattern, one I'm trying to fix. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truce

And I thought we had a truce? That was the third ANI you started about me - I am not counting the others you just voted in. I have used the trout button on this page twice before so this message will just be one to hopefully restore the truce. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't start anything. I simply reopened the ANI based on the closer being involved. I would've done the same if it was anyone else. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilianaUwU&oldid=1256104701"