User talk:MonMothma

Welcome!

Hi MonMothma! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --🐦DrWho42👻 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MonMothma! We're glad you're here and want to help. I wanted to let you know that Sam Brinton falls into not only our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, which is one of our most critical, but also into gender-related and arguably into American politics; all three areas are considered contentious topics. The edits you made there were clearly well-intentioned, but a major edit such as that often needs discussion when it's at a BLP in a contentious area, and it's often best to open that discussion before making that major an edit. Valereee (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Valereee. MonMothma (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and I hope it's helpful rather than otherwise! Valereee (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MonMothma, the Lia Thomas article is also within the BLP, gender-related, and likely post-1992 American politics contentious topics area. I reverted your recent addition to the lead according to MOS:LEAD and because the addition seems WP:UNDUE [1], and I encourage you to address this on the article talk page if you want to discuss this addition further. Please note that a claim made in your addition also does not appear to be supported by sources in the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Brownback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious right. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removal of sandusky paragraph

Hi, I wasn't particularly attached to the paragraph I edited at the end of 'imprisonment' in the Jerry Sandusky article, it replaced an earlier paragraph about the previous failed appeal. As you know, virtually all Sandusky victims said nothing happened in their initial interviews and eventually said things did happen. There was no forensic psychiatrist giving expert testimony, should have stressed that the initial interview is usually the authoritative one and new 'recollections' aren't reliable.

Currently someone replaced it with a different paragraph saying Shubin acted incorrectly...apprecite your thoughts.Createangelos (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Createangelos, I found the paragraph about the most recent appeal to be very confusing, so I replaced it to make things clearer. Hope that helps. MonMothma (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is more satisfying to have a villain in the piece and maybe justified. The 'garbled' nature ot the other paragraph was because the forensic psych Barden had a bit of the gift of gab, as far as the focus, the focus then was on therapists vs scientists.

I actually did spend many hours reading things and almost everything I read in the past is covered in the recordings Ziegler and Habib had made. Re Shubin, an insightful quote is when he said to an undercover teen investigator "What other reason besides sexual interest could lead someone to dedicate so much of their life to kids." It wasn't like he'd thought about the question seriously. I think that though prosecutors ring-fenced Shubin's involvement, and didn't allow people like Allan Myers who was involved with Shubin to be a prosecution witness. The main case was v1 whose therapist was Gillum and v4 who changed his story under the influence of Lieter (sp?). The police interrogators were trained in drugs enforcement, also I think used techniques with the kids (now adults) that are more useful with gangsters, to make deals and push for testimony and it is a victory when they finally cooperate and spill the beans etc etc. One technique is to say there is already massive confirmation evidence, we just need someone with the courage to say it happened to them (and collect your settlement).

The current article about Sandusky sort-of ends as if it is blaming Shubin for what went wrong. Ironically, prosecutors were very very fastidious about trying to be fair and steer clear of people who seemed to be influencing the evidence. It almost sounds like I have an involvement -- I do not, but I respect the intellectual rigor and care of the prosecution. The jury just seemed to be out to lunch and didn't get what was happenign, sadly.

Not sure if you still want to work on it. Good luck if so.Createangelos (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Createangelos, contrary to what you said, I don't think that the article blames Shubin for anything. It simply recounts the most recent motion made by the defense and the fact that the motion was denied. Aside from that, I am confused by the rest of what you wrote here and on the article's talk page, so I can't respond intelligently. Sorry. MonMothma (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly saw that I basically copy/pasted my comment to you on the talk page....so you and I do not need to hold responsibility for what happens. You are correct that I exaggerated the living bio aspects re shubin, but anyway I'm fine to leave this to more competent (and less garbled) editors than me anyway.Createangelos (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jane's Revenge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written and poorly sourced?

I notice that you removed one of my edits. I'm sure you did it without political bias. However, if you think is was "poorly written and poorly sourcedthen there were other courses of action you could have taken. For example, you could have improved the writing and sourced it better. There were at least a dozen sources I could have chosen; I considered Newsweek adequate. It seems you don't want the revelation to be published. Francis Hannaway (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Hannaway, I think the Mike Johnson article is already overloaded with references to his religious faith. (Perhaps I should have added that to my edit summary.) If you disagree, please feel free to take the question to the article talk page. We will see what other editors think. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. His religious belief in a disestablished country is one thing, but this was a particularly mind-boggling declaration as a representative of the nation. Francis Hannaway (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Party

@MonMothma I disagree with your statement that including the Democrat Party nickname on the Democratic Party page is not notable for the lead (see the mention of "GOP" on the Republican Party page). Millions of people refer to the party as such, and its use is well documented. Consequently, I will be reinstating with sources.

Loltardo (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Crash

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your recent edits to Darby Crash. Definite improvements, in both writing and proper sourcing. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, CAVincent. MonMothma (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your eloquent and well-made revisions to Toby Keith. I'm sure there's more to come! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aaron Liu! I appreciate it. MonMothma (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:SunCrow per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SunCrow. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend taking the standard offer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]