VictimOfEntropy

query

Hello. Please stop removing information about Will Graham being Hannibal Lecter's love interest in the show on the Hannibal Lecter page. In the show, Hannibal is in love with Will. This issue has already been discussed many times. Please see the "relationship between Graham and Lecter" for verification as well as talk page. K.S.Morgan (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was just fine, for a very long time, until *you* added that false information just a few days ago.

And you can type whatever you want, on whichever page you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Nothing that you type will change what’s in the books, the movies, or the TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictimOfEntropy (talk • contribs)

June 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Hannibal Lecter. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Please actually read what is being written to you instead of ruining other people's work. I left you three messages already with clear explanations as well as advice where you can look for confirmation of information you label as "vandalism" for some reason. You are welcome to check Relationship between Graham and Lecter section. You can also check general talk page, the lowest section, where such conversations already took place. I've worked on this section for a long time and I've been monitoring it for years. Don't delete people's work when you don't know the material well enough. K.S.Morgan (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to correct false information. It is clearly false to anyone who has seen the show. Outside interviews mean absolutely nothing to the characters themselves.

I am an expert on the the creations of Thomas Harris; especially all of the different versions of Hannibal Lecter. I’ve been studying and analyzing them for about 10 years now.

Looking through your history, I see that you’ve been rebuked for this twice before. Yet you still persist in spreading false information.

Regrettably, I know almost nothing about Wikipedia; so I don’t know how to get mods involved in order to resolve this. The interface feels extremely strange.

I haven't been "rebuked" for anything. There were users like you who missed the fact that Hannibal is in love with Will. In the show. Books have nothing to do with it. One of moderators asked me to create a section that would prove this before adding Will as Hannibal's SO. I did that. It was approved. Please read it on Hannibal Lecter's page, section titled "Relationship between Graham and Lecter". I've added quotes of director, producers, and from the show itself. Also, please look up what SO means in Wikipedia. "Significant other (SO) is colloquially used as a gender-neutral term for a person's partner in an intimate relationship[1] without disclosing or presuming anything about marital status, relationship status, or sexual orientation." Hannibal Lecter has been stated to be in love with Will. Will has been shown as in love with Hannibal. In the show, not just outside of it - it's direct text. There is no mere flirting, and the feelings aren't one-sided. The show ends with Hannibal and Will running away together and attacking Bedelia. Again, it's all been proven. In the show, Will and Hannibal are partners. It's reflected here. K.S.Morgan (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is all projection on your part. NONE of that was EVER explicitly stated in the show. It was ALWAYS extremely ambiguous and left open to interpretation.

“Running away together”? Seriously? Nothing like that was ever shown. You’re clearly thinking of the books, where Hannibal and Clarice DID explicitly run away together to Buenos Aires:

“Sometimes our couple dances at dinnertime. Sometimes they do not finish dinner. Their relationship has a great deal to do with the penetration of Clarice Starling, which she avidly welcomes and encourages. It has much to do with the envelopment of Hannibal Lecter, far beyond the bounds of his experience. It is possible that Clarice Starling could frighten him. Sex is a splendid structure they add to every day.”

THAT is a relationship. EXPLICITLY STATED IN DETAIL.

If you want to add Will Graham to the “Significant other” section next to Clarice Starling, then we’d also need to add Lady Murasaki (in both the books and the movies), because Hannibal told her *explicitly* that he’s in love with her (multiple times), and everyone else Hannibal ever displayed attraction to, in any medium: Lady Murasaki, Rachel DuBerry, Alana Bloom, Bedelia du Maurier, and even Signora Pazzi.

Actually, everything has been directly stated in the show. When talking about Will with Bedelia, Hannibal said, "We can't control with respect to whom we fall in love." Then he said, "Will makes me feel love". Will asked Bedelia, "Is Hannibal in love with me?" She replied, "Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you but find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you ache for him?". It's explicit. This IS the relationship, the central one in the entire show. Bedelia used the same wording that is used for Hannibal and Clarice in the books. There are tons of other explicit moments. Hannibal is referred to as Will's "old flame". They are called Murder Husbands canonically. Hannibal calls Will his "family". Will admits he wanted to "run away with him" and will always want it. Hannibal sent Will a Valentine heart that Will called "A Valentine written on a broken man". The whole show is crowded with these moments. I know it by heart. Hannibal didn't simply express attraction to Will - the whole show is about their complex love story. Will is Hannibal's everything. It's confirmed textually and by director. And yes, Will and Hannibal ran away together, the ending which reflects the one Hannibal and Clarice got. Post-credits scene shows Bedelia without a leg, with a table served in Hannibal's style for 3 places. Bryan Fuller confirmed it was meant to show that Will and Hannibal lived. S4 had to feature their life together "behind the veil". K.S.Morgan (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat myself:

If you want to add Will Graham to the “Significant other” section next to Clarice Starling, then we’d also need to add Lady Murasaki (in both the books and the movies), because Hannibal told her *explicitly* that he’s in love with her (multiple times), and everyone else Hannibal ever displayed attraction to, in any medium: Lady Murasaki, Rachel DuBerry, Alana Bloom, Bedelia du Maurier, and even Signora Pazzi.

Do you not understand the difference between SO and a person one felt weak attraction to? If we're going there, Hannibal's relationship with Clarice isn't developed at all. But she's still mentioned here because he ends up with her. Because out of everyone, she's most important. The whole show is about Will and Hannibal. Hannibal never loved anyone but Will. Everything he did revolved around him. So yes, if anyone deserves to be mentioned as his SO, it's Will Graham, the only person he loves and who he sacrificed his freedom for. K.S.Morgan (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition: out of who you mentioned, Hannibal's aunt is the only one who can somehow qualify as his love interest. If you think her role is that important in his life, sure, add her! But remember about Wikipedia rules: if you add her, you have to create a section where her relationship with Hannibal is discussed and supported by relevant sources. Like I did with Will and Hannibal's page. K.S.Morgan (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. Hannibal hated Will Graham. He eviscerated him and left him for dead. He tried to kill him *multiple* times, actually.

Hannibal *never* harmed Clarice Starling or Lady Murasaki. He never harmed a single hair in either of their heads. And he was madly in love with Lady Murasaki, devoted to her, for the entirety of his teen years.

Hannibal would never harm Clarice. He *cut off his own hand* instead of hers - even though she was the one who cuffed him. THAT is true love.

And there’s the fact that every line TV!Hannibal says to TV!Will that could ever be interpreted as romantic was wholly copied from exchanges between Hannibal and Clarice in the book and movies. TV!Will is a pale substitute.

Now you're just being subjective instead of objective. You are mixing movies, books, and the show. Hannibal has different relationships with different people in different variations of canon material. Will Graham is the love of his life in the show. He never hated him there, he always wanted Will to accept his darkness and become his partner. He called them "fathers" of Abigail because he wanted to have a family with him - and he does call Will a family in S3, E9. Will and Hannibal have unhealthy and violent relationship, but yes, it is loving, and in the end, Hannibal sacrifices everything for Will. Their relationship and its importance is acknowledged on screen and out of it by directors and cast. You don't have to like it but it's a fact. And again, if you want, you can add Murasaki in books SO part. But in this case, you have to create a section about her relationship with Hannibal (like I did with Will and Hannibal's page). All I ask is that you leave alone my section, which is based on facts and quotes from the show and out of it. If you'd like to discuss the show normally and compare it to books/movies, I invite you to Hannibal TV show Reddit page. We can have a normal discussion there because Wiki isn't the most convenient place. K.S.Morgan (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t convenient *at all*... I’m really struggling here. But I do frequent Reddit. It’s the only social media account I have.

I don’t want to come to the Hannibal TV show Reddit page, though, because I’m not a fan of the show. I’m not a fan of most of the movies, either, honestly. I’m loyal to Thomas Harris.

Unfortunately, it’s *extremely* hard to find people who want to talk about just the books...

It would be great if we could just have separate pages for Book!Hannibal, MadsMikkelsen!Hannibal, BrianCox!Hannibal, AnthonyHopkins!Hannibal, and GaspardUlliel!Hannibal. They’re all so different from each other.

I agree, having separate pages would have been much better. Actually, if it's something you feel up to, you could always try to do that - I'd take care of the creation of Hannibal-TV page. But yes, Wiki is a very inconvenient place. I spent ages trying to figure out how to do anything here :D With SO stuff, I'll be honest - as a part of LGBTQ community, it's important for me and for other fans of the show I know to have basically the first M/M romantic relationship in this genre acknowledged publicly. That's why I've been through so many arguments about it and why I spent ages on creating that section with evidence that Wikipedia would count as credible one. If you want to discuss books or movies, you can still come to us on Reddit! We have many discussions of all kinds there and some new fans have just started reading the books, so I expect to see more of similar threads in the future. K.S.Morgan (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m a part of the LGBTQ community, too. I’m a lesbian. Recently, I had my heart violently crushed by “Killing Eve”. There still hasn’t been a F/F relationship in this genre acknowledged publicly, and it’s killing me. Now tons of people are saying that Villaneve isn’t possible because Villanelle is a psychopath. They keep saying that psychopaths are “incapable of love”. It’s pissing me off so much. And it seems like gay men get *so much* more representation that gay women do.

K.S.Morgan (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been circling Killing Eve for a while. I hope to see it finished before watching it, but yes, people will always find a reason to disqualify LGBTQ relationship no matter how explicit it is. It's infuriating. I've seen many scenes from this show and I can't believe there are people who still refuse to see the feelings there. On another note, I found a thread you might be interested in reading - it's old but it has a good discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/HannibalTV/comments/7arhdm/the_different_versions_of_hannibal_lecter_spoilers/ K.S.Morgan (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please look at this bullshit that was just posted to the Killing Eve subreddit - I really need to vent. It’s horrible: https://www.reddit.com/r/KillingEve/comments/bzvzqn/my_opinion_on_fanbase/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

I can’t believe that no one has replied to refute it yet! It’s so much bullshit! And I don’t have the energy to argue with them right now...

The internet will be the death of me.

Ugh. Some folks just seem to hate even the idea of a same-sex couple sharing something other than "obsession" without actual feelings. And of course, it's always the fault of a fanbase. In 'Hannibal', all shippers tend to be labeled as "silly fan-girls" by some anti-romance individuals. I hope more knowledgeable replies will appear - sadly, I don't have enough facts to properly argue here. K.S.Morgan (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

False Information

Hi VoE. Messaging another editor for assistance on how to handle a matter is appropriate. Without stepping into the issues specifically regarding that page, if someone is inserting false information into a page and it's blatant vandalism, then you can remove it and report them to the vandalism noticeboard. If the issue is less about vandalism, and more about a difference of opinion, then I encourage you to start a discussion on the talk page. Per bold, revert, discuss, when edits are made to an article and then reverted, based on subjective inclusion, it's best to start a discussion on the talk page to gain a consensus. If, after a consensus is reached, the editor(s) in question refuse to abide by it and continue to revert the page to their preferred version, you can then look at the administrative noticeboard for disruptive editing and have the page protected until things calm down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hannibal

Hey sorry haven't been on lately. Is this guy still trying to add stuff?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that I know of... Sometimes that stuff still gets posted, but only from anonymous people.

(I’ve still got no idea how to properly reply to people, so I don’t know whether you’ll see a notification for this message or not... Sorry about that :/)

I added warnings to their talk page and will continue if they persist. Getting the page protected itself might be difficult as it takes severe cases.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They are persisting. Please help. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ll keep on warning them and will ask for page protection if that doesn’t work.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They’ve made an account now and are making a bunch of disruptive edits. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit wasn't vandalism, that is from the novel and both film adaptations.

Just noting it. Probably doesn't need the original reference to his heightened smell, in addition to the Lambs one. But it was not vandalism. That is the aftershave brand referenced to as "the one with the Sailing Ship on the bottle". It was an honest edit. Colliric (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the scene in the 2002 film: youtu.be/4fwQKF64AWY

Same dialogue, directly referencing Old Spice, is used in Manhunter and the original book. Colliric (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

Hi VictimOfEntropy,

thanks for your efforts at Will Graham (character). However:

• please do not edit war, even if you are absolutely sure that you are right
• please provide a reliable inline citation (see WP:INTREF for a tutorial) when adding disputed information to Wikipedia articles, even if you are sure that it is correct.

Removing incorrect information is fine, replacing it requires a citation. When in doubt, just remove it. This avoids unnecessary disputes and edit wars.

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: The disruptive, insistent addition of unsourced material is not vandalism, because it is usually done in good faith. Disruptive, yes, but not vandalism (compare WP:DE and WP:VAND). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

eBook version of Silence of the Lambs...

...is NOT the original printed edition of the novel. It has been edited to align with the movie. I have linked the original text of the novel, you will see that it has been changed since it was first published. Dyanega (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is. No, it has not been edited. I just pulled out my first edition hardcover copy of The Silence of the Lambs and it says the same. The text has not been changed. Read Chapter 40, Chapter 47, and Chapter 56. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong chapter. Read page 95, when Starling visits the Smithsonian.[1] It is that chapter that is being referred to in the plot summary. Dyanega (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the wrong Chapter. The first time she visited the Smithsonian she was just dropping off the moth, they had not identified it yet! They do not identify it until Chapter 40. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits and READ the novel. Chapters 40, 47, and 56. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

READ the link I provided to page 95. They give her an ID, and that ID is the Black Witch moth. They even cite its scientific name, twice. Dyanega (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Because it was their best INITIAL GUESS. Stop wasting my time and READ THE NOVEL. I told you what chapters to read! Do you have a first edition hardcover to consult? VictimOfEntropy (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then we're sort of talking past one another; just to be clear, in the plot summary as it appears in the article, the events are given chronologically. At the time of the initial visit, the ID provided was not the same as the ID provided later in the story, so stating that the pupa was IDed as a sphinx is out of chronological sequence. I just edited it again to clarify the discrepancy, hopefully this is an acceptable compromise? Dyanega (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ownership of Hannibal (2001 film)

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Hannibal (2001 film). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never done that. I have only tried to make sure that these articles present accurate information to the public. Read what I already wrote in the talk page of that article in regard to these ridiculous accusations you’re making against me. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How can you pretend like it’s wrong for me to spend my time monitoring and evaluating the truth of whatever edits are made to articles on this franchise which is my one and only area of expertise? How can you accuse me of believing that I “own” a page on the internet? This is *exhausting*—I’m so tired of having to constantly check on these pages because of random people who don’t know anything about the subject matter making edits just for the heck of it that deteriorate them, and now suddenly so much more of my time is being wasted than usual by these major, pointless edits that your friend is making. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You should be sending this message to Popcornfud, whom has been suddenly making so many contributions that remove true information and add false information. That is where the issue lies. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I really thought Popcornfud was finally going to stop. I guess they’ve got a quota of edits to make to get their paycheck or whatever, but surely there are other places, other articles that actually should be edited and that they actually know something about, where they can do that instead. Unless there actually is some reason why Popcornfud wants to present a false image of certain aspects of this particular franchise to the public. Popcornfud has shown that they have a habit of getting things wrong about articles related to Thomas Harris, and so much of my time has been wasted over these past few days because of their actions—it needs to stop. It’s a serious drain on me, but I’ll keep doing it if I have to to prevent these articles which are supposed to be educational from being deteriorated, because I care very much about people knowing the truth about things both minor and major. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the current Hannibal changes

The reason that so many people have been coming to change the section from Twitter is because, as cited in the talk but you may have overlooked it in all the text, Bryan Fuller said he agreed Will belonged there. I wanted to clarify that bit because so much is going on in that talk section!

While his tweet can't be cited as evidence for Wikipedia, under these circumstances people aren't going to stop coming. So, I think if things are settled at having Alana, Bedelia and Will there it should settle things down for now? I can't see the difference between Bedelia and Will myself, obviously, as I've explained, in basic relationship architecture, so I agree they should both be there.

I'm new to not casually editing wiki articles anonymously to fix typos and add short citations so I'm not entirely sure how all this talk section stuff goes. Aurorastation (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That’s interesting. I had no idea that Bryan Fuller had ever specifically addressed Wikipedia before. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link to the tweet where he approved the edit, he only rarely answers tweets so it got huge circulation immediately:

https://twitter.com/BryanFuller/status/1461865453517565952

There seems to be some genuine misunderstanding in the earlier discussion of Will's sexuality on the talk page, where no one doubts that Will is a heterosexual character (I've spoken to KS Morgan on Reddit where they're the head mod so I'm sure there) but that a lot of us (Morgan included) see "heterosexual" as an identity and lifestyle so when Bryan says Will might swing toward Hannibal like, as he's quipped, with a little whiskey or a few beers, we hear what he said more recently in that quote I updated, that Will is sexually fluid and might not always identify as heterosexual. Whereas for other people, heterosexual may be a word used for a fixed biological inclination. He also did discuss how he's learned and values how the romance has resonated with asexual fans earlier this year in a great interview where he talked about how the way that touch is illicit between Hannibal and Will and also between the lead characters in Pushing Daisies is rooted in his experience coming of age as a gay man in the AIDS crisis, when human intimacy could be deadly.

At any rate, I think you'd said and I agree it's a bit much to have the novel Hannibal and Manhunter Hannibal and Hopkins Hannibal and Mikkelsen Hannibal and whatever is going on in Hannibal Rising because I didn't see that one all on one page as they are quite different iterations on the concept! Aurorastation (talk) 10:57, 20 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Victim, I appreciate some of what you were doing there, but this is foolish--we do NOT give editorial commentary inside article space. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

VictimOfEntropy, you just accused me of "vandalism" for my edit on anti-abortion violence. Would you like to explain why you perceived the edit as such? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That article is specifically an article about violence that anti-abortion people commit against people who seek abortions and people who help other people get abortions. How could I possibly have to explain why putting a picture that shows nothing with a caption about a pro-abortion-rights group vandalizing the headquarters of anti-abortion groups doesn’t belong on an article which is about violence committed by anti-abortion people? VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you attempting to suggest that Jane’s Revenge or “pro-choice” groups are somehow anti-abortion? This is ridiculous. It has to either be deliberate vandalism or extreme confusion on your part. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Of course not. I have no clue why you would suggest this. You are putting words into my mouth, not assuming good faith and alleging something as serious as "vandalism" onto what was obviously a issue-related image addition with a caption cited to a reliable source, so I'll explain this to you. The reason I added the image was (a) The event and Jane's Revenge has been covered both locally and nationally in the news (b) there are no "pro-choice violence" articles or sections currently, so the abortion articles I added the image to were my only choices, and (c) The "violence" section of the United States anti-abortion movement does discuss an anti-abortion activist that was killed by a pro-choice individual (or at least someone who took issue with the victim's anti-abortion beliefs), indicating to me the section (and probably the main article) was also about violence committed against anti-abortion people. You have gotten warned in the past about throwing the "vandalism" label at someone trying to revert an WP:NPOV edit, which may get you on the administrator's noticeboard if this continues, so I would cut it out. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism is a very common problem on pages related to women’s rights. Vandalism is very common on Wikipedia in general, but when it comes to the human rights of women, it’s particularly cruel and dangerous. You did something wrong, and I called it out as what it appeared to be when fixing the damage you did to the article. I didn’t want to assume that you were intoxicated or unintelligent enough to not only think that the term “pro-life” should be used for those people who spread false and extremely harmful misinformation but to also think that “pro-choice” and anti-abortion are the same thing. Not only did your addition have nothing to do with the very specific focus of that article, which specifically says at the beginning that it’s about some of the many acts of terrorism committed by anti-abortion people in particular, but you also put that image and caption at the very top of the page, even though it had nothing to do with the focus of the article that followed. Your usage of political phrasing instead of the uncontroversial and accurate terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion-rights or just abortion-rights, which have been deemed on every other article to be the correct terms to use, was another issue. You had the choice to not mess up that article, but for some reason decided to insert your edit anyway. Hopefully you won’t repeat what *you’ve* done. I always have and always will do my best to accurately assess and respond to every issue I encounter. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And I have no idea what you’re accusing me of in your final sentence. It seems you’re the one lobbing false accusations. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You were called out by Drmies for this, and the prior section of this talk page is about it. Plus, this talk page also indicates you have gotten warned about edit-warring before. Also, please cut it with the assumptions of bad faith, such as that I was deliberately being "cruel and dangerous" and "messing up the article". Also, I have no clue what non-neutral "political phrasing" in the edit your referring to. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

As someone who is pro-woman's-rights and pro-abortion as a libertarian, I have no doubt a lot of bad-faith, ideologically-motivated a-holes vandalize page or cite stuff from a bunch of unreliable reliable blogs to get what they think is WP:THETRUTH out there. But the fact that you're blowing this out of proportion by the fact that there have been women's rights article vandalizations frequently in other cases, and your use of loaded terms like "cruel", "dangerous" and "doing something wrong" (I assume ethically) indicates you have a very personal and emotional attachment to the issues discussed, which is harming your ability to "accurately assess and respond to every issue I encounter". 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The “this” you’re referring to is absolutely not what you initially called it. What I wrote was absolutely objectively true information with a source to back it up—and you’ll see that many articles have since been tagged in a way that indicates the issues with the terminology that I explained. Also, you’re neglecting to mention the fact that Drmies appreciated what I did and only took issue with the way it looked on the article and the edit-warring, which was unfortunate but was necessary with an editor who refused to talk things out on a talk page after being told that they were wrong before reinstating false information and making more problematic edits, was able to be stopped after I reported it on multiple pages. It was the wording used in the laws that was not NPOV, and it was also false information that needed to be explained instead of repeated in a way that legitimizes what is demonstrably untrue. And you’re still lying. I never said that *you* were deliberately cruel or dangerous, I said that vandalism on pages related to women’s rights is cruel and dangerous, which is why there can’t be any tolerance for it and it needs to be called out when there’s any possibility of it; and, yes, you did mess up the article, and I already explained how; and the political phrasing is “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, and there are sections on many articles that state those terms shouldn’t be used on Wikipedia or in journalism. I have to point out edits that appear to be vandalism as vandalism to indicate the harm that could be done by them—it’s nothing personal, and I would be grateful if you would stop taking it as such and wasting my time like this. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The “pro-life” term that you used is a “loaded term”—I’m surprised that you don’t seem to realize that. And it’s extremely necessary that people who actually support women’s rights start using “loaded terms” when they’re the correct ones to use instead of trying to be civil to people who aren’t and understating things, by the way. It’s harmful when people who only have a political or philosophical interest in topics that physically and psychologically tear people apart speak about them in a detached way when the other side that’s causing this suffering insists on using as many loaded terms and violent accusations as possible. Just a bit of advice. You can’t have one “side” accusing people who support human rights of being “pro-death” while driving up the maternal mortality rate and the other “side” just sitting there and taking it and not calling out the grave human rights abuses that come from that ideology. A lack of access to safe abortion causes forced childbearing, which not only violates a woman’s bodily autonomy in the most intimate way but tortures her physically as well as psychologically and also causes women to be mutilated, crippled, and killed as pregnancy and childbirth harm their health in so many ways that abortion does not. It’s extremely important to women’s health and happiness and ability to live their lives that they have access to safe abortion, and forced labor is the very definition of slavery. The importance here cannot be overstated, so you absolutely must make sure to use the most accurate language available to you. Unfortunately, it seems like this is the topic where people are least likely to speak accurately—for example, the laws and articles that say some places do not allow abortion on-request but do allow abortion when the pregnancy is risky to a woman’s health, because they misrepresent the facts by neglecting to recognize that utilizing modern abortion methods is always safer than continuing a pregnancy. My goal on Wikipedia has only ever been to improve the quality of articles, particularly by aiding in the effort to correctly inform people of things that are objectively true, as that is the goal of an encyclopedia, and to prevent vandals and misguided or confused people from degrading the quality of the articles here and to fix any damage done, and I assure you that my ability to correctly assess things is not in any way impaired. I only edit articles about topics that I have expertise on (unless it’s just a grammar issue or something minor like that that I come across, of course, or something that appears to be vandalism because the signs are there even if I’m not sure, in which case the editor will hopefully be able to provide a reliable citation if they want to reinstate the changes that they made), which I’m sure is the correct way of doing this considering the number of (often probably honest) mistakes I’ve seen other editors with high edit counts make. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

How well Wikipedians handle or are well-informed enough about the issue is not the subject of discussion here. The main issue here is that your throwing the defamatory "vandalism" label at me. I have zero tolerance for people falsely accusing me of shit, especially when other powerful individuals that affect my life believe it. This has been a long-term problem that's caused other established, contributive Wikipedians to leave the platform or get indefinitely blocked without deserving it.An addition of information with a reliable source (if lacking awareness with the loaded-ness of certain terms meant to be used objectively that you could have just fixed by yourself and with a WP:CIVIL talk page message) is not a freaking vandalistic edit, and any other sane individual or administrator whose very experienced on this site (and knows what real vandalism is) would not call it vandalism either. They would just call it a good-faith edit being reverted.

It's obvious from the giant paragraph you've espoused that your doing this out of advocacy for women's rights. That's needed in these crazy-ass times, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. It doesn't matter how much of a gender and sex issues expert you are, or how severe the real-life stakes are with these topics and their coverage; you can't "correctly inform people of things that are objectively true" while removing details about an attack on an anti-abortion center that objectively freaking happened. Where are the WP articles on pro-abortion violence, and if there's too little of those types of incidents to warrant a full article on that, than what other choice is there but to have a section about them in already-existing abortion articles?

Let me get this into you head as well; there is no such thing as "messing up an article", as people have different perspectives on what content is suitable for an article and what's notable to include, and thus we have these things call talk page discussions about them. Nothing gets done when people call other names.

If the wrong political terminology was the issue, what you should have done instead of going all "VANDALISM VANDALISM VANDALISM this is VANDALISM" was inform me that the terms weren't objective and that different phrases should have been use to present the same message in a more objective. Many pundits, scholars and media outlets of the side on the opposite of that of the one causing the suffering have used the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" terms just to neutrally label the ideologies of persons and institutions. They are just fully-defined terms for beliefs, and I edited the caption with that mindset. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 05:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re the one really blowing my actions out of proportion and accusing me of things I’ve never done. I don’t see how you can be talking about civility when you’re acting so aggressively toward me because of an edit summary I made that’s in the past and can’t be undone. It’s like you’re just venting your anger at me that something I said is now part of public record, and trying to slander me as revenge. And, no, I’m not doing advocacy on Wikipedia, I’m just making mostly small corrections and reverting bad edits when I see them—I only brought up that stuff because it seemed like you needed to hear it, even though it’s not relevant to the conduct of either of us on Wikipedia.

And there is such thing as messing up an article—an article is messed up when false information or information that doesn’t fit with the rest of the article is added to it, or when comparatively minor events are given undue emphasis, or when infoboxes are “broken”, or when typos or vandalism are put on it. So your condescending comment about “getting this into your head” is really wrong.

You’ve taken a lot of things I’ve said in ways that I didn’t mean. You need to calm down and stop harassing me for no good reason. It seems to me like the only thing damaging your credibility is this rant. If your reason for acting like this is that you’re looking for an apology, I’m sorry that you’re upset, but the only thing in regards to the article in question that I’m sorry about is that a distracting image with a politicized caption was at the very top of the page for hours with nothing in the body of the article to support it. I don’t see how, even just from an article structure point of view, you couldn’t have seen that your edit shouldn’t be made, or at the very least shouldn’t be made in the way that it was. And, no, those terms are not “fully-defined”—they mean very different things to different people. The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms “anti-abortion” and “abortion rights”, and it’s very unfortunate that many don’t.

If you actually cared about the point that you apparently want to get across—which I’m guessing is that people shouldn’t be called vandals just for making mistakes—you could’ve just told me that “This doesn’t belong here, and uses incorrect terminology” would’ve been a better edit summary. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, it’s worth noting that there has been very recent (and clearly deliberate) vandalism on this very page that editor Qzd had to revert twice not much more than a week ago. And I did see that vandalism (after it had been reverted), and I also saw that Qzd for some reason didn’t refer to it as such, only calling them “nonconstructive edits”, and while I’m glad that Qzd acted so quickly to fix the article both times, I think it’s important to call vandalism what it is. Maybe I need to look into this “always assuming good intentions” aspect of Wikipedia more, because it doesn’t make sense to me. Also, an administrator had to revert vandalism on the article two weeks before that. And another user had to just two days before that. There’s a long history of it.

To me, “vandalism” just means “making edits that you *should* know don’t belong on an article”. It’s something that often has to be assumed in order to protect an article, since it’s not like a vandal’s going to just announce that that’s what they’re doing. I thought that marking vandalism as such in the edit summary is an important thing to do in case page protection needs to be requested. Also, it’s easy for a vandal to accuse an editor who reverts the vandal’s edits of vandalism, so it seems important to me to get things straight from the beginning in case that happens.

Also, you left your edit summaries blank, and you’re really not supposed to do that. Please consider leaving edit summaries in the future. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) No, I'm not "harassing" you for discussing contributions on a public website like Wikipedia. Watch your WP:ASPERSIONS there. (2) The point is people shouldn't be called vandals over disagreements on how to format and write pages, which is what's happening here. Literally the claim that the image was "distracting", gave WP:UNDUE emphasis is (newsflash, person that does not know the difference between fact and opinion) only a perspective, not fact. That you would conflate this with grammar mistakes, inclusion of misinfo, and poorly-structured infoboxes says it all. "I think it's important to call vandalism what it is". Judging by what just happened here, you are doing a pretty lousy job at it and probably should stop doing it for other editors' (and the website's) own good. There's no "false information" in that edit, or otherwise the Buffalo News wouldn't have fricking covered it. And in terms that it should have instinctively been obvious to me the image didn't belong, it was the clearest it did by the fact this section of the anti-abortion movement article (which links to the anti-abortion violence article as the "main article", mind you) contains a paragraph about the murder towards an anti-abortion activist by an abortion rights activist, and the fact no pro-abortion article exists to discuss content like this. Both of those factor indicated the image, incident, and any pro-abortion murder belonged in the article perfectly fine, and would've done so to any other contributor. The only way your rationale would make any sense is if there was already an abortion rights activism violence article listing events like this, and that section never discussed Jim Pouillon. In other words, no, it's not obvious to most contributors that the image or the content didn't belong, and you need to stop acting that it is. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 14:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I can’t believe I have to wake up to more of your ridiculous nonsense. STOP lying and pestering me for no reason and misinterpreting what I meant. Listing all of the ways I could think of off the top of my head that a page could be messed up is NOT accusing you of anything. What I AM accusing you of is ridiculous behavior and, if this was real life and not Wikipedia which apparently has different rules about what you can and can’t say even in private conversations, harassing me. I said everything that needed to be said in my very first reply to you, before you flew off the handle. There were MANY problems with your edit and it appeared like vandalism, and I’m not going to repeat myself for the millionth time. PLEASE stop pestering me and just go to anger management classes or something! And you’re still using wrong terms—it’s not “pro-abortion”, it’s pro-abortion-rights or just abortion rights. And, yes, it IS undue emphasis to put an image and caption of one act of pro-abortion-rights vandalism at the top of a page that is obviously from the title and specifically described in the heading as being ONLY for anti-abortion violence and had no images whatsoever other than the one you added, no images related to what the article is actually about, and absolutely nothing about pro-abortion-rights vandalism in the article. What you’ve said is NOT what this is about or what’s going on here. Please just stop. Just leave me alone. None of this is serving any point except pointless cruelty to me for my good-faith judgement that is IN THE PAST. There is NO REASON for any sort of dispute between us, no reason for you to pull this shit which is very clearly deliberately misinterpreting my words and deliberately missing every point I’ve made on my talk page, wasting my time and making me scared to see what next false accusations you’ll have read into my only-ever-well-intentioned words or actions. I feel hounded and harassed, I’m tired, miserable, and scared, and I am BEGGING you to STOP with all of the ridiculous shit you’re doing. I tried so hard to just change the subject to other topics on Wikipedia that we *haven’t* gone over a million times that might actually lead to a civil discussion, in case you still wouldn’t just leave me alone, but, no, nothing works—you’re a dog with a bone to pick. You’re offended and taking your anger out on me—someone who is always dealing with so much pain, so many struggles every day and just trying to do something to help—and it needs to stop. Even if you’re getting some sort of satisfaction from twisting and misrepresenting everything and hounding me, I’m not gaining anything from this and am losing very valuable and fleeting peace of mind from it, and you’re not gaining anything good, either. And I guess I have to add now that I’m not meaning to cast any of the serious-sounding Wikipedia-specific “aspersions” you’re referring to, I’m not trying to do anything wrong, I’m just saying how I feel in response to your repeated messages to me that never get what I’ve meant and won’t stop and serve no good purpose. Go and make whatever articles you want—I’ve never tried to stop you from doing that. And stop casting serious WP:ASPERSIONS at me like “person that does not know the difference between fact and opinion” (and look in the mirror for that).

And, by the way, I noticed that your identical edit on that other page you mentioned—the anti-abortion movement article, which is not in my watchlist—was reverted by another user as well. And it wasn’t even put at the top of the page that time. So, no, it certainly would be obvious that it didn’t belong on the article that didn’t have any mentions of such things, pro-abortion-rights violence doesn’t belong on a page specifically for anti-abortion violence, and there’s nothing stopping from making a page with the title you mentioned and putting everything there, and I think you should stop putting messages on my talk page and go do that instead if you think it’s important, although I have to question your judgement after how you’ve repeatedly and persistently misrepresented and possibly truly misinterpreted events and words. Maybe the user who reverted your identical edit on a page where it wasn’t even as out-of-place as it was on the anti-abortion violence article also saw that the image was pointless and didn’t show anything other than a street with a couple of cars and a few people standing on it and nothing obviously wrong or going on. So I have to say that if you do go on to make your abortion rights activism violence article where the news story would actually belong, I still wouldn’t see any reason to use that photo in it, but maybe you’d want to use it there anyway because the article would be a stub as there have been so few incidents (although I would not be surprised if they increase in the future given the righteous outrage at recent events and events soon-to-happen). This is me trying again, probably in vain, to turn your attention on me into something constructive instead of just being rude. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please, please, please let us be done “casting aspersions” at each other. Let this be the end of it. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello! On the talk page of medical abortion, you stated: "Carrying a pregnancy to term is 75 times more likely to kill a woman than inducing an abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol". It would be great if you have a source for that. I can't seem to find one (maybe I'm inept at searching academic studies), but if you do I'd love to use that source to add that statement of safety to the article. I feel that comparisons like this are very valuable to put risk into understandable and relative terms. For the record, I'm the one who added the: "In the United States, the risk of maternal mortality is 14 times lower after induced abortion than after childbirth"[2] statement to the Abortion article, but that study of course is using the average risk of all types abortions performed for that statistic, and is from 2012, so with medication abortions now (2022) exceeding all other types of abortions, (Guttmacher reported 54% for 2020) this overall number would likely have changed as well toward even greater risk for childbirth, but I haven't found any sources for updated statistics. But the 75x would be a great addition to the Medical abortion article. Thanks in advance!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure! It was a long time ago that I looked up that information, but I’ll do my best to find it again. I did the math myself based on the list of the very few women who have died after medication abortions in the U.S. and one of the many estimates of maternal mortality per live births in the U.S. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Here’s the information on the mortality count for women who died after a mifepristone abortion: https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/mifepristone_safety_4-23-2019.pdf

As you can see, they counted 24 in total, but 11 of those were definitely unrelated to the abortion (for example, women who were murdered), so it’s actually only 13 out of the approximately 3.7 million women who have done medication abortions in the U.S. who *possibly* died from arising complications, and the mortality rate is actually just 0.35 deaths per 100,000 medication abortions.

And I got the U.S. maternal mortality rate from this Wikipedia article, iirc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States

As you can see, estimates of maternal mortality in the U.S. vary greatly, so I went with the number down in the chart on that article that compares the U.S. to other countries and which says that the U.S. maternal mortality rate is 26.4 per 100,000 live births.

26.4 divided by 0.35 is 75.4285714 (because that’s as far as my calculator goes), and I rounded that down to 75 times.

Doing the math with these numbers shows VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that source!!! I think that can be used to improve the article by using the source's statement: "The mortality rate for women known to have had a live-born infant is 8.8 per 100,000 live births, which is about 14 times higher than the mortality rate associated with medication abortion." So that will give us more comparison then the none that we currently have in the Medical abortion article, without any Original Research. Thanks again, I appreciate it!!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? The first article I linked—the one that mentions the medication abortion mortality rate as 0.35–says “Nationally, the pregnancy-related mortality ratio is 18 deaths per 100,000 live births”. So the live birth mortality rate would be more than 51 times higher by that estimate—a *lot* higher than 14. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see where you got that quote from now. That’s weird... I didn’t notice that before. Why would it say 18 from pregnancy complications and then turn around and say 8.8 from live births, when other articles like this one say 26.4 from live births: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

edit summaries

VoE, please use edit summaries. Edit summaries are hugely important; I often use edit summaries that take me longer to create than the edit itself. The removal at here probably was correct, but you didn't explain it. Please explain why you're making an edit. You should do this on every edit. valereee (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I was providing a summary for every edit, but I decided to stop when I’m reverting someone who didn’t provide an edit for their summary and an explanation for the revert shouldn’t be necessary. Doesn’t it say when you’re reverting an edit that’s vandalism that an edit summary isn’t necessary? Someone got upset when I reverted an edit of theirs that obviously didn’t belong and called it vandalism in my edit summary because that was certainly what it looked like. Also, I couldn’t remember what you’re supposed to say when reverting something that doesn’t belong on an article’s talk page, something that isn’t related to the article. I believe it was “not a forum” or something like that, but I can’t be certain that was what the other user/users I’ve seen reverting ridiculous spiels like that from IPs said. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I used to make sure to always put edit summaries on every edit, and have told other users with higher edit counts than me who weren’t using edit summaries at all that they really need to use edit summaries, but I’ve seen a lot of experienced users not leaving edit summaries, so it started to seem like more of a personal taste thing. For example, looking at my watchlist right now, I see that there have been several edits today from users with edit counts in the tens of thousands and official-sounding titles like “autopatrolled”—Kwamikagami and RoundSquare—that don’t have edit summaries. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@VictimOfEntropy, the best editors use edit summaries 100% of the time. The fact some people have bad habits doesn't mean you should, too. :)

Autopatrolled isn't a title, it just means you've created enough articles that we trust you to create one without having someone else check it to make sure it has adequate sourcing and isn't promotional. Tens of thousands of edits means the person is experienced; doesn't mean they're following best practices.

Some people don't use edit summaries because they know that with many, many edits, people will assume their edits are both well-intentioned and competent, so they won't often get their edits challenged for being unexplained. Someone with only 880 edits often doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. Personally I use them 100% of the time because I feel that helps the collaborative process to explain what I'm doing, and I think it's lazy not to. valereee (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Indentation

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation, a lack of it makes conversations difficult to follow and figuring out which comments are responses to another tricky. Thanks! 129.67.118.6 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Dilation and evacuation, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not add any original research, no. That is incorrect. I merely failed to attempt to cite a PDF source that describes how abortion is healthcare. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the requested information on how to format sources, though. Hopefully I’ll be able to learn how to cite PDFs now, in case it’s needed. And I hope that you’ll cease to make false claims in the future, Elizium23. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VictimOfEntropy. You have new messages at Talk:Abortion in Vermont.
Message added 19:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wouldn't want you to miss yesterday's comment. 129.67.116.129 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk notice

Hello,

you've been invited to join the discussion and have been mentioned at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Stephanie921_refusing_to_engage Stephanie921 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)