User Talk: Anythingyouwant

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

⚖️

Help with adding to Talk page

I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page

Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy ↗

and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? Swan2024 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::I reported the glitch at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages ↗. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, User:Swan2024. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Wikipedia requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax ↗

First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.

Regarding the neo-Nazi debate ↗, here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at Template:Reply to ↗, "[t]he edit must be signed by adding <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:User:Super Goku V, thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see WP:OPEN ↗, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Wikipedia’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a Neutral point of view ↗ by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.
::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}}
::I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:
::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}}
::If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Oh and I am Subscribe ↗d to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::"When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen."
::::They do it all the time. You yourself spread constant disinformation just like Nazis do, rewriting history to fit your a-historical right-wing world view. You are an enemy of the free world, "Ferrylodge". Danielfreebee (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::You haven’t given the slightest example of any article edit I made, that you disagree with. Instead you make disgusting accusations, and try to intimidate. One more comment like this and I will ask you to stay away from my user talk. My goal at Wikipedia is NPOV, not obeisance to the likes of you. I can make mistakes, and try to do better. I can see that you make mistakes too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this '''anonymous survey ↗'''.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page ↗ and view its privacy statement ↗ .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team ↗

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Category:Attacks ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Category:Attacks ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. – <span style="color:black">'''DreamRimmer'''</span> <small>('''talk''')</small> 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

":List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_nominated_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency&redirect=no List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22#List of people nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in the last year of a presidency}}''' until a consensus is reached.  <span style="color:#AF601A;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span> (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

":!vote ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=!vote&redirect=no !vote]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 27#!vote}}''' until a consensus is reached.  * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub> 20:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

":Wikipedia:Not a forum ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Not_a_forum&redirect=no Wikipedia:Not a forum]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 31#Wikipedia:Not a forum}}''' until a consensus is reached.  Justjourney (talk | contribs ↗) 00:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverting RfD retarget

Hi, I'm wondering about the edits you made on {{noredirect|Wikipedia:Not a forum}} and {{noredirect|Wikipedia:NOT A FORUM}}. The RfD above ended with retargeting the redirects to {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|not a forum}}, but you changed this back to the version before the RfD discussion. Can you explain why? Justjourney (talk | contribs ↗) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hmm, I just got back home from a long drive, sorry if I messed up that edit. I was trying to avoid a double redirect. Is there a double redirect now? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#not a forum ↗ seemed like a redirect to me because there is no section titled “not a forum”, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh I see, it’s not a redirect, but rather is an anchor. Sorry for the oversight, User:Justjourney. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That's alright, I also only figured out anchors recently, they seem very new to me. Justjourney (talk | contribs ↗) 01:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghislaine Maxwell ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Fixed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Comey ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topic restriction violation

Hi AYW. Donald Trump ↗ has a 24-hour-BRD restriction in place, which you violated a few times. Please self-revert your change and seek consensus at the talk page. You would be permitted to revert back to your preferred version 24 hours after posting at the talk page, but I encourage you to wait until there's affirmative consensus. The exact text of the restriction is {{tqd|"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message".}} Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs ↗) 13:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:I only inserted the Pew footnote once, and it hasn’t been reverted. If someone reverts it, I would take it to talk. OK? Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:On second thought, I did a partial revert per your request.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1314635989&oldid=1314633276 ↗ Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. I don't care about the Pew citation either way, but for now it's odd to be using the quote parameter the way we are. We use it to quote text, usually from less-accessible sources, that explicitly supports the claim being made in the body text. Now we're quoting a fully accessible source in a way that is unrelated to the claim made in the body text. Awkward, I think. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs ↗) 13:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I started a talk page section. You are free to insert the words “of the 49” as proposed, or to delete the quote from the footnote, or to await an outcome at the talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topic alerts (WP:CT/A-I ↗ and WP:CT/BLP ↗)

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗ is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ↗, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗. — '''''<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>''' <small><span style="color:#708090;">talk</span></small>'' 10:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC) 
: Please also be aware of the following contentious topic, which you have recently participated in: living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles (WP:CT/BLP ↗). Thank you. — '''''<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>''' <small><span style="color:#708090;">talk</span></small>'' 10:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Behavior

Based on this ↗, this ↗, and this ↗, you seem to be renewing some of the same WP:ABOUTSELF ↗ issues that were discussed here ↗. Your overwhelming preference to use politicians' descriptions of their own positions over secondary reliable sources received broad disapproval. Please note that the primary issue described in the ANI (allegedly suggesting Wikipedia is complicit in political violence) is not pertinent here, as you have not made any statements at Talk:Winsome Earle-Sears ↗ that could be construed as such even in the least generous light. However, in the ''most'' generous light, multiple editors still felt your prioritizing of statements from the subject of an article was not in keeping with sourcing policy. Separately, it is also probably best to refrain from saying you were going to stop assuming good faith and making comments like {{tq|All anethema to Pbritti, it would seem}}. I don't intend to discuss this further on the article's talk page (as stated there), nor do I think extended discussions on user talk pages are typically helpful. Hope you are well and that, if you desire it, you can find the time to edit at the pace you did in the past. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::User:Pbritti, first of all, I have no such preference to use politicians' descriptions of their own positions over secondary reliable sources. You know that, because I did not remove anything from the Sears BLP, I only added additional stuff. And not from any self-published source either; both sources I added are from reputable interviews, one by Jillian Michaels ↗ and another from an ABC affiliate WRIC-TV ↗. So you've already jeopardized your credibility here in this user talk page section. You apparently accuse me of committing the same sin that you believe I committed five months ago, and you call it WP:ABOUTSELF ↗. In your zeal, you neglected to notice that the BLP subject in question five months ago was being characterized as bad precisely because of a video showing that person speaking, I merely disagreed with those who drew that conclusion from the video. As I recall, my objection helped cause the BLP to be deleted, which was the proper course. Now, I have a question about something you said above, which was this: "Hope you are well and that, if you desire it, you can find the time to edit at the pace you did in the past." What pace is that, more than now, or less than now? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I was telling you I hoped you could find yourself able to edit more frequently, as you did until a few years ago. People change their editing habits for all sorts of reasons (jobs, other hobbies, a loss of interest, etc.), and I hope you are in a position in life where you can dictate how much you contribute to the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I found it frustrating that so many Wikipedians are unreasonable and/or lack neutrality, and so I scaled back my editing to avoid the heartburn. A good example is the Wikipedia page for the Gaza genocide which still violates Wikipedia's NPOV. As Jimbo has said, it "is a particularly egregious example" of not maintaining neutrality, but there are many many others. If I can do more to try and make the world a slightly better place by spending my time elsewhere, then that's what I tend to do. I have always been in a position to dictate how much I contribute to the project. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗

You are invited to participate in the '''Destubathon of the Americas ↗''', a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span> 16:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Raw refs

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1353030571 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1353089168&oldid=1353049136 ↗

I'm surprised to see someone with your experience coding raw refs. You do understand the rationale for using the templates? This is not a complaint about added work for me, fixing the problems is one of the few reasons for my existence around here. But I doubt I catch all of them. ―<b style="color:#775c57">''Mandruss''</b> <span style="color:#888">☎</span> 2¢. IMO. 07:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hi User:Mandruss, I've always preferred raw refs, they're so much quicker and easier. Do you want me to use the templates at the Trump article? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:::That's the local convention. Using the templates is just part of internal consistency. Granted, we set a higher-than-average internal consistency bar at that article. ―<b style="color:#775c57">''Mandruss''</b> <span style="color:#888">☎</span> 2¢. IMO. 09:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You do understand the rationale for using the templates?}} After re-reading, I'm not sure you do.
:::*Site-wide standard presentation of citations.
:::*Any change to the above automatically picked up by all articles.
:::So it's not ''only'' internal consistency. ―<b style="color:#775c57">''Mandruss''</b> <span style="color:#888">☎</span> 2¢. IMO. 03:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::::User:Mandruss, of course I will use citation templates at the main Trump BLP, if it's important to you. But elsewhere I would like to continue in my primitive ways. My understanding has always been that if the <ref> symbol works without citation templates then that must mean citation templates are not required. It's not like, say, WP:DENIALS ↗ where something is indeed actually required. :-)  Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I don't care about other articles for the most part; it's a tenet of my <del>self-retirement</del> <ins>semi-retirement</ins>. I just wanted you to know the effect of what you're doing. Not all good things are required. ―<b style="color:#775c57">''Mandruss''</b> <span style="color:#888">☎</span> 2¢. IMO. 05:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Edited after reply ↗ 05:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Just watch, you will be happy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration ↗

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies

I want to apologize for the WP:SHOWN ↗ mix up I had on the talk page. My intention was to keep all of the discussion in one section so we could see how our ideas evolved and where the existing consensus was in order for us to avoid edit warring over the same arguments. With the appearance of new accounts and others simply ignoring the talk page altogether, things became overwhelming in discussions pretty quickly as people tried to keep up with the news.

We worked well through our discussions before and I don't want my mistake to create any concerns about any future collaboration. Thanks for your help and patience! WMrapids (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:Thanks for the kind message, I probably make more mistakes than you do, no worries. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2026 (UTC)