User Talk: Diademchild

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

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px #d4af37; color:#520e69; font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:100%; line-height:100%; padding-left:0.1em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.25px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: gold">'''User talk:'''<span style="text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px Cyan; color:#d4af37; font-family:Constantia; font-size:100%; line-height:100%; padding-left:0.1em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.5px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: black">'''''Diadem'''child''}}

{{Not an admin topicon}}
{{Extended confirmed topicon}}
{{WikiGnome topicon}}
{{WikiJanitor topicon}}

<div align="center">
{| width="100%" border="150px" style="background:{{{1|transparent}}}; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:red; margin-bottom:.5em"
| width="0px" style="text-align:center" |link=User:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|101x101px|User:{{BASEPAGENAME}} ↗
| width="0px" style="text-align:center" |link=User_talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|90x90px|User_talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}} ↗
| width="0px" style="text-align:center" |link=Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|90x90px|Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}} ↗
|-
| style="text-align:center" |'''User Page'''
| style="text-align:center" |'''Talk'''
| style="text-align:center" |'''Contributions ↗'''
|}
</div>

 

{{user talk page mini|rounded=yes|noindex=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Usertalkback|you=notification|me=notification}}

<span style="display: block; color:red; font-family:system-ui; font-size:130%; text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px #520e69; padding-left:0.3em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.25px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: black; text-align: center;">Anyways...

{{User talk}}

<span style="display: block; color:red; font-family:system-ui; font-size:130%; text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px #520e69; padding-left:0.3em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.25px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: black; text-align: center;">Also...

{{user talk criticism
| otherusers = yes
| usepagename = yes
| endtext =
}}

<span style="display: block; color:red; font-family:system-ui; font-size:130%; text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px #520e69; padding-left:0.3em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.25px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: black; text-align: center;">However, bear in mind...

{{ombox|
| text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Scam watch'''</div>
'''Warning''': There may be an on-again, off-again scam, targeting people who may like Wikipedia ↗ to have an article about them. See this '''scam warning ↗''' for detailed information. No ethical Wikipedia editor or administrator will offer to create any article, in return for any compensation. So, if you have been scammed, nearly scammed or know anyone who has, please send details to '''paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org''' to help others who could be future victims of this scam.
| textstyle = font-size: 120%;
| image = 50px|link=|alt= ↗
| imagesize = 40px
| style = border: 1px solid #bb7070; background: #FFDBDB;
}}

<span style="display: block; color:red; font-family:system-ui; font-size:130%; text-shadow:2.5px 2.5px 2.5px #520e69; padding-left:0.3em; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0.25px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: black; text-align: center;">Notwithstanding, again...

{{Talkpagecool}}
 
{{right now}}
 

{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0"
|class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top; color:#000000; font-size:85%"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:lavender; padding:0;"
! <div style="margin:0; background-color:white; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:normal; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, '''Diademchild''' and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions ↗. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your talk page ↗ and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name ↗ on talk pages by clicking 22px|link=WP:~ ↗ or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted ↗" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject ↗ to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here ↗ for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to '''always fill in the edit summary ↗ field'''. Happy editing! Relinus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)</div>
|}

:@Relinus Hello Relinus, thank you for your advice and comment. Much appreciated. Diademchild (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
{{Welcome-common}}
|}

Short descriptions

Hi, "retired" and "former" shouldnt be included into the short description per WP:SDAVOID ↗ --FMSky (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

:@FMSky Hiya, wow I have just realised this! Thank you for reminding me. Diademchild (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Another thing: for people, short descriptions should indicate what they are known for. Footballers like Samuel Eto'o ↗, Yaya Touré ↗, Kolo Touré ↗, Cesc Fàbregas ↗ are primarily known for having played football, not for coaching or other activities. See WP:SDEXAMPLES ↗. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

:@Robby.is.on I see, so the short description doesn't necessarily have to state or indicate what their latest occupation is now. Thanks a lot! Diademchild (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
::Exactly. :-) When readers search for an article, the short description should help them decide whether they've found the one they're looking for. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ages of BLP subjects

FYI - Subjects of BLP articles are not a reliable source for their own age unless there is other confirming evidence. I'm sure you can work out why that is - people, especially in the entertainment field, regularly make themselves out to be younger than they are. Obviously, in most cases this is ''not'' the case, they're simply telling the truth - but we cannot take their own word for it without other evidence. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 17:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:@Black Kite Hiya, thanks for your comment. Is there any particular BLP article subject you were referring to here? Diademchild (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:: Sabrina Dhowre ↗ and her Instagram. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a reliable source out there for her age apart from herself though. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@Black Kite Oh I see! So does the website "Famous Birthdays" count as a reliable source out there for the D.O.B.'s of subjects of BLP articles? Because her age on there, correlates with what she posted on her Instagram page. Diademchild (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: No, and that's the problem. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Famous_Birthdays ↗, you can't use that source at all, because it's blocked for unreliability. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::@Black Kite But she openly said she was turning 35 this year (in June 2023) in an online interview, which again correlates with what she posted on Instagram. Surely she wouldn't be lying about that, so isn't that pretty much public knowledge? Diademchild (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Oh no, I agree, she's almost certainly not lying. But we still need secondary sources for BLP information. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@Black Kite No worries. I just find it funny how I have seen a couple subjects of BLP articles on Wikipedia particularly in the entertainment sector, have their real age verified on Wikipedia by what they would have posted on their birthday previously on Instagram. Diademchild (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm sure there are plenty out there like that, but they shouldn't be. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|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 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

January 2024

25px|alt=Information icon|link= ↗ Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other|often ↗|often}} edit without using an edit summary ↗. Please do your best to '''always fill in the summary field'''. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences ↗. Thanks!  Paulpat99 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

:@Paulpat99 Oh my apologies. As a fellow colleague on Wikipedia, I shall take your feedback on board. ;-) Diademchild (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
::Happy Editing Paulpat99 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Fresh and Fit Podcast ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

:Hiya; I hope you're fine. Indeed, I did add content to this page but I didn't provide references as the references are linked to various videos on the podcast's YouTube channel. So I think you made a mistake in reverting my changes; but I will probably look to reinstate the changes I previously made, later on if that is alright with you. Happy editing. Diademchild (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
::If you add your changes back again without a reliable source, I will revert them and add another warning to your talk page. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept unsourced content or original research. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing

My person, is there a reason you only use extremely vague edit summaries? They don't really explain anything and make it difficult to understand what was done for others without viewing each edit. A type of cabinet (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hiya, I hope you're fine. Well I mostly edit the "Article Descriptions" of article pages. But I admit that sometimes laziness can play a part in giving vague edit summaries so if you are bothered about it, I do apologise about that. Diademchild (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 is a brief 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} Doug Weller talk 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hey there. Please stop edit warring ↗ with me over at the WP:BLP ↗ article Amouranth ↗. Else I will be taking you to WP:AE ↗. Please read WP:BRD ↗, especially the "discuss" part. It's BRD, not BRRRRRR. WP:CTOP ↗s require careful editing and less WP:BOLD ↗ness than usual. Thank you. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not edit warring with you. With respect, I'm simply appropriating the unhidden and verifiable birth date information for Amouranth ↗, with primary sources. Diademchild (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries redux - "corrected punctuation #article-section-source-editor" is useless

What does that mean? It's worse than vague. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Birth dates on biographies of living people

Hello, you reverted one of my edits recently which is how I came across your account for the first time. I notice you seem to spend a lot of your time adding birth dates to articles, primarily to the short descriptions. I would suggest you make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia policies relevant to these areas, as you may not be aware, but some of your additions would appear to go against these guidelines.

WP:BLP ↗, specifically WP:DOB ↗ and WP:BLPPRIMARY ↗. When a date of birth is added to an article it ''must'' be reliably sourced. WP:PRS ↗ details the acceptability or otherwise of many commonly-used sources. You can use a {{tq|verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday"}} if there is no reason to doubt it.

WP:SHORTDESC ↗, specifically WP:SDDATES ↗. It is helpful when you add, say '1820-1882' to the short description of a historical figure, but it is less helpful when you add birthdates for living people. They must be properly sourced within the article in order to be added. (Personally I think even then they usually don't need to be added because they make the short description longer without adding real information, but as long as you're working within the guidelines I can't stop you there).

I hope you find the information in these documents useful and can take them on board going forward. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:Hiya, I hope you're doing fine. Yes, I predominantly spend most of my time adding birthdates to articles of subjects, and the date of birth I provided for one of your recent subject's article is authentic, so I have now reverted your previous change and have included a reliable source in support of that subject's current age. Now regarding short descriptions, I authentically add birthdates for living people especially if their birthdate has genuinely been confirmed, just to keep up with the overall standard across articles of living subjects; so I would never deliberately violate any article description rules. Moreover, thank you for your informational support, as I aim to become a better and respected Wikipedian. Happy editing! Diademchild (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hi there, I see you've added an inline reference to the Myleene Klass ↗ article now (and it looks like Klass could have made social media posts that could also be used as references), so you'll no doubt be happy to know I won't be removing this information again. It's really important that all birthdays you add (to an article or a short description) are supported like that, so I hope you keep it up. I won't intentionally 'follow' you around Wikipedia, but there's every chance our paths may cross again, and as long as you're working as you've done with Myleene Klass, and keep to the WP guidelines I've shared above, I'll be able to keep my finger off the backspace key :) best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Salvatore Schillaci ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 24 September 2024, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Salvatore Schillaci ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Step hen 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

January 2025

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced ↗ biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at :Bonnie Blue (actress) ↗. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory ↗ and is in violation of Wikipedia policy ↗. If you continue, you may be blocked ↗ from editing Wikipedia.  Launchballer ↗ 15:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:What are you talking about? Her biographical information can be widely found online. Diademchild (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Take it up with the biographies of living persons ↗ policy. Unreferenced dates of birth and real names, especially given that Blue has stated she doesn't want the latter online, is clearly contentious and will be removed continuously if you insist on re-adding it. You may reinstate her birthday with an appropriate source.--Launchballer ↗ 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So if I provide a reference for her biological name and/or date of birth, would you accept it? Diademchild (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If you can find a reliable source ↗ for her date of birth I'd accept it; her real name should not appear per WP:BLPPRIVACY ↗.--Launchballer ↗ 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::StarsUnfolded is not a reliable source. See WP:RSP ↗.--Launchballer ↗ 15:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So what sort of reliable source are you looking for? And honestly, I see no justification for hiding her biological name. After all her friend Lily Phillips ↗ has her biological name for display on Wikipedia. At least 90% of Wikipedia articles on living persons, hardly abide by that Wikipedia policy ↗. Diademchild (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Other stuff exists ↗; Phillips's article cites the South China Morning Post ↗, which is regarded by WP:RSP as generally reliable. See that page, linked above.--Launchballer ↗ 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well I respect you as a fellow Wikipedian, so I wouldn't want to enter into an edit war with you. But I believe I have now supplied a relevant citation for/to the subject's birthdate. Diademchild (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't see the day in that source, only the month. I rejected it when I was expanding the article, but I'll ask at WP:RSN ↗.--Launchballer ↗ 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::That source you added just redirected me to a spam site. There is a consensus at WP:RSN#NationalWorld.com ↗ that the birthdate should stay out, please don't readd it.--Launchballer ↗ 15:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::There are widespread popular English tabloid newspapers which openly state the subject's birthdate, but I figured you'd probably refute any tabloid newspaper source. Eventually her full birthdate will eventually be published on here as she gains more popularity. Diademchild (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The subject's name has now been published by the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5y9ggqpqdo ↗ Guardian ↗ and Sky News ↗. Some of those citations were already in the article. There is no doubt that those are reputable sources with editorial oversight and that would not publish fake news or violations of UK privacy law. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you. So what do you suggest? Should the subject's real biological name, appear in their infobox's and/or article's introduction? Because under normal circumstances it should be. Diademchild (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::None of the sources I provided had a middle name, nor did you add another with a middle name. If an uninvolved user or admin saw that, they could have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Please WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE ↗. There is a difference between a performer's first and surname being published by the BBC, and plucking a middle name out of what appears to be thin air. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I supplied a source from Fiji with her middle name. And if you search for her first and middle name on Google, it appears to have some ground. Diademchild (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

30px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Amouranth ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward making a version that represents consensus ↗ among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection ↗.

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing ↗'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hiya Morbidthoughts. I understand what you're saying, but I don't get why you're clearly refusing to accept the reality of her birthdate in December 1993, despite what she has said via her Social Media platforms, and despite what a simple Google search confirms as well. To be fair, I'm only publishing what I know from her, being that she was born on 2 December 1993 and her middle name is Michelle; and I will return to provide a genuine reference to support this. The source herself has used her verified Twitter to confirm her age and birthday (thereby using mathematics, her date of birth). In the same way, that there are several thousands of articles on living persons, that rely on confirmation from the source themselves regarding their age or date of birth, is the same way the subject has reveal her's too. But I guess that's the frustration from pedantic Wikipedians like myself, about Wikipedia overall; the inconsistency about the sourcing of genuine information on living persons.
:Anyways if you have a look here ↗, I've already started a conversation around her birth year's whole deciphering. Feel free to chime in because I hope we can come to a logical and reasonable conclusion about the facts on her. Diademchild (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::You should not have reinstated disputed BLP edits three times over the objections of 2 other users per WP:UNDEL ↗. Not only were those sources disputed as being reliable, you reinstated primary sources that did not directly support the birthdate 12/2/1993 without applying WP:OR ↗. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::The subject clearly said she was celebrating her 23rd birthday in a December 2016 post on her verified social media account. So respectfully to anyone, does it then take a rocket scientist to fully understand that she wasn’t born in 1994? Diademchild (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::You reinstated an exact date December 2, 1993 on your last revert along with a poor source for her middle name.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amouranth&diff=prev&oldid=1278146829 ↗ You should have gained consensus on the article talk page before reverting even the second time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes the exact birthdate of December 2, 1993, can be found by/with her announcing her 23rd birthday on December 2, 2016, on her own verified Social Media account, so that’s a literal authentic source. I will eventually provide a reference from Business Insider ↗ – an authentic source in America – mentioning her middle name. And once I do, that should finalise the topic around her middle name right? Diademchild (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Block notice

Our policies regarding living persons is one of the most important on the project and the importance of reliable sourcing is paramount. You have violated this policy over and over again, relying on poor sourcing, synthesis and original research to add and restore disputed content to biography articles. I was going to indefinitely topic ban you from all BLPs indefinitely but am going to try this timed block first to hopefully drive home the absolute requirement for the best sourcing when editing BLPs.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=Your appeal provides no reason why you should be unblocked. If anything, you seem to agree that the block is justified. That being the case, I am declining your appeal, and suggest you just sit this one out. You may wish to study the WP:BLP ↗ policy, violations of which led to this block, so that you can avoid a repeat of such problems in the future. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)|1=Your reason here Diademchild (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC) I apologise, and realise I made a terrible error of judgement. I totally accept that I should have known better as a smart individual. I was just trying desperately to prove a point using logic, when I’m not really that sort of person. I should have waited for a fluent response from other editors in the subject’s talk page. They have replied but I cannot even respond back to them with this restriction. I’m sure they understood I wasn’t deliberately editing malicious. I’ve never been blocked before, so I never thought it could happen to me in good faith. My actions landed me in trouble but I will try my best to be patient henceforth.}}
:I basically told you this would happen here ↗ and you brushed me off ↗. I even made my comment under a giant template warning you about how sensitive WP:BLP ↗ is. I would hope that if you are unblocked, that you would be a bit more willing to calibrate to feedback in the future without needing to block you. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:: I didn't necessarily brush you off. But I do suspect you sort of initiated the blocking. And you shouldn't have. I initially came to you, for us to discuss the subject's real date of birth. I’m pedantic so I admit I didn’t realise there was such uproar over how WP:BLP ↗ articles are treated though. For example, as a mathematician, what irks me is seeing that the subject could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case, especially if her birthday's in December and she's currently already aged 31. Diademchild (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|you sort of initiated the blocking}}. Ponyo blocked you, not me. I have not communicated with Ponyo in any way about this. Your behavior violated our BLP norms and is catching the attention of uninvolved people.
:::{{tq|What irks me is seeing that she could be born in 1994, when we all know that's definitely not the case}}. I tried to explain this on the article talk page. I talked about how in general on Wikipedia we want to add accurate knowledge (which this is), but that BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY ↗ are exceptions where we as a community have decided to prioritize a living person's privacy for ethical reasons, over the ideal of having accurate knowledge. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Happy Saturday. I learn my lesson and I’ll sit the edit blocking out. I’m not too big to be punished. Afterall, compared to you all I’m relatively inexperienced in our Wikipedian ↗ community, so I guess I’ll take this as my first and hopefully last ever negative moment on here, lol.
::::Notwithstanding, Amouranth ↗’s middle name is Michelle, and when I return unrestricted I will provide a reference to the Business Insider in support of that. Or if you’re happy to add her middle in now with that reference, I can send that Business Insider ↗ reference to you now? It’s up to you. Diademchild (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, just drop a link to the Business Insider article at Talk:Amouranth ↗ when your block is lifted and I'm sure some folks will take a look. Don't forget that since your edit is disputed, you need some folks to chime in in favor of including it on the talk page before it can be included. By the way, if you're fully onboard with the ideas of 1) being careful editing BLPs and 2) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting, I will support your unblock. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, of course I’m fully on-board with the two points you mentioned above. I promise, I’m not a difficult person to deal with, and as a Christian myself, I understand that I’m not perfect. So I can be misguided sometimes and subsequently make mistakes. But as I’ve said on my user page, Wikipedia has a wonderful community, and I’m sure most senior Wikipedians like yourself, might understand those who prefer to unmaliciously edit in good faith like myself. Diademchild (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Awesome, sounds good. I now support your unblock. @Ponyo, thoughts on unblocking? –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Many thanks Novem Linguae. Hopefully Ponyo, kindly cancels altogether or reduces my edit restriction by days. So yes, I'll eventually resume the Talk:Amouranth ↗ discussion. Moreover, I noticed that you're an interface administrator ↗ and that's a pretty big deal on/for this platform/project. I'm not sure if anyone's ever said this to you before, but with your Wikipedian ↗ experience, I'd like for you to be like "some sort of" mentor to me on Wikipedia ↗, if of course you wouldn't mind? Diademchild (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Hey there. Interface admins are just admins that are good at programming. Any admin with programming experience can apply for it.
:::::::::I'd say admin is the thing that's harder to get. In my case it required a week of (mostly positive) public comments from over 200 people.
:::::::::Overall though we try not to focus too much on seniority or status here. The fact that someone is an admin is ignored in article content discussions, where we are all equals, and good sources and correctly following our policies matters the most. Admin status can come into play with user behavior discussions though, where admins can choose to give formal warnings or use their block button, when it follows the community's rules for doing so.
:::::::::Despite the egalitarianism, if someone is a newer user, it can be a good idea to follow the lead of more experienced Wikipedians, until one's own sense of how things work around here is well calibrated.
:::::::::Sure, I'd be happy to informally mentor you. Glad to see that you're still excited about Wikipedia and didn't get driven off. You have a good attitude. I think things will work out just fine. I predict an unblock shortly. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Hiya. So I saw you reverted an edit I made on my talk page. That's good, and as an "informal mentor" of mine, I give you permission to edit my talk page and user page if you want, if you notice any spelling, edit or revert errors. Mind you, I thought as an interface administrator, that you could directly unblock me yourself? Nevertheless, I do appreciate the compliment of "things working out fine" and of me "having good attitude". I hope things work out fine for you too. Diademchild (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry for the revert. Had to enforce WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK ↗.
:::::::::::Myself and other admins do have the technical ability to unblock you, but it is kind of rude to override another admin, and I might be a little WP:INVOLVED ↗ here so wouldn't be a great look for me. Ideally Ponyo or an uninvolved admin should lift this block. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::No problem. What I still don’t get is how Ponyo managed to find my account, to block me in the first instance. Because before the block, I don’t think I had ever crossed paths with Ponyo via any page article. If anything, I was thinking it could have been you to potentially block me, which was why I previously assumed that you initiated the block since as you said, you were technically involved in my revert, lol. So how was I somehow alerted to Ponyo? Diademchild (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm sure Ponyo will tell you when she gets back. Looks like she hasn't edited in a day or two. But I'd say the most likely scenario is checking her watchlist, or receiving a complaint about you on her user talk or at a noticeboard that she was patrolling. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Alright. Since the only thing I can do for now is talk to/with you, I have a quick question. Is is true or false to assume the following viewpoint about how Wikipedia works, in one act: Diademchild edits an article and puts in "2+2=4." He is reverted by an editor claiming that "2+2=5." He reverts the edits claiming WP:BLUESKY and "take it to talk, but 2+2=4." Another editor reverts me and says, "It's not BLUE if someone reverts, stop edit warring." I then go to the talkpage and present my case, but the two editors are now claiming they have consensus that 2+2=5. I try to show how 2+2=4, but am told I'm being DISRUPTIVE and a WIKILAWYER. I then say that consensus can't trump the truth, that 2+2=4. Finally, an admin shows up and blocks Diademchild for being disruptive and a wikilawyer. Will the article then show that 2+2=5 due to consensus of its editors? Diademchild (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Sigh. I don't really want to rehash all that. I thought we had wrapped that up and left it in a good spot.
:::::::::::::::But anyway, yeah, if people are telling you that putting 2+2=4 breaks the rules, and you edit war with them to put it in anyway, then expect to get blocked. Shouldn't be breaking the rules.
:::::::::::::::Your analogy also ignores the violating a living person's privacy and facilitating identity theft component of WP:BLPPRIVACY ↗. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|accept=Block converted to a partial block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)|reason= Following a useful chat on my talk page with Novem Linguae, a senior Wikipedian ↗ who supports my unblocking, I understand: 1.) being careful about editing BLPs and 2.) taking disputes to the talk page and getting some support for inclusion before re-adding rather than just reverting. So, respectfully we now both believe I don't deserve a necessitation of an edit blocking of seven days upon my account. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Not a bad unblock request, but I am little hesitant around your wording of "getting some support for inclusion". You should read WP:CONSENSUS ↗ if you haven't already. You should settle the matter on the talk page, and then edit the article, not continue an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hiya PhilKnight thanks for your response. I agree, yes, that's what'll do. For example, there's even a conversation left for me to duly respond to at talk:Amouranth ↗, which I cannot under edit restriction, but I won't be making any edit or revert, until the discussion or dispute has been concluded. If you have any other recommendation or advice before I get unblocked, feel free to inform me. Thanks. Diademchild (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Ponyo}} - how would you feel about converting this block to a partial block of the biography article? 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight thanks for your help, but I think Ponyo is busy in real life as she alluded to on the top of her talk page. And she indeed has not returned to Wikipedia ↗ since she unconventionally and temporarily blocked me, of all people. The only way I can avoid sitting out the rest of my edit restriction, is for another Administrator ↗ to rightly unblock me, because she might not return online for a long while. Diademchild (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|PhilKnight}} The issues with unsourced biographical content extend well beyond a single article, hence my site wide block. I suppose that's neither here not there now, but I do have concerns with edits made since you modified the block, which I've asked follow-up questions on in a separate section below.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Thanks - I have converted your block to a partial block of Amouranth ↗ article only. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, you're a legend. Many thanks. I'll resume my discussion on Amouranth's talk page ↗<nowiki>, once I'm fully 100% unrestricted. In the meantime, feel free to provide me with any feedback or any other advice, before then. ~~~~</nowiki> Diademchild (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Continued concerns

Diademchild, what reliable source did you use for this birthdate ↗?-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:*and this one ↗ as well.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::*and this one ↗.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Alright, so regarding Joan McVittie ↗ this is her profile on Companies House ↗: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/WO1uDMSnAXS_7BWmcAs4bmQHHR8/appointments . So she's definitely born in September 1952. I just got the day of her birthmonth, from the result that comes up when you type up her fullname on Google. Is that valid? Diademchild (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Companies House cannot be used for biographical statistics. And no, you cannot just Google a person and then add whatever comes up. You can only add what is explicitly verified in reliable sources.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::But Companies House is widely used across for biographies of private living persons on Wikipedia. I respect you, but I think you might be just being strict. Diademchild (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::If it's used in other biographies then it should be removed from those, not added to others. It relies on user-generated submissions and WP:BLPPRIMARY ↗ documents.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Alright thank you for the WP:DISCOGS ↗ and WP:BLPPRIMARY ↗ links. Just to confirm, feel free to correct me if you feel I've made any other edit mistakes via my contributions. I'm inexperienced on here, and I reckon you're probably much older than me as well. I noticed you're busy in real life, so I was wondering how often you're active on Wikipedia weekly/monthly, patrolling the site? Diademchild (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::Hiya, @Ponyo. I hope you're fine. What a pleasant surprise, to see you on here. Anyways for that particular birthdate, I cited this source ↗</nowiki> Diademchild (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::For which one? I listed three.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::That's for the first one regarding Courtney Pine ↗ Diademchild (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::: Discogs is usergenerated and cannot be used as a source - see WP:DISCOGS ↗. And the other two?-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Christopher Hughes (quiz contestant) ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 5 March 2025, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Christopher Hughes (quiz contestant) ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Step hen 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

Contentious topic notification still in effect

I was going to give you a contentious topics notification regarding BLPs, but you have already received two within the last year, including a this one ↗ from {{U|Doug Weller}}, another admin. You absolutely must start following our policies regarding reliable sources in BLPs immediately, there is no room for additional warnings.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with you @Ponyo, but in my opinion, 80% of BLPs don't truly follow reliable sourcing if we're being honest, so it's easy to forget that sometimes when you're inexperienced, and to slip into unreliable sourcing. I always edit in good faith though, and that's something no user or Administrator can take away from me. Diademchild (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::Good faith goes a long way on this project, but, outside of outright vandalism and racist/nationalist attacks, repeated BLP violations (along with copyright violations) are the two quickest paths to sanctions as they open Wikipedia to potential legal/rela world ramifications. There are myriad ways you can contribute in a WP:WIKIGNOME ↗ way that will improve the encyclopedia. If you are having trouble getting a firm grasp on reliable sourcing in biography articles, perhaps you can concentrate on a different area for now. Just a thought.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Alright thank you @Ponyo. I'll see what I can do going forwards. I believe you're doing a good job as an Administrator ↗ on here, so I have no qualms regarding your input. As I said you're probably older than me, so I'll take your advice on board. Moreover, regarding my edits over the last year or so around BLPs, would you say they've negatively impacted my user reputation on here, or is it just a minor thing in the grand scheme of things? Especially, if say I hoped to become an Administrator ↗ on here like you, one day? Diademchild (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::You can find plenty of information on adminship at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates ↗.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced ↗ content, as you did at :Sahara Knite ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗.  Opolito (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|ponyo}} I wanted to draw this to your attention, given this user's history of BLP violations. There are a number of these unsourced birthday edits recently, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahdiel&diff=1285102121&oldid=1272405158 ↗ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Travis_McHenry&diff=1285879966&oldid=1243819867 ↗. These seem pretty problematic to me given the past warnings and a block. Best, Opolito (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::Hiya, I can provide an acceptable source for the birthday of Sahara Knite ↗ here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sahara-Knite#:~:text=Born%20-%20Feb%2004%2C%201975%20England,Knite%20is%20a%20popular%20Actor., and regarding Jahdiel ↗ I simply added the birthday that was already provided in their infobox, into that article's introduction. So what have I done wrong? Diademchild (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::You need to cite ↗ your source when you add material to the article, not later on your talk page. The birthday in the infobox on Jahdiel ↗ was unsourced, so you cannot use that as an excuse to add further unsourced material to a biography of a living person ↗. Opolito (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::But I never knew that. If that birthdate is already on the page surely it would be correct. I only added it to the article's introduction because I thought editors forgot to do so. Clearly I made both edits in good faith. I think what you've caused isn't fair, you should have spoken to me first before alerting {{ping|Ponyo}}, and I would have followed your advice. I thought we had a friendly community on this collaborative platform. Diademchild (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons ↗ policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that 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: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)</div></div>

This will be the last timed block. If the WP:BLP ↗ violations continue when the block expires you will likely either be topic banned from editing BLPs altogether or indefinitely blocked.-- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|accept=Converting this site-wide block to a three-month WP:TBAN ↗ from WP:BLP ↗ articles, per discussion below. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)|reason=Hiya, honestly, despite being on this platform for two years now, I believe my edits regularly get misunderstood or scrutinized harshly despite always editing in good faith ↗, whereas there are editors who don't cite their sources that have never been cautioned once. As a WikiGnome ↗, in my spare time I fix text anomalies on biographies of living persons ↗, so if I notice there's something missing with support from an available infobox, I'll add it on. I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons ↗, so any time I add a birthdate I have gotten it from a reliable source. I don't see why I have been given a month-long editing blockage especially when, for example, I have simply added a confirmed birthdate from a subject's infobox into their article introduction? There are other pieces of information on other topics that I have since identified for editing, so can my blockage significantly be/get reduced to a week at most, or may I please be allowed to edit other topics for now away from biographies of living persons ↗, since apparently I seem to be making petty mistakes for it. Regards, Diademchild (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)}}
:Can you comment on the edit you made on Sahara Knite ↗, mentioned above? This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahara_Knite&diff=prev&oldid=1285930902 ↗. I don't understand your explanation about the infobox. That article hasn't got an infobox. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
::Hiya, sure thing. So basically, with that particular article, there are common and verifiablle birth sources for her that are available for editors to include, one of them being this one here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sahara-Knite#:~:text=Born%20-%20Feb%2004%2C%201975%20England,Knite%20is%20a%20popular%20Actor ↗ , but I unintentionally forgot to add it because I prefer adding birth sources to infoboxes, but as you've rightly said that subject does not have an infobox. So once I get unblocked, I'll either create a brand new infobox for the subject and include that source, or just simply add that birth source to her preexisting article introduction. But you could let me know your thoughts, about which you think could be preferable, before I proceed. Regards Diademchild (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
:::@Diademchild, that is not a reliable source for her birthday. You shouldn't be using that as a reference for her birthday at all, in the infobox or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::But I thought The Times of India ↗ is/was not outlawed, and is/was considered at least to be evaluated with caution, as per perennial sources ↗, and particularly since the birthdate on there correlates with what's mentioned on other websites or platform's of the subject, surely it is/was a valid source, because I've seen The Times of India ↗ cited on Wikipedia before. Either way, my edit was done in good faith ↗, but I guess I shall be staying away from biographies of living persons ↗ for a while, once you hopefully unblock me. Thanks. Diademchild (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::The Times of India would be a reliable or reasonably reliable source, yes, depending on the context. Can you try to figure out why ''that link in particular'' is not a reliable source? I'd like you to try and think through this one, since using reliable sources is really important, whether you're editing on BLPs or not. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Good question. I guess this would be a teachable moment for me, because that particular link correctly states her birthdate and place of birth, so I'd struggle to justify whay it couldn't be considered, especially since The Times of India ↗ would be a reliable or reasonably reliable source. Obviously you're an admin ↗ so you'll probably know why more than me as to why that particular link is unreliable, but if I were to take a guess would it be because that particular link has no date, external link or author featured? Diademchild (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, you got most of the way there. What you're looking at isn't actually an article on ''The Times of India''. In fact, what ToI is ''actually'' telling you is "Showing 0 results" and "Sorry, We couldn’t find any results" - they don't have any information on her ''at all''. It's not their image of her, either: https://www.tineye.com/search/349ba0281b49c9ee8c92bfadd5d9c2de3cac5940?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 ↗. I'm not sure where they got their data from, but it seems to me that this only exists on their website to get clicks from google searches like yours. What makes a reliable source reliable is that the information is (theoretically, anyway), traceable, fact-checked, and/or subject to editorial oversight of some kind. Does that make sense? -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Oh okay, fair enough. I guess it sure makes sense. Thank you for that teachable moment. I'm still learning on this platform. So essentially what you're trying to imply is that, even if information is found on a website considered to be of a reasonably reliable source, unless there is a date or author at least of some kind attached to that particular link, then it's best to err on the side of caution, right? Diademchild (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Mm, not quite. What we care about is the reliability of the source. ToI, in this particular case, is clearly ''not'' the source of that data. It's actually not at all clear where that data ''is'' coming from. You should always be able to explain why the source of the information you're using is reliable. "It's in the NYT" is not a good reason - think of WP:RSP ↗ as basically a series of shortcuts. What we're actually doing to generate those listings is looking at things like "the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", "this source was overseen by a credible editorial board", "the source is an expert in their field", "the research is backed up by many citations to other reliable sources", and so on. In this case we don't have anything positive we can say about that information on ToI, but we ''do'' have red flags: "no clear source for information", "blank search results suggest clickfarming", "image clearly scraped from somewhere else online". So we have no reason to believe the information is reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Alright understood. So what do you suggest regarding my unblocking? And once I'm unblocked, what do you suggest I focus my edits on for now? -- Diademchild (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider shifting your editing focus away from biographies of living people, given the large range of other topics and pages on Wikipedia that could benefit from your edits... -MoonOwO- (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sure thing, I agree. I just sometimes have an uncontrollable urge to contribute to biographies of living persons, especially when their birthdate is missing but the subject has indirectly confirmed it themselves via the social media page, or when the sole consistent birthdate of the subject has been published online albeit via an unreliable or tabloid source; as is the case regarding 99% of biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. At most for now, I'll probably be making sure that short descriptions of living persons are accurate though. Diademchild (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It might be worth considering not doing that. It is a bit like poking a landmine with a stick, but hey, you do you. -MoonOwO- (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Alright, thanks for your take. I see you're relatively new on here as well. So how did you actually come across this thread discussion? Diademchild (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::For whatever reason, I find the block log particularly interesting to look at. That's how I found this thread. -MoonOwO- (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@Diademchild, I'd be willing to unblock you early if you accepted a topic ban from BLPs. @Ponyo, thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|Asilvering}} If anything, rereading the entirety of this talk page and your discussion with Diademchild here, I think a BLP topic ban (three months, maybe?) is more appropriate than my original timed block. This editor continues (admittedly) to be more concerned about ensuring full birthdays are included in articles than ensuring that the content meets WP:DOB ↗ policy. While they are attempting to learn how to incorporate WP:RS ↗ and WP:BLP ↗ into their edits, it's being approached backwards (i.e. "how do I find a way to get this information I found somewhere on the internet in to this article" instead of "are there reliable sources that would allow us to include missing information in this article"). I think a full BLP ban is necessary as allowing Diademchild to test the boundaries of reliable sourcing on our BLP articles is suboptimal at best. A BLP ban will allow Diadem to hopefully become more proficient in identifying reliable sources in areas that do not have the same real world implications. -- '''Ponyo'''''bons mots'' 16:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, I agree. @Diademchild, I don't think a BLP topic ban just for the rest of the block as you suggest below is quite long enough, so I'll go with the three months @Ponyo suggested here. If you want to have that lifted early, please appeal at WP:AN ↗ with some good edits behind you to demonstrate that you've learned better. I can't say I recommend doing so at any point (I just want to make you aware of the appropriate route for appeal), but if you do appeal to have it lifted early, I would advise not doing so at the original end date of the one-month block, but no earlier than one month from ''today''. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks. And if you mean a topic ban from BLPs throughout the rest of the block timer, that sounds reasonable. As I think we could assume that an indefinite topic ban, would be unnecessary. — Diademchild (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::@asilvering, just a point/thought from me. So here's an example of a birthdate in/of a BLP ↗ that I normally like to fix: Nia Sanchez ↗. If you check her page, it simply says she's born 1990. That is correct, but totally vague, and according to her she is also born on 15 February, as you can see in the hashtags of her instagram ↗ posts here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CosOW__r4E9/?img_index=1&igsh=MTdnbWp5dXZidGFpeQ%3D%3D ↗ or https://www.instagram.com/p/DGQcILxpQu0/ ↗. There are currently no perennial sources ↗, or at least I cannot find any, confirming her birthday as 15 February though, but if I or anyone else were to justifiably add her real birthday (February 15) to her article, would we definitely need to cite any of her instagram ↗ pages aforementioned, too? Or just wait for an eventual perennial source ↗? -- Diademchild (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Just let others handle this. -MoonOwO- (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well it clearly hasn't been brought to anyone's attention, since the subject's article page got created over 10 years ago lol. Heck, since you're aware of it now, you may feel free to improve on that section of her page, if you wanted. Diademchild (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I do technology, not people. -MoonOwO- (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, if you added her birthday based on her own instagram posts, you would have to cite them. That's WP:ABOUTSELF ↗/WP:BLPSELFPUB ↗. However, you need to be very careful to read what it says at WP:DOB ↗. You need to keep in mind whether the subject is a public figure, and how widely they publish that information themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Alright, many thanks. She is a public figure, since having won Miss USA 2014 ↗, with a now verified social media presence, since having subsequently appeared on the The Valley ↗. -- Diademchild (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style ↗ that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in :Three Ds of foreign policy ↗, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''See MOS:OVERLINK ↗.'' CodeTalker (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Per Wimmer ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ↗. 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) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop

Hey, just because you deleted the warning messages doesn't mean people can't see them in the history logs. Please stop violating rules. It won't help you or any other editor. -MoonOwO- (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hiya @-MoonOwO-, thanks for your message. Sure thing. I still cannot believe I did all that yesterday, but I think I did it all out of anxiety, considering it's very uncharacteristic of me to ever be like that. So, also @Opolito, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise directly to you too. I reflected and looking back, I guess I was somewhat unprofessional to you; and that's not what I'm all about. From my perspective, I just felt like you came out of nowhere recently this month, and started helicoptering over my edits. And because you joined this collaborative project nearly a year after me, I could not understand why it felt like you were acting like an admin ↗ or even their sidekick. But I guess, you were just trying to teach me a lesson yourself. Nonetheless, I'm still learning everyday, so going forwards if you see me making an editorial mistake, I'm happy for you to talk to me on here first, preferably without alerting an admin ↗, because just like you, I would never do anything disruptive ↗ on here. Besides, we've all likely got real lives outside of this platform, so like you said, we really should be respectful always ↗. Regards -- Diademchild (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Integrated library system ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Computerize ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced ↗ information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons ↗, as you did to :Bonnie Blue (actress) ↗. {{pb}} ''There is no verification that the subject is the same person as in the newspaper announcement. Participants in ongoing discussions also cannot unilaterally declare consensus achieved. Thank you.'' —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hiya @Sangdeboeuf. I understand your plea, but with no opposition to her biographical inclusion so far or vote for your standpoint, I honestly don’t know what else there is for anybody to wait for, especially since the survey ↗ is already a “swift close”. With it being obvious that it’s the same person as in that newspaper announcement here ↗, it’s apparent that you’re leaning more on the subject’s undisclosed emotions to do with her private life, despite the facts clearly being there to verify/authenticate the subject’s biographical information for inclusion. But facts override feelings, when it comes to verifiable information. Even, you probably know already that there is overwhelming support to include the subject’s birthname and birthdate into her article page; and that apart from you, there is unlikely to be another user/editor that agrees wholeheartedly with your stance. But for the sake of your request here, and with your “somewhat stubborn filibustering ↗”, I can surely wait at least another week before reverting your edit, if of course another user/editor hasn’t already reverted it before then. — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 01:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::Wikipedia is based on published, reliable sources that ''directly'' support the material to be included, not what you or I might think is "obvious". A single person so far has !voted to close the discussion, which is not the same as the discussion actually being closed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I’m sorry but the results of that survey ↗ is/are clearly not contentious to any editor/user apart from you, and the consensus is clearly obvious to all participants, so formal closure is ''neither necessary nor advisable''. Without precious time being wasted, we are are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance, with this one ↗ being included. — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 09:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::The subject has never published their {{em|full date of birth}} that I'm aware of, and there's no consensus on the talk page to combine different sources to extrapolate the subject's WP:DOB ↗. {{s|Discuss this at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue ↗}}. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you preferably start off this discussion please. Since you have finally allowed for us to inlcude her first and last name, I’m assuming that it would be best for you to kick start the discussion around her birthdate (and perhaps the inclusion of her middle name), before I and other editors reply. Thanks. '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{s|I just started a new thread at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue ↗.}} —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, many thanks. Don’t forget that we also need to address the reliability of her birth announcement here ↗, so we can properly add in her full birth/government name. So in addition to the question you poised, and in order for us to kill two birds with one stone, if you could also add/edit in the question of whether we can accept this birth announcement ↗ as proof of her full birth/government name as well, that would be decent. Regards, — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Discussion is ongoing at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue (actress) ↗. Please note that BLPPRIVACY requires that full dates of birth be {{tq|widely published by reliable sources}}. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Why did you delete your previously new thread? I thought that previous RfC had been closed? So you effectively want us all to address it within/in one whole RfC? Because I cannot find the new question for the new information we want to add/address, regarding the same subject? '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 21:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I didn't realize the previous discussion at WP:BLP/N#Bonnie Blue (actress) ↗ was still open. There's no reason to open a duplicate thread while that one is still ongoing. I've just added my two cents regarding the newspaper announcement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah sure thing, no problem. It’s just that newer or more recent issues have appeared on that same noticeboard ↗, so hopefully it won’t take long for us to overcome any conflict resolutions ↗ and/or it won’t pass over the eyes of interested users/editors on here. Thanks — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 21:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced ↗ biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at :Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ↗. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory ↗ and is in violation of Wikipedia policy ↗. If you continue, you may be blocked ↗ from editing Wikipedia. ''{{pb}} Your opinions about the subject's "lewd antics" ↗ are irrelevant and in violation of both WP:BLP ↗ and WP:NOTFORUM ↗. I have no problem escalating this to WP:AE ↗ if such displays continue.'' —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

AN/I notice

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. The thread is User:Diademchild ↗. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' '''indefinitely ↗''' from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons ↗ policy. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that 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: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)</div></div>
:And also for your violations of your 3-month topic ban you agreed to above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed| reason=Hiya. I'm honestly flabbergasted to find myself blocked. Indeed I remember getting conditionally unblocked on April 24th, 2025 as a result of accepting a three-month topic ban from all pages relating to biographies of living persons. It was my first time receiving a topic ban back then, and because I hadn't fully understoood the conditions behind a topic ban back then, I uncharacteristically almost immediately violated the TBAN with BLP edits. I should have appealed that/this topic ban after at least a month, as I was told to, but I forgot to do so. However a couple of months had passed, and with other commitments outside of here ↗, I lost track of time so having spent some time away from BLPs I used that time to learn or experiment with my source referencing skills away from Wikipedia. I've made it clear previously that I'm a WikiGnome ↗ and WikiJanitor ↗, so I prefer privately fixing typos or grammar, updating short descriptions and adding birth dates and other biographical trivia to articles, including BLPs. BLPs consist of a large majority of articles on Wikipedia ↗, but of course, when/where necessary (if you check the editing history of the following article pages) I have also edited other topic areas since April 24th 2025, like I have done previously related to sports ↗ here ↗, here ↗, here ↗, or to/with transportation ↗ here ↗ or here ↗. We all have different backgrounds and perspectives ↗, so I may be open to criticism ↗ or common mistakes ↗, but I clearly do not and never have had any ulterior motive ↗ on this platform. Notwithstanding, in the last ten days or so, I then started engaging in talk pages of BLPs like this one here ↗ as a couple months had passed since April 24th, 2025, assuming that I was not in any breach of any topic ban. Other users/editors were interacting with me so I assumed, all was well. I agree with this platform's policies and guidelines ↗, and I apologise for any unconventional breaches, as I behave with decorum ↗ and always discuss respectfully. Would it please be possible to get unblocked, because this is harsh and for me it feels discouraging ↗ altogether. — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 07:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)|decline=This does not convince me that the problems that led to the block will not recur. If you are unable to resist your "uncontrollable urge" to edit BLPs, and dismiss others who point out such edits, you need to remain blocked to protect Wikipedia. If this discourages you from contributing, quite frankly I'm not sure that's a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
:Hiya @331dot, I promise that the problems that led to the block won't recur. I think before potentially retiring ↗ (if at all), that the best possible remedy would be for me to stay away from BLPs altogether ↗, by means of a topic ban for at least another three months (or however long you may deem fit). And to use that particular intervening time to take a break ↗ potentially away from editing on here, to see where my head is at. What do you think? –'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::You may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=There is nothing here that gives me confidence you will not repeat the same behavior, including {{tq|I think I can agree}}. That's not your call. Star Mississippi 01:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)|1=Following advice from 331dot to make a new request for someone else to review, I think I can agree to another BLP topic ban for at least another three months (or however long deemed fit). And to use that particular intervening time on a BLP topic ban, to take a break ↗ potentially away from editing on here, to see where my head is at. In the previous request, I previously explained in context, the lapse in responsibility (on my end) that I'd say led to this block, and how I clearly do not and never have had any ulterior motive ↗ on this platform, and also how I duly remain in agreement with this platform's policies and guidelines ↗. –'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 16:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}
:Hiya @Star Mississippi, I understand that you may have no confidence that I may not change my behaviour, but I agree to change. I think the reality has set in that I may not be unblocked, but I remain committed to remaining actively on this platform. I was wondering what you suggest, going forwards? –'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Diademchild}} you've made this promise on multiple occasions and have broken it on just as many as is clear from this page's history. I think you need to take time on another project and build a positive, collaborative editing portfolio that shows you respect WP:BLP and understand sourcing. And then you could be considered for an unblock here. Without a track record, I'm not sure an unblock is wise or that we won't end up right back here again. Star Mississippi 02:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I think that this could be easier said than done. Apart from Wikipedia (and unless you may have any in mind), I cannot seem to identify any other online platform that may readily allow any individual to build a positive, collaborative editing portfolio or track record. I do appear in an online dilemma here. '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 09:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::::There are projects besides the English Wikipedia: simple wiki is one that comes to mind if you want to write. Star Mississippi 12:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::To elaborate on this, there are other Wikimedia projects by the same non-profit that runs Wikipedia. Projects such as commons:Main Page ↗, simple:Main Page ↗, wikisource:Main Page ↗, etc. The complete list is at Special:SiteMatrix ↗. A common pathway to getting unblocked on English Wikipedia is to behave well on other projects in the Wikimedia movement such as these. Each project is autonomous and has its own rules, blocks, etc. –'''Novem Linguae''' (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Many thanks @Novem Linguae and @Star Mississippi. I managed to find time to have a look at/through the Wikimedia, the Wikisource, the Simple Wiki here ↗ and at/through other Wikimedia wikis in here ↗. They seem pretty much user-friendly ↗ like on here ↗, but like a readily available training-ground for good editorial competence ↗ on here ↗. So I’ll be happy to take some considerable amount of time off here ↗ to see how/what I may contribute over on those (other) Wikis. I can appreciate that as Admins ↗, you both alongside other admins have to abide by the edit-restriction rules on here, but have (somewhat) encouraged me to focus on other Wiki projects for now. And hopefully this current block/restrction on me, proves a long-term blessing in disguise ↗. Regards, – '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

If this user is unblocked (not endorsing their request btw), I strongly suggest an indefinite topic ban from all WP:GENSEX ↗ pages, since their comments about sex worker ↗s such as {{tqq|this female subject isn’t (that) societally important/respected/valuable ↗}} and {{tqq|there’s nothing whatsoever inspirational/respected/valued about such lewd antics ↗}} suggest they are incapable of editing neutrally in that contentious topic area ↗. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Sangdeboeuf, you clearly took my comments there, out of context. I’ve never bashed any public figure ↗ on here before, and I wasn’t even bashing her as a person, so there was no ad hominem ↗ attack from me at/to her. I was specifically talking about the acts that she claims to have committed. I am from the same nation that she grew up in, and I was trying to share what the common thought is from her local government, concerning how her acts have been taken/viewed in the/their society. And I was also sharing what many other media personalities, interviewers or critics of the subject, have openly said concerning her revelations, and was not necesarily referring to her as a person. But I understand, you managed to misconstrue the intent ↗ behind my comments, to land me in hot water, which wasn’t fair play. Anyways I sure do apologize, if it came off as if I attacked/bashed the subject as a person independent of her actions, only. –'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 18:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::You said that reliable sources ↗ were not needed because a {{tqq|female subject ↗}}, whose gender you went out of your way to {{diff2|1297641319|mention}} {{diff2|1297683314|several}} {{diff2|1297862660|times}}, was not {{tqq|societally important ↗}}. That's not what I call neutral or constructive editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Just to clarify, what I meant by that was instead of us desperately looking for reliable sources in/on this list here ↗ to help find or look for an authentic birthdate source concerning the subject, that we could instead rely on the readily available WP:ABOUTSELF ↗/WP:BLPSELFPUB ↗ posts/interviews that she had already given, since information in/from those posts/interviews were indeed from the horse’s mouth. Secondly, when referring to her (the subject ↗), I kept interchanging between “subject” and “female subject”, because whenever I was putting forth an opinion/response (to you particularly in that closed/archived thread here ↗), I always wanted the main centre of attention regarding the conversation to remain on her, because if you remember I gave analogies regarding other public figure ↗s in entertainment like Cardi B ↗ and Dr. Dre ↗, so whenever I’d say “female subject”, I typically hyperlinked it to that subject being discussed. Now I guess you could say I went a bit overboard to quote what other media personalities, interviewers or members of the government have said about the subject’s actions societally, but I didn’t mean for it to look as if those were my thoughts towards her personally, outside of her work. So as I said, I apologize, if those edits by means of external comments or quotes, didn’t come out as constructive. '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 19:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::When quoting people directly, it's customary to use quotation marks ↗ and to say whom you are quoting. You didn't do that. How is anyone supposed to know those weren't just your own opinions ↗? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I understand @Sangdeboeuf, the question you have poised. At the time, throughout our lengthy back and forth conversations alongside other editors/users, I was just trying to get my points/responses accross as swiftly as possible, without paying attention to how any potential external quotes/comments might come out accross to other editors/users like yourself, reading. I admit that your comment at the end here took me aback, but I didn’t address it right there and then because I didn’t think you’d escalate it. But in hindsight, I should have made my clarification/stance right there and then. —'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 19:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, you should have. Especially after receiving a contentious topics alert in June 2024 ↗ (over a year ago) telling you to {{em|use caution}} and to edit {{em|carefully and constructively}} in regard to BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Like you said it was over a year ago, but these things can easily slip off one’s radar, causing oneself to not avoid making silly mistakes ↗. You’ve been on this platform (perhaps actively) for over a decade and I’ve been on here only for a couple of years. Perhaps before/by the time I become (close to) a seasoned Wikipedian ↗ like you, I’ll be much more readily aware of easily walking on any eggshells by means of editing. –'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Your whole purpose here seems to be adding trivia to biographical articles, and you've been warned multiple times to follow BLP policy. If you find it that difficult to remember, then you may lack the competence required ↗ to edit Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Adding trivia to biographical articles (like a lot of users/editors also do), is one aspect of what I like doing. I also like reverting vandalism ↗ and fixing typos and grammar mistakes ↗ across all articles on Wikipedia ↗ for now, though eventually that may shift, as I gain more editorial experience on here. For example, in your over a decade’s worth of time on here, I’d assume that there are certain editorial pieces/niches/interests that appeal to you more than others. But whilst I agree that competence ↗ is required on here, and despite being educated, I think we’re all different and do/remember different things at our pace, especially as we all likely have other (major) commitments outside of this platform. —'''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::You were reminded about that notice ↗ less than four months ago. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Unblocking request

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hiya. I got an email stating that I was eligible to vote in the Wikimedia Foundation 2025 Board of Trustees election ↗, and (as a result of it) eventually remembered that I had been clumsily blocked on here ↗, back in the last summertime ↗. So before I may potentially vote, I decided that I would go ahead to bravely appeal my indefinite block ↗ since relevant advice/encouragement ↗ was given to me regarding eventually overcoming my current editorial block. So I realise that some months have passed since I last was able to edit on here, and I was advised by senior admins ↗ (like @Novem Linguae and @Star Missisippi) back then to potentially focus on other Wikimedia projects temporarily ↗ – which I have obliged to do with the Simple English Wiki ↗. Looking back, that was a good and recommendable idea, and I have since made several BLP edits on there with relevant/reliable BLP references/sources ↗ given/included by/from me – something that I guess I have somewhat struggled to imbibe on here fully previously – and/but I managed to create this article page here ↗, for the first time across the Wikimedia projects, to help improve my editorial competence and confidence. I used to and thought it was a good thing to skilfully rely on synthesis ↗ and original research ↗ to add or restore disputed content to biography articles ↗ (perhaps because I would see other editors doing it on here widespread and going unpunished ↗), but I believe I have editorially matured since I last was able to edit on here, and promise to continue the good faith/progress ↗ I have made over on the Simple English Wiki ↗, on here as well. Once unblocked on here, I plan to still continue working on the Simple English Wiki ↗, whilst I gradually phase in editing on here ↗ partially (and eventually majorly) alongside as well. I also trust that an unblock on here can/shall/will be a (sort of like) clean slate for me ↗ to finally actualise my editorial potential too ↗, without breaching any further editorial rules ↗ or triggering any block sanctions ↗ in the process. Moreover, I understand that I wasn’t blocked for deliberately harming the English Wikipedia ↗, but that it was majorly as a result of a precaution to help me gain relevant competence before safely returning ↗. Thus, since I last edited on here, I have rightly not even edited using any IP address ↗ (when I easily could have) because I believe it was the right thing for me to solely focus or learn the ropes on another Wikimedia project ↗. Likewise, I have not created and do not want to create another Wikipedia account ↗ or to adopt any other Wikipedia username, as I would indeed be happy to build up a positive long-term reputation with my current username (being) Diademchild – particularly since I would hate for my only account on here ↗ to become abandoned ↗ (prematurely, at the least). Notwithstanding, I have already identified some topics and areas to edit/expatiate on here (although I still intend on fixing typos, reverting vandalism ↗ and/or updating short descriptions ↗ as a WikiGnome ↗), and/but would be willing to explore them once unblocked ↗. I have genuine remorse ↗, for any blocking issues caused or sanctions incurred by/from me previously on here in the past, and as a result I may be willing to also donate to the Wikimedia Foundation as goodwill ↗ towards how all the projects are (or have been) ran (particularly on here ↗ in my absence). Nevertheless, please feel free to ask me any unblocking questions (prior) in return. Thank you. |decline = Having reviewed your track record at Simple English Wikipedia, I think you need a longer/stronger track record of contributions, noting that you have only made 37 edits, received two warnings concerning sourcing on a BLP in August and were using IMDb on a BLP https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mia_Khalifa&diff=prev&oldid=10514268 ↗ as recently as mid-September. signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 16:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)}}
:Hiya, @'''''Rosguill'''''. So how many contributions do you reckon I need to make, or how long do I need to spend collaborating on/with the Simple English Wiki ↗, to consider gradually returning back on here ↗? '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 16:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::It's hard to give an exact number: both time and edit count matter, as does quality and size of the edits. Reviewing your Simple English Wikipedia contributions to date, what I saw was:
::#You immediately made questionable edits to a BLP that were reverted in August, and which seem to be consistent with the issues on English Wikipedia, and you were warned about it explicitly on your talk page.
::#You then made a smattering of relatively trivial edits to BLPs that seem ok throughout September, but there's a bad edit to Mia Khalifa in the middle there
::#In October you created two stubs about schools that were not compliant with Simple Wikipedia's rules (although not in a way that is actually an issue on English Wikipedia)
To overcome that plus the extent of disruption prior on English Wikipedia, I'd want to see something more along the lines of several hundred edits at minimum, without problems, and ideally including many edits that are more substantial than just updating infoboxes and minor copyediting. signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 17:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

:Alright, so:
:1. To your first point, I was still getting used to working my way around, and hadn't fully grasped the rules regarding information being brought from here, and taken over there. So that was a genuine mistake.
:2. To your second point, that particular edit to Mia Khalifa over there ↗ wasn't bad per se. I simply fixed the faulty infobox code for her birthdate, then proceeded to add to the original reference that was and still remains there, to further support the correct factual information in/of her infobox, that is widely publicised. But it's fine, I respect your opinion.
:Moreover, what I think I'll do is make about 500 contributions over there ↗, and once done with no problems incurred, I may reappeal on here ↗ for an unblock (and perhaps tag you in it)?
:— '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 17:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::That seems like a decent approach, although I almost always defer repeat appeals to the next admin, so you can skip the ping. signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 17:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, just to clarify, my concern with the Mia Khalifa edit is that you cited IMDB ↗, which is firmly established as an unreliable source. signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand your concern, but I was of the assumption that (and initially operating on the notion of) the Simple English Wikipedia ↗ and the English Wikipedia ↗ having independent editorial rules that govern them, meaning reliable sources on here ↗, don't/wouldn't necessarily need to be (considered) wholly reliable to be added/included anywhere over there ↗. — '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Unblocking request

{{unblock reviewed|decline=Your last unblock request concluded with you saying that you would make 500 edits on the Simple English Wikipedia "with no problems". I took a look at your recent contributions there ↗ and didn't get very far before identifying numerous problems. You haven't made 500 edits there, which wouldn't be an issue were it not for the fact that you committed to doing exactly that . Your most recent edit was to blank ↗ an article, which you had also incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion. This was promptly reverted by an admin. Your most recent edit not related to that page was this ↗, which looks like an unattributed partial copy of the English Wikipedia article Central Milton Keynes ↗, and is thus a copyright violation. Looking at your talk page, you've been warned for this behavior in December, and again (for a different article) on 1 April. At this time I cannot trust you not to damage or endanger the English Wikipedia or heed warnings from other editors, so I cannot accept your unblock request. '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 12:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)|1=Hiya; greetings. Since being blocked on here ↗, in the time since, I have duly managed to follow advice from an administrator ↗ to switch my editorial attention over to the Simple English Wikipedia ↗, and I'd say that has gone well. Over there ↗, I have rightly built up some editorial competency ↗; going on to make substantial edits without any breach of any editorial rules ↗. In the time I last edited on here ↗, I have duly created dozens of articles ↗ on the Simple English Wikipedia ↗, and have had my deletion requests for/on redundant articles ↗ been successfully accepted too. I have partaken in and started some discussions around whether articles over there ↗ should be deleted or renamed as well, so I know how to seek a consensus ↗ around/on/over controversial articles. So I'd be happy to continue editing over there ↗, but as a changed person since then, I would like to also have my presence ↗ soon felt once again on here ↗ too. Thanks.}} ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 12:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:Separately, could you please stop using so many repetitive and unhelpful wikilinks in your talk page posts? Linking "there" and "here" to the articles on the Simple English and English Wikipedias is unnecessary. Linking "editorial rules" to WP:Editing restrictions or "a consensus" to the article on the Wikipedia community is outright wrong. '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 12:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
::Toadspike, to suggest that I would even think of to even (knowingly) slightly damage or endanger the English Wikipedia is extremely farfetched, so please don’t be harsh on me or misconstrue my long-term intentions. I will still edit over there ↗ as well as on here ↗. I was only prompted to make a block appeal ↗ on here, before reaching 500 edits over there, as I recently remembered that I had also (indirectly) taken the Standard Offer ↗, of editing elsewhere for at least six months; before attempting to gradually return back on here. And of course, I wanted to get some premature feedback from an administrator ↗ on here too on my progress over there since then (so far). I’m not a perfect editor; and I’m not sure if anyone is on here or over there for that matter, but as you have given me some premature feedback, I would also like to clarify some points you picked up:
::• Firstly, regarding the article you claimed I blanked over there ↗, and tagged for speedy deletion, it’s important we understand the context behind it. That particular article was previously named Artemis 2 (and not Artemis II), and as they are both article pages on the same topic, I indirectly/practically moved the same content from one article page, over to the rightfully named article page of/on the same topic, before the former page got renamed from Artemis 2 to Artemis II. I requested speedy deletion on the former page (Artemis 2) and not for/on the correctly named page (Artemis II). However an administrator over there, was kind enough to revert my edit and simply renamed the article – essentially, we both had the same idea and intention for that articled page, I went the long way but the administrator corrected the whole procedure and enacted the shortest possible way.
::• Secondly, I would not deliberately make any copyright violations. I am open to creating new articles from scratch over there ↗, for fellow editors to begin working on as well. To my knowledge so far, my editorial efforts are pretty much appreciated over there.
::• Thirdly, as an academic, I am very pedantic ↗ when it comes to typing or source coding, so please forgive me if you notice (in your opinion) any unnecessary wikilinks ↗ on my talk page.
::• Lastly, as I would like to return back on here to begin integrating back amongst our community on here ↗, for premature feedback please suggest anything else that I can perhaps do better over there or elsewhere somewhere. Or if even you feel that I could perhaps make another block appeal ↗.
::Regards, ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 14:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Whether it was deliberate or not, your actions introduced copyright violations. That includes the cut-and-paste move ↗ of Artemis 2 to Artemis II, which I ''did'' understand the context of. Cut-and-paste moves break attribution in the page history, which is required by the CC license all Wikipedia edits are published under. I won't be responding further here; if you submit another request, it will be reviewed by another admin, but I personally don't think that is a good idea at this time. '''Toadspike [[User talk:Toadspike|[Talk]]]''' 15:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Unblocking request

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hiya, as per discussions made on previous unblock requests, I would like to contribute towards editing on this collaborative platform ↗ again, having not just taken the Standard Offer ↗, but having made recent dozens of edits on the Simple English Wikipedia ↗, without any issues. But upon an unblock on here, I aim to simultaneously remain editing over there, as well as on here too. Thanks ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 00:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) |decline = This does not address your topic ban violations. Yamla (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)}}
:Yamla, I have moved on from that, and will not commit any topic ban violations. As a matter of fact, I intend to make useful edits on here only. So, moving forwards, is there anything I can do to be unblocked on here? ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 11:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::Make a new unblock request that demonstrates you clearly understand the problems that lead to your block and explains why we can trust you to abide by your topic ban this time, despite months of edits in the past demonstrating you had no intention of ever doing so. I'll note a substantial number of your edits on simple.wikipedia would have violated your topic ban here (but that's okay there, as you weren't topic banned there as far as I can see). I also note you committed a number of copyright violations over on simple, at least up until early April. A different admin will review your request. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yamla, instead of making a new unblock request, is it possible to stick with this unblock request. I am trying to avoid so many unblock requests being made on my talk page. I am happy to instead invite other admins, to have a look at your unblock decline reason, and for me to convince them for a successful unblock, via this current unblock request, perhaps even to save time. Or what do you think? ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 11:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::No. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblocking request

{{unblock| Hiya, I would like to be unblocked on here. I have understood the problems that led to my block, and won't commit them again. Knowing that I now have no intentions of engaging in any controversial or serious contentions (as I perhaps may have done previously on here); I would preferably like to start afresh on this platform, let bygone be bygone, and hopefully make a difference long-term editorially. This is because I now understand the price it takes to warrant an unblock on here for any policy or topic ban violations – even though I now feel much more confident in/with being able to edit article biographies of living persons (with citations) – but/so I intend to humble myself on here to the best of my editorial abilities. Hopefully this indefinite block drives home the point (not just for me, but for all editors on here) that it really is hard to come back on here from an indefinite block, so to stick by all rules and regulations strictly. Please feel free to ask me any further questions, about this unblock request. Thanks ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 12:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)}} ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 12:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:You are adding content ↗ to simple-wiki BLPs without providing sources. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 21:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::Voorts, as per WP:ABOUTSELF ↗/WP:BLPSELFPUB ↗, I simply corrected the incorrect biographical information that had been claimed on that particular subject's article page over on the Simple Wiki; I further went on to update their statistics. I know how to provide sources, and was an advocate for doing so, as recently as a couple weeks ago here ↗. Moreover, there appears to be lesser demand on verifiable sources over there ↗, compared to on here ↗. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 22:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::ABOUTSELF/BLPSELFPUB/RSPS have nothing to do with whether you are required to provide reliable sources when you add content to a BLP. The comment you linked to on simple-wiki is about how you incorrectly nominated an article for speedy deletion. I'm not sure how that's relevant here. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 22:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::You made it appear like I randomly plucked out information and added it to that subject's article over there, but I was trying to explain how that's not the case especially since the rules regarding sources that are verifiable, appear different from over there ↗, compared to on here ↗. I then brought up that simple-wiki comment, to prove how I appear to be much in favour of still wanting to add sources to articles, compared to some/many users over there, that's all. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 22:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::* {{tq|You made it appear like I randomly plucked out information and added it to that subject's article over there,}} No, I said you added information without adding a source, which is true.
:::::* {{tq|especially since the rules regarding sources that are verifiable, appear different from over there ↗, compared to on here ↗.}} The pages you're linking to have nothing to do with the requirements of WP:V ↗ (see also :simple:WP:V ↗).
::::: voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 22:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Okay. Well, apart from all that, is there anything else you may have identified over there, that could prevent me from earning an unblock? I'd be happy if you could help me out. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 22:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not here to help you out. I'm here to review your unblock request. Your lack of a good explanation for not adding sources to BLPs on simple is not a good start.{{pb}}Can you please explain why you are making edits splitting introductory paragraphs into several short paragraphs, like this ↗? voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 22:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, so I find adding paragraphs to long-flowing sentences, makes it easier to read articles. I'm aware that the Simple Wikipedia ↗ is meant for easier reading than on here ↗, so whenever I see article pages that have introductions or main bodies with/involving multiple close-knitted sentences, I try to split the long sentences/paragraphs into short sentence/paragraphs, to make the reading simple. After all, the platform over there is called ''Simple Wikipedia.'' ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 22:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{outdent|6}} Simple Wikipedia has a Manual of Style ↗. That MOS links to the en-wiki guideline on layout ↗, including MOS:PARA ↗, which says not to create single-sentence paragraphs. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 22:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::You stated in your unblock request that you would {{tq|stick by all rules and regulations strictly}}, but you haven't been doing that at simple-wiki. Why should we trust that you'll do so here? voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 22:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::To be honest with you Voorts, I hadn't properly read through that page at all, so at best I'd say that it's a harmless fault. But if you review that same Manual of Style ↗, it does inform us that long paragraphs of articles on the Simple Wiki, become hard to read, and I agree with this. So far, no admin or editor over there, has deemed my good faith edits (like those) as problematic, and neither did I. However, going forwards I will be more mindful of that page, as I still intend to edit over there, as well as on here.
::::Regarding your question, I come in peace. I do not intend to knowingly break any rules on here. For example, I haven't block evaded ↗ (when I could have easily done so) during my blocking span on here, this is because not only have I not let this indefinite block define me, but believe in following protocol and leading by example. So that shows I can be rightly trusted. Indeed, I'd be happy for my current indefinite block to drive home the point (not just for me, but for all editors on here) that it really is hard to come back on here from an indefinite block.
::::So overall, if you feel I haven't stuck by all rules and regulations strictly on the Simple Wiki, I apologise. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 23:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm not inclined to unblock you at this point, but I'm not going to decline your request. You can wait for another admin to review your request, or I can copy this over to WP:AN ↗ if you want the community to review your request. Note that if the community were to decline your appeal, you would likely be considered banned ↗. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Also note that if you want to go the AN route, you will need to rewrite your appeal to explain clearly and concisely what you were blocked for and why you will not repeat that conduct. You should also summarize your contributions to simple-wiki and explain what you'd like to edit about here. I would also recommend committing to an indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to BLPs, broadly construed ↗. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I think I'd prefer to leave it with the Admins for now. Though I'm happy for any non-involved admins to have a say in my unblock request. Just a quick question though for you, am I actually really in serious danger of never getting unblocked on here? Because I cannot believe it. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 23:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If I thought you had no chance, I would have declined your request. There are several factors here: your previous block, the egregious topic ban violations shortly after being unblocked, your edit history at simple-wiki, and 5 declined unblock requests. As an uninvolved admin, I think those factors weigh in favor of taking this to the community. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I see. The only thing is that I want this whole debacle to be resolved, as peacefully and privately as possible. Having the community get involved, I think is a bit too extreme. Looking back I actually cannot believe I got myself involved in issues to do with topic bans in the first place. But we live and we learn. My edit history at Simple Wiki isn't bad at all; if it was I would have been block on there as well? For example, why can't the Standard Offer ↗ on here, bring hope that I deserve an unblock? ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 23:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{outdent|6}} You're not required to follow my advice. Another admin will review your request. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 23:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You say above that you "corrected the incorrect biographical information" with this simple.wiki edit ↗. Which information do you believe was incorrect, why did you believe it was incorrect, and why do you believe your change was correct? --''bonadea'' contributions ↗ talk 20:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hiya Bonadea. Regarding your question, her incorrectly stated middle name of "Ivan" was the biographical information I correctly changed to "Jessica" (in her infobox) as per her verifiable instagram ↗ page here ↗. I would be more inclined to believe that biographical information from the horse's mouth, than from a potentially unverifiable source like the one you cited here ↗. I then proceeded to rightly update her infobox's statistics too. So that is how/why I believed my change(s) was correct. Regards. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 20:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

::But the Instagram source is not in the simple.wiki article at all. Why did you decide to change the sourced information about her name without adding a reference to the source you did use? --''bonadea'' contributions ↗ talk 09:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Initially, I was more concerned with updating her infobox's statistics. I hadn't realised the source you cited, contained an incorrect middle name for her. Personally, I find it somewhat awkward linking a social media ↗ page of a subject to their article page, as I would rather find an independent reference. But even her English Wikipedia ↗ page here ↗, supports my finding for her middle name as well, though no citation nor reference about her correct middle name has been added on there either. But if you feel her instagram ↗ page here ↗ deserves to be cited on both her Simple and English Wikipedia pages, then by all means we could add it too. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 09:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I was not commenting on the reliability of the Instagram source versus the espncricinfo one for this particular claim, and I am ''really'' not advocating adding Instagram as a source in either article. The question is not clear-cut, and I for one have no idea whether espncricinfo as well as cricketarchive.com have an "incorrect middle name" for her – I don't even know whether she has a "middle name"! Indian names often contain patronymics and the fact that both espncricinfo and cricketarchive call her Jemimah Ivan might simply mean that Ivan is a patronymic.
::::This is all beside the point. I am very concerned about the fact that you seem to think it is acceptable to change information in a BLP without including a reference. --''bonadea'' contributions ↗ talk 09:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it's acceptable to change biographical information in any BLP without including an available good reference. As I said previously, the only reference I had for the change, was her Instagram ↗ page as per WP:ABOUTSELF ↗/WP:BLPSELFPUB ↗; however I would have preferred rather adding an independent source for the change – and even you have admitted to prefer not adding Instagram as a source in either article, as well.
:::::But clearly, what I don't like seeing though, are two different Wikipedia articles on the same subject, containing different biographical information, because all Wikipedia pages (particularly on living persons) across different Wikimedia projects should be consistent, if we're being honest. And as things stand, her main English Wikipedia ↗ page here ↗, contains the right biographical information – which was what I tried mirroring her Simple Wiki's biographical information to as well, in good faith ↗ of course. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 10:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Hiya Blue-Sonnet. Sorry to disturb or drag you into something you might not want to get involved in, but I wanted to get your opinion regarding my current unblock request here/above. I have seen the way you have previously advised/encouraged other users seeking an unblock ↗ on here, and although we've never interacted on here before, I thought it'd be a good idea for you to somewhat review my unblock request, to see if you believe I deserve one. Feel free to be honest. Regards. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 21:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, I'm happy to help! Sorry this is long, but it's the best advice I can give without leading/influencing your appeal by accident.
:Firstly, it's important to remember that blocks aren't any form of punishment - admins don't know who you are as a person, their singular interest is to protect Wikipedia.
:That's it, honestly. Is it safe to unlock the door - yes or no?
:Appeals are like a peephole in the door (block); they're trying to get a good idea of who you are, but they'll only ever have a limited view & will do their best to make a fair decision despite that, but protecting the house from invaders ''always'' comes first.
:So there's no need to be overly contrite or apologetic, although it's important to show that you understand you've been causing issues. Keep it balanced - they don't think about whether someone "deserves" to edit Wikipedia (unless they've been a long-term malicious troll, but even then it's rare), Wikipedians like to look at the facts and be objective. Don't worry about anyone hating/disliking you - we really don't think that way. We ''want'' as many people to edit Wikipedia as possible so the focus is on getting you back editing, but '''not before you're ready''' - that's no good for you, for the other volunteers who would have to clean up more mistakes, nor for our readers. Everybody loses if you come back too early.
:Admins want to see three things above all else, so please focus on these points when you write any appeal:
:*'''Do you understand why you were blocked?'''
:**What did you do that led to the block?
:**Was it one edit or many? The same issue repeated or lots of small problems that indicated an underlying competency issue?
:*'''How did it affect the project?'''
:**Which policies/guidelines were broken/not followed?
:**What happened after - did other editors have to spend time fixing your errors? Did admins have to intervene to do anything further?
:*'''What should you have done instead?'''
:**Looking at your previous answers, try to see if there's a pattern (e.g. Were they all sourcing problems - if so, why were they insufficient? Was it a problem of neutrality - which way were your edits leaning? Did you just not use any sources at all? Why was that?)
:**Look at the relevant policies & guidelines to see how you veered away from them, and figure out a way to tell that you might be going down that road in future. What steps can you put in place to make sure you don't continue down that road? Is there a ''reasonable'' topic ban that might help put guardrails in place for a while?
: You've done a lot of introspection already, but you're not quite there yet. If you're showing a few weaknesses at Simple that relate to your block here, it doesn't really matter whether you've been blocked over there - it's a litmus test ↗ of sorts and I get why it worries the admins.
:Being very honest, it might be best for you to answer these questions yourself, then use those answers to hone your work on Simple for at least a couple of months to see if you've got them right (the longer, the better!). If you have, then you'll easily build up enough problem-free edits to come back here with a much more robust appeal.
:Proper sourcing can be difficult to explain from one person to another, so a consistent ability to source correctly on another project is worth it's weight in gold.
: As for your next steps, it's up to you - here they are in order of recommendation:
:#'''Withdraw your appeal''' (delete it and everything below it) whilst it's still open and focus on getting a strong editing history at Simple. Think of it as parole, or a trial of your newfound approach to editing. Appeal again in a few months, to make sure you've got the best possible chance of success.
:#'''Write an addendum''' to your open appeal & place it underneath the appeal template, or at the bottom of the discussion chain - give it a sub header or just a bolded title, the admin will see anyway, since the entire Talk page is reviewed during appeals so it won't be missed. Don't do this until you've spent a good couple of hours (or more, preferably an afternoon) fully analysing your editing history and the associated policies - remember that you've got your history at Simple to contend with as well. Like it or not, that will also be part of the picture.
:#'''Do nothing''' (not recommended!)
:''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::BTW It's not a case of "you've got no chance of success, definitely withdraw", it's more that I can see how long this has been going on and the concerns already raised. It's entirely possible that another admin won't have the same concerns as Voorts, or won't have them to the same extent. You could select option 2 and be unblocked after writing a great addendum to your appeal.
::My personal opinion is that actions speak much more loudly than words in this sort of situation, because sourcing is something that depends on context - the article, subject, topic, claim... So it's easier to tell that you've got the concept down if we can see you source consistently well over a period of time, rather than in a single appeal discussion.
::Honestly, if a few months of knuckling down at Simple turns you into an editor we can keep for years to come, that will always get my vote! ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Many thanks Blue-Sonnet. I reckoned you’d be able to give a very decent response; and I’m happy I had the confidence to initially ask you.
:::Regarding your recommendations, I agree that it clearly wouldn’t be ideal for me to not do anything (referring to option 3). For me, having an unblock appeal open for nearly a month is confusing/strange, but I’m happy that it hasn’t been declined, so I’m more inclined on option 2, though option 1 is a understandable option as well.
:::I really do appreciate the kind last sentence you inputted above; the only thing is that I’m more than ready to get back editing on here again, whilst simultaneously doing so over at the Simple Wiki, as I would like to think that one year away from me editing on here, has been more than enough time for me to reflect and gain some editorial competency. ⇌ '''Diadem'''child☥ ↗ 🗣'''''Sọ̀rọ̀''' níbí'' 14:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Glad to help! The unblock queue is unfortunately pretty big since we've had an influx of editors who think that ChatGPT can edit Wikipedia (it's usually pretty big anyway but this made it worse).
::::Your appeal definitely won't go anywhere until it's dealt with, but the older it gets the more visible it will be. Good luck! ''In solidarity,'' ↗ Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)