W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: GenevieveDEon

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


Welcome!


<div class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid lightgrey; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;">
{| style="width: 100%; vertical-align:top;"
! <div style="margin:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, GenevieveDEon! '''Welcome to Wikipedia!''' Thank you for your contributions ↗. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{&#123;helpme&#125;}</code>''' on your talk page ↗ and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name ↗ on talk pages by clicking 22px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts|alt= ↗ or by typing four tildes "~&#126;~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! <span style="color: blue">Blue Riband►</span> 18:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)</div>
|}
{| width="100%" style="font-size:85%;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid white; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top"|
{| style="width: 100%; vertical-align:top; background-color:Lavender"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
|-
|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
|


|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Policies and Guidelines</div>
|-
|
----
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:Seashell; vertical-align:top"|
{| style="width: 100%; vertical-align:top; background-color:Seashell"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">The Community</div>
|-
|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Things to do</div>
|-
|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Miscellaneous</div>
|-
|
|}
|}
</div><!--Template:WelcomeMenu-->


Notice



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 standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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 <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>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. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 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 '''climate change ↗''', a topic designated as '''contentious ↗'''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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 <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>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. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> '''The Weather Event Writer''' (Talk Page) 12:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics notice



link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗. <!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert --> Ivanvector (<sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Edits ↗</sub>) 17:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Anglican pages



Hi GenevieveDEon, woudl you mind weighing in on the Anglican-related pages of GAFCON and Anglican realignment. I do not expect that you will agree with all of my concerns, but I suspect a third set of eyes and perspective would be helpful. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi - I'm keeping an eye on them already. I'll take a look. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. At least a couple, maybe more, editors seem to have a pro-GAFCON agenda. I trust your judgement. I am experiencing frustration with at least one and that makes it difficult to be truly impartial at this time. I think I've tried to work things out through conversation and proposing consensus ideas. SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::You seem to be doing well. I'll do my best to help out. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1322758895 -->

Renee Good



Hi, regarding this edit ↗. WaPo doesn't actually say that Good was a writer or poet, and certainly doesn't mention any published work (which one would ordinarily expect when referring to a published author). WaPo says ''"On an Instagram account appearing to belong to Good, she described herself as a “poet and writer and wife and mom and shitty guitar strummer from Colorado” who is “experiencing Minneapolis”'', ie this is her 'informal' social media description of herself. On WP we wouldn't describe people as being a writer or poet unless it were their profession and we wouldn't accept her self-description to verify it, several sources would need to endorse it. Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
:Other sources confirm that she received a prize for her poetry, which ''ispo facto'' qualifies her as a poet. I don't know why you're disputing this. (Your edit also, as I noted, broke the grammar of that section.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::I was disputing it partly because it was ultimately sourced to her own description on her social media account, mainly because we don't ordinarily describe someone as a particular profession, unless it is widely reported as actually being their profession, ''(Austria's best-known aspirant artist ↗, isn't called an artist on his article, or included in 'art' categories, because he never sold a single painting, BUT he is called a writer, because his book ↗ ''was'' published)''. I also think it's trivia, as is her religion or political loyalties. Most of the civilised world is appalled by what happened to this woman, and would be whoever she was/whatever she was doing or not doing with her life. Details such as her hobbies, aspirations, quirks etc are the sort of stuff that news sources add to 'humanise' the victim, IMO they detract from the core matter as much as Vance/Trump etc's attempts to demonise her do.

::But given that sensibilities about this incident are running high, I'm happy to let the matter drop. I just wanted to lay out my reasons. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Greenland crisis ↗ WP:SDESC ↗



IMO, the version you reverted the short description back to is far less idiomatic. I, for one (native English speaker), struggle to parse it as it stands.

Firstly, the crisis isn't in or on Denmark proper but concerns a territory thereof. Therefore "Denmark territory" functions as a complete singular common noun phrase the object of a preposition. As such, it requires a definite or indefinite article following the preposition.

Secondly, the crisis isn't located anywhere let alone in or on Greenland. Instead it concerns, is about or is (idiomatically) on the territory (as a polity). Most geopolitical debate on all sides is from non-Greenlandic leaders discussing the future of Greenland.

I can take this to the talk page for more input if you wish.

Thanks for editing. Llew Mawr (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

:Honestly, we might do better with a different preposition altogether. I think I'd propose 'about'. But 'on the territory of (a nation)' is only idiomatic if it refers to a boots-on-the-ground sort of situation, whereas 'in the territory' can refer to political and abstract situations as well. Let's avoid the problem. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
::I agree that "about" is the only precise option even if it adds 3 more characters. I understand the main technical reason for the suggestion that SDs be about 40 characters is now moot (but am happy to not include a date range whilst the crisis is ongoing to help with that).
::I realise after writing that that my version is very ambiguous too (even to my reading) because "on" (especially of an island) an mean 'in' or 'about'.
::Short prepositions in English are so idiomatic and subtly contextual, we're interpreting the semantics of 'on' and 'in' in this context in the exact inverse. Llew Mawr (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your neutrality and rationality at 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting ↗. Psephguru (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
|}

Doxxing



As a reminder, posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable ↗ and can be grounds for an immediate block, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. This explicitly includes identifying users on external sites. If you have off-wiki evidence of another user's conduct, then there are ways to report this which does ''not'' involve publicly posting this on-wiki. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">stwalkerster</span> (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:My apologies - I have no stake in the dispute that I edited in - I saw an unexplained removal of part of another editor's comment, and reverted as part of the general principle that we don't edit each other's comments. I fully understand now why there's an exception in this case, and hadn't intended to tread on anyone's toes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

An invitation to work on 2020s American renouncement of allies ↗.



Holy shit, I know. '''<span style="color:#fff; background:#A41720">nhals8</span>''' 17:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sarah Mullally ↗


{{tq|Please stop doing this! Her name is not Dame; Dame is a title. If you disagree, please take it to talk instead of edit-warring.}} Since this is the first time I have edited this article, why on earth are you accusing me of edit-warring?! Kindly don't make accusations like this. You will notice if you check other articles that it is usual to include pre-titles (which are ''not'' honorifics, incidentally) in the "name" field of infoboxes. To do otherwise looks frankly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:You were reverting a change which had already been made, and reverted, by others several times recently. You should be able to see that from the page's edit history. If the distinction you're making is correct (and I would want to see a source for that), then there should be a separate field for 'pre-titles', because it is not part of the subject's name. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::That does not mean ''I'' was edit warring! There is no reason why I should check the edit history before making a logical edit. Please stop trying to justify your wholly uncalled-for edit summary. And since it is clear that others disagree with you, maybe you should consider whether it is ''you'' who is edit warring? There is no need for an additional field, since a pretitle is indeed considered to be part of a name. She is no longer just Sarah, but for the rest of her life will be Dame Sarah. This can even be added to official documents like passports and is used in conjunction with other honorifics and ranks (e.g. one is Professor Dame, General Dame, the Reverend Dame, etc). If John Smith is knighted, he is no longer Mr Smith (or Dr Smith) but Sir John, the title always being applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would point out that this is also why we ''always'' bold titles in the first line of the article. Why do it there and yet not in the infobox? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I asked for this discussion to be on the subject's talk page, and on reflection, I would prefer it if that was where it happened. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::And ''I'' would prefer it if you checked your facts ''before'' publishing incorrect edit summaries, which is the issue here. But, if you refuse to accept that then I can't be bothered to pursue it any further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

MacCarthy Reagh


With regard to this article, this seems useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Irishhistoryguy/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1346040691 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ~2026-25876-16 ↗ (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yes - if that ever makes it to main space, I shall certainly have commentary! Thank you. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Would you mind sharing your commentary so that I can build the page correctly? As someone with many years of specialized research into Irish history, brehon law, and chiefly succession, I certainly want to ensure I'm relaying information in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Bluntly, the website maccarthyreagh.org appears to be a self-published source. I will once again be removing it from published articles, along with claims which are only supported by it. And at this point I'm going to ask you if you have an undeclared conflict of interest ↗ in this matter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I do not. And I will ask you the same question because you seem to have a vested interest in removing any recognition that the clan has now elected a chief. So at this point I'm going to ask you if you have an undeclared conflict of interest ↗ in this matter?
::::As for the information I'm trying to update: If the clan's official website isn't sufficient documentation what would be? Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I absolutely do not have any conflict of interest here. Tell me: how can I tell what makes that 'the clan's official website', rather than just a private individual's website making a bunch of unsupported claims? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Please see my other response addressed to you. Thank you. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)