W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Orange sticker

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

{{Archives|banner=yes}}

Bluesky



Your edits are being discussed here, on Bluesky ↗. I have pointed out some erroneous conclusions made there. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">Andy Mabbett</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits ↗</span> 14:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know! I won't get drawn in, but WOW have they got me wrong! Orange sticker (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::I was asked to look at these edits (and others of yours) by a trans friend who spotted the Bsky thread.
::Having done so, I told the friend the posts described were legit, and why I drew that conclusion. I'm posting for completeness what I told them, because its fair you know what's said about your edits in the background,and because they cant post this on BSky so its the best I can do. Also so that you (or anyone else who may have concerns) can openly see the comments I gave in full. Please note policy concepts are simplified and stated at considerable length, to help people who dont know about wikipedia editing and policies, and to explain the core concepts.
::'''Response to friend:'''
::I have looked at this editor and the edits mentioned on bsky. They're legit (as far as I can tell).
::'''Edits to Wes Streeting ↗:'''
::* 12 Feb - They removed that paragraph on puberty blockers, with the comment "already covered elsewhere in the article" - and it was, I checked. ''(The article's contents after they removed that paragraph is visible at (Link ↗), see the section "Political positions -> LGBT issues" for what they are referring to)''
::* The paragraph was reinstated by another editor yesterday with the narrative ''"Undid revision 1337991354 by Orange sticker: A short paragraph on a major action taken while Health Secretary is appropriate in the section on him being Health Secretary."''
::* Orange sticker responded about an hour later, ''"if this paragraph is to also be included in this section it needs to be cited and written in WP:NPOV [neutral balanced tone/style/content]"'' and OS then tagged that statement as needing more eyeballs from other editors to check the reinstated text - but didn't otherwise modify or remove it.
::'''Discussion:'''
::There were only 2 edits by Orange stickers on Wes Streeting. Both were legit and valid. Not everyone may agree (as with any edit) but as an experienced editor of 20 years standing, specialising in edit wars (bad faith editing) they're 100% ''reasonable''. Its valid to remove text that appears to be handled/duplicated elsewhere, and when someone else disagreed with the removal, OS's response wasn't to battle them, but rather, "in that case if others feel it should be repeated here, then let's do it properly" (paraphrase).
::Wiki editor policies place a very high standard on biographical articles of living people like this. That was good behaviour:
::# Be bold and make changes you think needed.
::# ... But if others disagree, work with them and potentially seek wider consideration of possible issues in case others agree better citing or tone changes are useful.
::For articles and material about living people, also, if there's doubts as to anything, we also by default should double down on anything that may not be high quality, or may contain uncited, inadequately supported, or poor tone material that may be seen as negative, due to specific harm potential of errors. Thats core to policy on biographical articles about living people ("BLP")
::'''Edits to Nadia Whittome ↗:'''
::I used Nadia Whittome's article, also mentioned in that thread, as a double check on behaviour. Also legit. Orange sticker didn't arbitrarily remove the text about jury trial. Translated from "editor-speak", their actual comment (Link ↗) was ''"Appropriate sources for their views are required by policy before this statement can be re-included"''. ("WP:OR" in that text means our policy on original research - roughly covers wikipedia policy on what's valid evidence or a valid citation)
::Which is unintuitive but absolutely correct. Hansard reports the words, but doesn't interpret them. Wiki statements about what people *believe* often require further reliable sources about their beliefs, not just quotes what they said. Specifically: primary sources (direct quotes and personal statements) mainly attest to words said, not interpretation. Secondary sources (commentary and discussion of the words) mainly attest to interpretation, importance, significance, relevant context, perspectives, conclusions etc.
::The removal was because Hansard is a primary source and Orange sticker perfectly appropriately states in removing it, that secondary sources would be needed to attest to interpretation or to identify this as a * belief * of hers, especially in a biographical article about a living person. Anyone could have added such a citation between February and now, if they'd wished, and maybe someone will in future, but until reinstatement with appropriate citing happens, removal is legit by policy.
::'''General comment and background:'''
::The big giveaway is their general edit history and pattern. OS patrols pages and edits, and doesn't seem to just cherrypick pages matching some specific battle on a specific topic. Edit and move on to other pages. After a brief skim of the edits in that bsky thread, they look like someone seeking good quality on those pages, not someone pushing an agenda on them.
::Some background on how patrolling works, may help avoid future bad faith conclusions:
::People who wish, will patrol and pick up areas they have interests in. That's valid and common. I used to patrol specific topics and also random stuff that caught my eye, because those interested me. Also pages one has worked on are by default added to ones feed (watchlist). Orange sticker surely has their feed ("watchlist") watching pages they've acted on - to spot if they develop issues in future. That's how it is for most editors. As well as watching other feeds for pages being edited on specific topics, new pages being created, etc.
::Patrolling works by checking what turns up on ones watchlist/new page/new edit feeds. So the speedy response to an edit on a page one's previously acted on, within minutes or hours, is absolutely normal for an active editor. Its not a sign of bad faith as the bsky writer believed -its how Wikipedia editing works and absolutely normal and expected to work that way.
::As a community, we usually spot changes and edits things fast, because everything is set up to facilitate that. Editors who know a page usually spot them first and within seconds to hours, because they're usually auto-subscribed to a page's edit feeds when they first acted on that page, to help them spot future issues fast (in nontechnical terms).
::Hope that helps. Its long but good editing should not be met with off site drama, and this may help explain and defuse - and also help off site folks spotting bad editors, to better understand signs of good vs bad editing, which can only help them too ❤️
::If anyone with BSky wants to link to this from the thread there, it may help non-editors to understand better, and help them identify bad faith editing vs policy based editing which will help their intentions as well as the encyclopedia. &#126;2026-16808-44 ↗ (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Wow, thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I've read the posts on Bluesky and it's not nice to see my motivations and politics so alarmingly misconstrued. I won't expand on or defend my political and social views here (I don't want to doxx myself at all) except to say that I believe one of the most important things for a progressive, inclusive and cohesive society is access to accurate, unbiased and reliable information. Sometimes that might mean removing unsourced criticism on an article of someone you hate, sometimes it means removing flattery from an article on someone you respect. We all have our biases but I really do strive to keep WP:NPOV ↗ at the heart of everything I do on Wikipedia. Thanks again, mysterious stranger! Orange sticker (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Civility


As someone who suffers from a lifelong mental illness I was deeply offended by your flippant and condescending, off-the-cuff remark here ↗. Shlerple Planken (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Always wait more!



Hi @Orange sticker, and how are you doing?

First things first: please do not always find draftifying as an option of clean up; it always don't help especially for a new user who has created a notable page but couldn't navigate it well, e.g adding links, etc. The best is to guide the editor. Again, it is likely ''abominable'' to draftify a page started by an experienced editor. It is not justifiable by that editor if you draftify it, however it doesn't show good faith. If you look at the article, check if there is any sign of notability. If yes, leave it. If no, give a space atleast of about three days or a week to fully know what the editor is cooking. In the case of this sitting governor ↗, this should be paramount as the article is a work of progress. It has established notability quite alright, but the works of the governor will still be entailed later.

You may ask: why won't the editor use the draft system? Well, it is not always a case. It is still the choice of the editor and there is nothing you should worry about. Thank you! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">SafariScribe</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">'''''Edits!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!'''''</sup> 20:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

:Hi there! Thanks for getting in touch. I move articles to Draft if I don't think they're ready for the mainspace (if I suspected they weren't suitable at all I would either add maintenance tags or nominate for deletion). As that article currently stands,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorship_of_Charles_Soludo&oldid=1344659811 ↗ it simply doesn't make sense: it doesn't have a lead, it has two headings with no content and then leaps straight into information about the person's second term - as a reader I don't even know what position at what level of government he is elected to until halfway down the page. So I stand by my decision here and assure you I made it in good faith to ensure that all articles in the mainspace of Wikipedia meet its standards and manual of style, which I am sure this will in due course.
:Can I suggest you use the {{tlx|under construction}} template if you are still actively editing an article? That would help reviewers, although we can see when the most recent edit was made, we have no way of knowing if you're ever going to come back and finish the job! This is a handy reminder. Orange sticker (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – April 2026



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | right|75px ↗'''<big>Women in Red ↗</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369</small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''

'''Announcements from other communities:'''

'''Tip of the month:'''

'''Other ways to participate:'''
frameless|15px ↗ Instagram ↗ '''|'''
frameless|15px ↗ Pinterest ↗
|}
--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Chocmilk03@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/M-P&oldid=1345281996 -->

Please stop



On ''Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc ↗'' there is a source - Lunney and Oliphant - and it is not a copyright violation. Please familiarise yourself with how law works. Case citation ↗ is a start. Judgments are not copyrighted. Only reports. Lawbookwriter (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, I've worked in a law library, I have a vague recollection of how citations work. However, the website you cite (https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/12.html) has a clear copyright notice, you have not made it explicitly clear that the text is a quote, the attribution is not clear as it only appears before the text and it is excessive: it makes up two thirds of the entire article. You have already been directed to WP:COPYVIO ↗ before, I see, so you should already be aware of this. Orange sticker (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yello



As a member of WikiProject Weather I just wanted to state that all tornado outbreaks, no matter their location in the USA are always named something like "Tornado outbreak of [Month] [Day] - [Day], [Year], just wanted to clarify. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for letting me know. As a Brit I'm hyper sensitive to US-normativity but I'll fight that battle some other day :) Orange sticker (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive



{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | <span style="font-size: 85%">'''New pages patrol ↗''' </span>
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1350894664 -->

Women in Red – May 2026



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | right|75px ↗'''<big>Women in Red ↗</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372</small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''

'''Announcements from other communities:'''

'''Tip of the month:'''

'''Other ways to participate:'''
frameless|15px ↗ Instagram ↗ '''|'''
frameless|15px ↗ Pinterest ↗
|}
--Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Chocmilk03@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/M-P&oldid=1350120477 -->

May 2026



Hello Orange sticker. Are you aware that in the Anglosphere, in the weeks leading up an election, its common for most of a political candidate's spend to go on Negative campaigning ↗? Both your -ve edits to Rowenna's articles just before her election, and a quick review of your article creations, suggest you may be in violation of our policy against undisclosed paid editing. See WP:UPE ↗. Accordingly, after I revert your unconstructive edits to the two articles, please do not further edit the articles themselves. You are welcome to make the case for the edits you'd like to see on the article talk pages. Also, can you please disclose if you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay? Thank you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:<u>I have never edited Wikipedia for pay.</u>
:A lot of the editing I do is to ensure articles about politicians and candidates, especially during election time, meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view ↗ policy. You have admitted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeydHuxtable&diff=prev&oldid=1351990353 ↗ that while you don't have a current conflict of interest with Rowenna Davis ↗ you do have a personal connection and bias regarding her. I would suggest you avoid making non-neutral edits to her article and articles connected to her, such as Tangled Up in Blue (book) ↗.
:I am reverting your changes as the section about her charitable workhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rowenna_Davis&curid=34458700&diff=1351990566&oldid=1351974792 ↗ relies completely on 3 primary sources with dead links and thus fails WP:V ↗.
:I will leave the synopsis section in Tangled Up in Blue (book) ↗ as, although it is WP:UNDUE ↗ and unsourced and has been flagged as such by another editor since 2012https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tangled_Up_in_Blue_(book)&diff=prev&oldid=505605145 ↗ it is neutral and non-promotional.
:Per WP:3RR ↗ you must not revert these changes again today. You can make a case for your preferred version on each article's talk page, where it is best to disclose your interest in the topic.
:'''Please do not make accusations of UPE in edit summaries without first discussing it with the editor''' and remember to assume good faith ↗. Orange sticker (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
::Appreciate the willingness to compromise. As it looks like we may not need to discuss on Tangled talk, I'll note that a book is its own source for its synopsis. If you or anyone else wants to trim the synopsis by up to about 30% I've no objection - I'd just ask that you first read the whole book, so what you leave will still give the reader a coherent summary of the book's main points'
::On the biases thing, in inevitable that if you know something about a subject, you'll have opinion/biases. Editors with knowledge of a topic are encouraged to excise WP:STEWARDSHIP ↗ over articles they've edited. By far the most politically damaging edit you made was the addition on "breaching General Data Protection Regulation rules" , as it implies she lacks needed judgement. There is an arguable policy case for me to remove that too. I didnt as any opinions I have about the subjects suitability for office are subordinate to complying with our core policies, especially the all important WP:NPOV. With this said, you'd now be welcome to delete this whole section from your talk. (it's what I would do anyway.) I suspect we'll meet again on Talk:Rowenna Davis ↗ . FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
:::<u>Withdrawing suggestion of WP:UPE</u>
:::In faireness, unless incompetent, which youre clearly not, offering to remove the 'data breach' section is the last thing someone paid for a political hit would do. Dont understand why, but quite a few valuable volunteer editors really seem to love an unsightly banner tag. Sorry if may question was in anyway unpleasant. And fair play for the graceful way you handled the disagreement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thought you'd want to be aware of my comment



At Talk:Low Carbon Hub ↗. Thanks for your sharp eyes. Let's give this one a shot, or tag for AFD if you feel strongly. To me it's a mild keep—sources exist but they're IMHO what a company might say about itself. It's very glossy. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. It has a lot of signs of being LLM generated but you'd hope with a connected editor it would at least be factual! Orange sticker (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026



<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per H:DL ↗, causes errors for screen readers -->
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Novem Linguae@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1353812553 -->

Question



Could I know why you tagged the article ↗ I created "ai-generated"? Although I often used a translator, there were some several typos (which are fixed now) there. I wonder which elements from there made you doubt that the article is ai-generated, since they are prohibited in Wikipedia. Thanks! <span style="padding:.1px 2.5px;border:2px outset #b14c6d;border-radius:99px;background:linear-gradient(#9a365a,#cc6a8a);font-family:serif;color:#f5e6e8">'''Camilasdandelions'''</span> (✉️) 12:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, a translator might explain it. Sentences like "{{tq|Charli XCX attracted attention with the single "Rock Music", which generated some online controveries}}" and "{{tq|Inspired by rock music, "SS26" opens with a "simple guitar lines"...}} just don't sound human-generated. Apologies if English isn't your first language. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::Really? This is really difficult to me, since I thought they are well-written as well. I think I need to copyedit/read more Featured articles and Good articles there. Thank you for your clarification. <span style="padding:.1px 2.5px;border:2px outset #b14c6d;border-radius:99px;background:linear-gradient(#9a365a,#cc6a8a);font-family:serif;color:#f5e6e8">'''Camilasdandelions'''</span> (✉️) 12:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I'll remove the tag. Orange sticker (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right



Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot ↗ to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM ↗, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. <small>{{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion ↗.}}</small> Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2026



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | right|75px ↗'''<big>Women in Red ↗</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375</small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''
{{hidden|Announcements, tips, participation...|
'''Announcements from other communities:'''

'''Tip of the month:'''

'''Other ways to participate:'''
|} --Rosiestep (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Rosiestep@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/M-P&oldid=1353777015 -->

Ancient + Brave



Hi — I’ve seen that ''Ancient + Brave'' has now been deleted following the speedy nomination.

Could you please confirm the specific deletion criterion used (e.g. A7, G11 etc.) and whether you’d be willing to share the deleted text for review?

I’d like to ensure any future draft fully aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements.

Many thanks. Stephenwlfleming (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

:I don't quite understand this request, the edit summary shows it was A7 and G11 and I don't have access to the deleted text. Orange sticker (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

July 2026



<section begin="July" />
{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | right|75px ↗'''<big>Women in Red ↗</big>''' <big>|</big> <small>July 2026, Vol 12, Issue 7, Nos 358, 359, 376, 377</small>
'''Events:'''

{{hidden|Announcements, tips, participation...|
'''Announcements from other communities:'''
|frameless|100px|right ↗

'''Tip of the month:'''

'''Other ways to participate:'''
|}<section end="July" />

--MSGJ (talk 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:MSGJ@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/M-P&oldid=1361047283 -->