User Talk: Simonm223

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

{{Archive basics
|archive = User talk:Simonm223/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 8
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
{{Ds/aware|ap|gg|blp|ip|a-i|cc|r-i|ps|sa|irp}}
I'm also WP:AWARE ↗ of WP:GS/UYGHUR ↗ but that doesn't work for the DS/aware template.
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{Usertalkback|me=watched|you=other}}

Hope you return soon

Your thoughts on the various boards was always interesting and well-reasoned. I hadn't seen your name in a bit, got curious, and saw you went on wikibreak.

Enjoy your break, and I do hope you decide to come back soon! User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs ↗) 02:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hey there, thanks for the warm wishes. I'll be back at some point. I'm just... I'm not very happy about the state of the world at the moment and felt a need not to be arguing about source reliability regarding political topics every day. I was pretty upset to see some successful pushes of the Overton Window on pages in my watch history that made Wikipedia less accurate regarding contemporary far-right figures but, more than anything else, it was just getting to the point where participating was causing me a lot of stress and I just don't need that.
:Right now a lot of my time and effort is either being taken up by union work, activism or other hobbies (painting, writing and D&D mostly) but I've no intention of retiring from Wikipedia. I'll be back when I have the emotional bandwidth to be a constructive participant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

ANI re Humblejones

Please see Editor WP:NOTHERE, engaging in vile personal attacks ↗ AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah I saw. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

cpusa membership

have asked for help with this from other people do to not knowing how to do the reference and proof of it on the side of membership amount and have showed proof multiple times on the membership being 19,950- 20,0000 said proof is from this article https://www.cpusa.org/article/communist-party-leaders-meet-to-build-the-resistance/ and the qoute also of proof is "National Organization Secretary Anita Waters, who was elected to her position a year ago, reported that CPUSA membership has grown 11% over the past 12 months" and the article is from october 21st 2025 only problem is how they didnt clarify if their membership has been increasing 11% since 2025 or since 2023 which is if from 2023 that 1,650 a year which means they have 19,000+ members now or more and if from just 2025 they should have 18,300+ members if you could help that would be much appreciated and apologize for the misunderstanding ~2026-10681-3 ↗ (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:That's called WP:SYNTH ↗. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

hello

What is "eugenics but for cats instead of humans" called? like the correct term Horse Exterminator 9000 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

:I want to reflect upon an edit more accurately so Horse Exterminator 9000 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::I can answer that question - it's called Selective Breeding ↗. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Cool Horse Exterminator 9000 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

About the measurable and undeniable impact of AI in 2026

{{Collapse AI top}}
Hi! Recently we were discussing the impact of AI on a page that got tagged as off-topic ↗, so we can no longer talk about it there. I took the liberty of moving this debate here; I hope you don't mind. In your last reply, you mentioned that my sources were "laughably bad." I apologize. I should have delved deeper and provided better sources.

Let me try again.

Regarding your concern that {{tq|Does nobody remember the Metaverse? Or NFTs? Blockchain? The dot Com boom?}}

The Metaverse, Blockchain, and NFTs had no impact on the daily life of regular people. I knew no one who used any of those technologies and only knew about them because of artificial hype from tech bros. However, 23.5% of U.S. companies have replaced workers with AI, and 49% of companies using AI say it has replaced workers (original source ↗).

'''Upgraded source:''' The International Monetary Fund notes 40% of global jobs are at risk ↗. (Summary ↗)

'''Also,''' Goldman Sachs said that Generative AI could automate the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs globally ↗.

['''Remember''': reports published by Goldman Sachs (e.g. their Global Investment Research) are classified as primary sources by Wikipedia ↗ and Goldman Sachs’ economic research is frequently ↗ cited ↗ in Wikipedia because of its influence on market behavior. And I hope I don't have to defend the IMF ↗.]

Not to mention the impact it had in other aspects of life ↗ unrelated ↗ to this particular dicussion.

You can't hand-wave this data away. Do you think it's just going to stop? Did the dot-com bubble bursting stop the internet from eventually changing every aspect of modern life?
We might be off in our predictions, sure, but I don't know what else to say if you honestly think that this is going to stop and everything will go back to the way it was. Bocanegris (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Collapse AI bottom}}
:Do NOT, under any circumstances post AI slop on my user talk page. I hope I am being very clear on this. I find this whole thing deeply immoral and I want nothing to do with it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::I did not post AI slop. I wrote that (and I'm writing this). I promise you I'm a person and I'm just trying to continue a conversation that you started.
::With that clarified, I hope you could address my points. Unless you're no longer in a frame of mind to have a conversation about this... in that case I'll drop it. Just let me know. Bocanegris (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Let me make it more clear: please restrict interaction with my usertalk page to mandatory messages only. You should not feel a need to reply to this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Restoring disputed text

Simon, please raise your objections on the GOP talk page rather than restoring clearly disputed edits. We are seeing a lot of GOP page changes that range from reasonable to questionable. When so many are done all at once the changes really should be raised on the talk page first. I would think it's great if you started a discussion to support the changes. I think some of the recent material is due but the way it's been done has been quite a mess. Take care! Springee (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

:It's a single revert of a revert ''you'' made on a baseless an illogical reason. This is an unnecessary warning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::First, my revert was based on more than just a single reason. Second, changing the quote from the content of a source to an abstract is something that needs a reason. Abstracts are to some extent like headlines. They aren't the "content" of the article, they are the thing that tries to tell you what the article contains. The person who included the original quote presumably had a reason for doing so. Why switch it, especially without an explanation. I trust you agree that a revert made with limited explanation is has more justification than a change made with no explanation. BTW, this isn't a warning. I figured it was better to discuss this off line. We can move this to my talk page if you would rather. I figured we have agreed/disagreed enough over the years that we can talk about the mechanics of an edit off line. Springee (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:::You are the one engaging in edit warring behaviour here, not me. I suggest you consider that fact and stop bothering me with this nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I agree you aren't edit warring. Sorry, I was trying to discuss these things offline. Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. Take care. Springee (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
:Simon, again please follow BRD rather than restoring disputed text. This is especially true when your restoring comment doesn't address all of the stated concerns. Springee (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
::Springee you are welcome to post here for mandatory messages. Otherwise leave me alone. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topic

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' the region of South Asia ↗ (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups''', 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 ↗.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days ↗ in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.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 ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} Anticommunist 6 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:Oh yes, I'm quite aware. You should note that bit at the bottom about 500 edits and account age of 30 days. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Question on your comment

Were you referring to my edit when you wrote {{tq|I'd also mention it's generally frowned upon to compose talk page commentary in LLM software.}} ? If so, you should know that I never use LLM software, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and I'd be curious to know why you thought I did. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry! That was not directed at you! Anticommunist 6 pretty clearly did use an LLM though. It's a short message and they've not been warned so I figured a minor note would be fine. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

::No problem. Thanks for the clarification. NightHeron (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:~2026-11223-58&diff=prev&oldid=1348107235 ↗, I share your concerns. WP:AE ↗?

Given the contentious nature of the article topic, WP:RFCL ↗ maybe?

Thank you again. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

:RFCL would be most appropriate I think. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for Summary of Dispute RE: Communist Party USA on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Communist Party USA ↗ CuckooCorey (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Nice work at Far-left politics. DN (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

Deletion review for :Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy ↗

Scientelensia has asked for '''a deletion review''' ↗ of :Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy ↗. Because you participated in the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orange sticker (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for :Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy ↗

An editor has asked for '''a deletion review''' ↗ of :Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy ↗. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Best wishes, Scientelensia (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:You did notice that @Orange sticker had already notified me and that I'd already commented, yes? Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, I did and apologise, but Spartaz made it quite clear to me that I should too – I took no chances. Apologies for the bother. Scientelensia (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I need your help with something

Hi, so I just wanted ask for your help with something. Or I guess it's more of a question and your help comes in from your input and editing aid if required. Anyways I wanted to ask how the whole FLQ thing should be handled. Is a timeline page for their actions (which is translated from the French version of the article) fine or should there be something else along side it and if so what should it be? I don't wanna repeat the mistake of making a poor quality article for a (or a series of) historical events Lazarbeem (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:I think the FLQ are adequately covered by the articles that currently exist. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::Noted. I did create a Template:Campaignbox a weekish ago in order to sort some of the events mentioned on the timeline. As for the events themselves (such as Opération Chénier), I can make articles for them later Lazarbeem (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::On that note (I just thought of it now) should I add a section to the Campaignbox for notable groups involved such as the Armée de libération du Québec ↗, the Liberation Cell ↗, the Chénier Cell ↗, etc? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Snarky

Having reviewd their edits I'm considering ANI, what do you think? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

:At the very least there seems to be a CIR problem. Simonm223 (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Snarky

i keep thinking ANI.Doug Weller talk 17:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

:What did they do now? Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niall_Ferguson&diff=1350845485&oldid=1348934222 ↗
:Need to collect appropriate diffs. I have warned him about MOS:CLAIM ↗ Doug Weller talk 17:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::There's also this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_A._Lindsay&diff=prev&oldid=1350833662 ↗ I'm not a fan of James Lindsay but a BLP vio is a BLP vio. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Searching Unite the Right Rally for SPLC returns zero hits

Is my search function broken?

Rather than making multiple talk page posts you could look at the article and see that mention of this is already included. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Mention of it is not included,

I'm certain that a reason exists to exclude encyclopedic material provided by the ultimate publisher of repute-the government indictment which clearly indicted SPLC in part for funding the organizer of this event. Secondary sources are only necessary with government material if it is too complicated for the average reader. I'm certain that it can be squeeze in to that unfathomable wall of text which rivals the Pearl Harbor page in length. ~2026-16632-80 ↗ (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

:I didn't remove it nor will I reinsert it. Please bother someone else. Simonm223 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mr Simon

Hi, I really hope you’re doing fine. I am not done copy writing the David Pakman ↗, can I get room to finish? I understand totally that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so it’s not even about owning the page, I just wanted to finish my train of thought. Is that possible? BottlersFC (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:You need ''reliable sources'' for your changes and should use ''accurate'' edit summaries. A massive rewrite is ''not'' a copy edit. Simonm223 (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::I understand. Just to clarify, I’m not attempting a full rewrite of the article. I’m expanding and clarifying existing content using reliable sources, and I’ll ensure my edit summaries reflect that accurately as I continue. Let me know if there are specific concerns with the sections I’m working on. BottlersFC (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::If you are using reliable sources ''and cite them'' I won't have any further issue.Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Understood. I'll ensure everything is properly sourced and cited. BottlersFC (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you kindly. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I’m going to revert your edit, not just for the sake of it, but so I can clearly see where citations are needed. BottlersFC (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::No do not do that. Start by preparing edits ''with appropriate citations to support them.'' Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I’m editing with a phone. BottlersFC (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Then it will be slower. But it is mandatory. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Dr Freud, here

I'm fairly certain your typo was the actual stance of a good number of editors involved, to the point I didn't even bat an eye at it. ~2026-25182-34 ↗ (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I try not to get too dug into a back-and-forth with editors on pages about the Republicans and Trumpism. There's too many people too vested in maintaining the facade that the party is the same as it was during the era of George Bush Sr. I looked at the edit history and the sources and agreed with Jollyrime about the best version. I meant what I said about never edit warring: If I do a ''second'' revert of an edit it's because there's a clear policy violation in it and otherwise I restrict myself to 1RR as a matter of personal preference. So, if my edit is standing, that kind of indicates where the actual consensus lies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
::{{tq|the actual consensus}}
::I'm fairly certain this concept is anathema to the regular reverters there. Alas. ~2026-25182-34 ↗ (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah. Sometimes the best thing to do is to make your statement and disengage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

O9A

Before undoing my justified removal again, take a look at Temple of the Black Light ↗ (including my summary) and Talk:Nordic Resistance Movement#Current 218 ↗. A crime committed by MLO members is NOT a crime related to the O9A. --~2026-25877-60 ↗ (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:The source was discussing pre-existing connections between these various gangs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Look I am willing to pause and countenance a source considered reliable is falsifying connections between different groups of satanic Nazi terrorists. However this isn't something that should hinge on any one editor's fervent opinion. I've opened a discussion at WP:RS/N and pinged you there. That will centralized discussion and we can hash out your falsification claim. I don't edit war. I was never going to just revert you a second time because it's just not how I operate. But I think this requires more feedback than just mine and yours. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I am willing to apologise for what may have come across as an insinuation, I just don’t know how you work and know that there are people like that. Thanks for the ping. For the rest, see discussion. --~2026-25877-60 ↗ (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey

I'd rather not get further sidetracked in that, and I'm aware every comment I add to the thread makes it less likely that others engage the thread. I'm interested in what I see as a contradiction between BALANCE and the rest of NPOV; not whatever this alien conspiracy stuff is. Can you reply on that question if you are to keep engaging? Whonting (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:I think you need to look at WP:FALSEBALANCE ↗. We don't have to be neutral about crazy stuff, even when a government engages in the crazy stuff. If Kash Patel wants to run around LARPing as Fox Mulder we are not required to take it seriously until reliable sources do. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Completely agree on what you're saying with FALSEBALANCE, I hoped couching my comments in "if" there was genuine disagreement in RS over a question then would we be putting one in wikivoice I would establish we were talking about a hypothetical where FALSEBALANCE was irrelevant, but the quicksand got me. Masem seems to have left a helpful comment, I'll see where that goes. Whonting (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

On the Dominion Society of Canada

Hi, I don't know how to mention you on the article's talk page so I'll just talk about it here. I saw your recent edits on the article Dominion Society of Canada ↗ and I think that some of the things you removed should be readded:

- Interactions with Canadian MP Jamil Jivani ↗

- The demonstration outside of the Conservative leadership convention

- The appearance at the Owen Sound City Council meeting

I say that these should be readded to the article because the Dominion Society is a political pressure group and the three things listed show how they are influencing various levels of Canadian politics Lazarbeem (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:No. These are just routine episodes of political trolling by an extremist group. They're WP:NOTNEWS ↗ covered. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::-The interactions with Jivani were reported by CBC Inside one Conservative MP’s ‘Restore the North’ tour, a Canadian take on Charlie Kirk’s movement | CBC News ↗
::-The demonstration outside of the Conservative leadership convention was reported by the Western Standard ↗ Dominion Society protests outside Conservative convention over party's immigration stance ↗
::-And the appearance at the Owen Sound City Council meeting was reported by a local Owen Sound newspaper Dominion Society Puts City of Owen Sound "On Notice" Over Ryerson Park Renaming ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Saying it had newspaper coverage is not a response to WP:NOTNEWS ↗. Especially not when it's a local paper. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::::My response was that these relate to the article due to the Dominion Society being a political pressure group and instances where they put pressure on something in regards to Canadian politics should be on the group's article. Also, the sources were put here for reference and because none of them have been deemed to be unreliable Lazarbeem (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::We don't need an exhaustive list of every single action a bunch of fringe far-right figures do. Being trolls at city councils is how these groups operate. It's their normal mode. I left in those times they got responses from mainstream political figures. Those are the things that reach the bar of being encyclopedic. And now could you please take this off my user page and to article talk if you absolutely must continue arguing about this? Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm not arguing I'm simply discussing. Also I can remove this discussion from your talk page if you want Lazarbeem (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to do it?

Are you going to file the close challenge? Snokalok (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, sorry, I was completely AFK this weekend because of a multitude of family things (a broken computer power supply, a kid's sports tournament and a death in the family) so I didn't really have my eye on the ball there. I'll put together something today. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My Dark Enlightenment page aditions

While 'Bioleninism' is a term frequently used by Neoreactionaries online, and Land himself has used it - I couldn't find a proper source explaining Bioleninism - you're right, and I apologize for all of that.

However, that same day I used proper sources to expand the section for 'The Cracker Factory', adding how Land uses Hegelian ↗ dialects to analyze The Cracker Factory in practice<ref name="land_dark_enlightenment_4c">{{cite web |last=Land |first=Nick |title=The Dark Enlightenment – Part 4c: The Cracker Factory |website=The Dark Enlightenment |url=https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/#part4c |publisher=The Dark Enlightenment |date=2012-05-17 |access-date=2026-05-02}}</ref>, which Land talks about in that very same chapter. I also added a whole new section for 'Slave, Sister, Sexborg, and Sphinx' <ref name="le_feminine_figurations">{{cite journal |last=Le |first=Vincent |title=Slave, Sister, Sexborg, Sphinx: Feminine Figurations in Nick Land's Philosophy |journal=Hypatia |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=329–347 |date=2019 |doi=10.1111/hypa.12464 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/abs/slave-sister-sexborg-sphinx-feminine-figurations-in-nick-lands-philosophy/F6A12A29EFEBEF9A6735331E4022B9EE |access-date=2026-05-02}}</ref> which is Land's feminine metaphors for Capitalism and analysis of Patriarchal social norms <ref name="land_kant_capital_incest">{{cite journal |last=Land |first=Nick |title=Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest |journal=Third Text |volume=2 |issue=5 |pages=83–94 |date=1988 |url=https://dn721609.ca.archive.org/0/items/nick-land-writings/Texts/Essays/nick-land-kant-capital-and-the-prohibition-of-incest-a-polemical-introduction-to-the-configuration-of-philosophy-and-modernity.pdf |access-date=2026-05-02}}</ref> and I also added Moldbug and Land's criticism of Richard Dawkins ↗ under The Cathedral section. I would like to see those reinstated. <ref name="moldbug_dawkins_pwned_1">{{cite web |last=Moldbug |first=Mencius |author-link=Curtis Yarvin |title=How Dawkins Got Pwned (Part 1) |website=Unqualified Reservations |date=2007-09-26 |url=https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/ |access-date=2026-05-02}}</ref> <ref name="land_dark_enlightenment_2">{{cite web |last=Land |first=Nick |title=The Dark Enlightenment – Part 2 |website=The Dark Enlightenment |url=https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/#part2 |publisher=The Dark Enlightenment |date=2012-12-24 |access-date=2026-05-02}}</ref>Thank you Apallo334 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

:You are significantly over-using Nick Land, who is a WP:PRIMARY ↗ source for these WP:FRINGE ↗ political theories. You need to find reliable secondary sources to establish that such fringe theories are notable. Land mis-applying Hegel is just a Tuesday. I'd say more about how I think he arrived at such fringe interpretations but it'd be a BLP violation. The Hypatia source is good. Their criticism of Dawkins is, again, something where, as you are dealing with WP:FRINGE ↗ content, you need secondary sources to establish significance before just quoting them. So they have critiques of Dawkins? So what? So do I but I don't have my opinions on a Wikipedia page because they aren't really significant. Same thing with Land and Moldbug. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

Thank you

For teaching me a new word: Pretendian ↗. Tiamut (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hah no problem. It's a serious issue within First Nations communities who have often had their right to decide who counts as a First Nations person overtaken by white-settler led states. If you like horror movies, the Mi'kmaw helmed zombie movie Blood Quantum explores the question of Indigenous identity in aome really crunchy ways. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

::I don't often share information like this, but I have tears streaming down my face. The consideration in your reply was deeply touching. It is rare to find in what is often a hostile editing environment, where a lot of people engaged in what I call "hate editing". Thank you. Tiamut (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I do really wish the PIA topic area was less hostile. I hesitate to involve myself in AE filings because I think the "vote them off the island" mentality makes this worse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Dimes Square

The Dazed article makes mention of the Film 01 stuff in the Instagram story image. I will revert that specific edit, but please inform me if that is not reliable or if there's any issue with that. Aradicus (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:For your information Angelicism01 is a big figure in the Dimes Square scene. It seems he can't be added to notable people because he doesn't have his own page yet but I think given how many of these notable figures in the scene have been mentioned in the media enough there should be section redirects for brief biographies on them with reliable sources. Just because they can't have their own pages at the moment. It seems most editors rn think Dimes Square is just a neighbourhood and not a scene Aradicus (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::An Instagram caption is not RS compliant. And even if it were it would be WP:PASSING ↗ at best. You need to establish with reliable sources that anyone cares about some random New Yorker's indy film project. Simonm223 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Angelicism01 Film01 is literally mentioned in Artforum ↗ bro like https://www.artforum.com/columns/paige-k-bradley-around-new-york-252792/. Like how are people who don't know what Post-CoreCore Internet Cinema is policing pages about said topics? Aradicus (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I am not policing anything. I keep an eye on pages about far-right political movements and that's the source of my interest. I will review the artforum source when I have a chance but, the thing is, sources need to be ''in'' the article to be relevant. Please avoid personal attacks and also don't me bro. I am not a child. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::There's not a single personal attack there. And bro is slang man lol. Fair enough if you are around the far-right movement stuff, a lot of the Dimes Square figures are in those spaces, but I've been mainly trying to add the figures who are artists in the scene and there seems to be some clash, there's people who are focusing more on the far-right / neighbourhood stuff, while I might be the only person looking specifically at the sources for the art scene, take a figure like Blaketheman1000 ↗ for example, who isn't connected to the far right stuff but has sourcing on how he is part of the Dimes Square music scene in Rolling Stone magazine: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/dimes-square-rapper-blaketheman1000-profile-1234623584/ Aradicus (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::The artforum source is eminently usable and establishes this indy filmmaker as meeting criteria for inclusion on the Dimes Square page. Please go ahead with properly cited inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::As for Rolling Stone, that requires more caution per WP:ROLLINGSTONE ↗. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you, btw I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive. Aradicus (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to say Thank you, I greatly appreciate you helping me and straightening some of the errors out. I have more and I am stumbling around trying to find out how to correct them, the into to the Jeff Stryker page states "a pornographic actor"... This kinda takes the wind out of the "Jeff Stryker character's sails"but I will work on that now...
I do want to thank you for taking the time to review my BLP complaint and for the corrections you made to the Traci Lords, categories, and Legal Battles items.

I appreciate the work and help setting the record straight.
Charles Peyton Charlescpeyton (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

:My pleasure. I think it's important that bio articles be appropriately encyclopedic. And while that means accurate reflection of reliable sources is important, that does not mean the inclusion of extraneous salacious information with minimal sourcing. Thank you for cooperating with our COI regulations. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting if proper, you to give a fresh look at my edit request

Hi Simonm223. I want to thank you again for the help you gave me a few days ago, I have a lot of record to set straight. The current intro denies me the 40 plus years of accomplishments I achieved from that adult career springboard. I don't want to bury the Porn past, I am proud of where I came from. I just filed "a new edit request asking about the introduction to the article" and it was squashed immediately and mistaken for AI... I went to great lengths, spent hours wanting everything "sourced and referenced" as I thought was the way to do it. I did it, not AI, I was so disappointed. No question, I knew not to use AI, I didn't want to get blocked, I have a lot of work to do, step by step and I got slapped down from the start.

I went to such great lengths trying to make it perfect for Wikipedia. I followed every Wikipedia instruction to the tee. I used the exact format I was supposed to and I saw on other Wikipedia examples, starting with the {{tlx|request edit}} template. I do not see where I went wrong. I am sick with the work I put into creating that perfect page and then to have it dismissed as AI. Would you be willing to take a fresh look? I would appreciate it. I believe you can see that it is "human and done with care and investigation of every word used".

I searched out Stallone as he started in Porn too, wow then the references that popped up, all natural and all genuine. I have a lot to clean up after a 20 or 30 year absence from Wikipedia but like my page said, "Rip Van Stryker is awake". and no AI can be that clever to come up with something like that. I am preparing for the greatest projects in my career and all I am trying to do is show the true accomplishments and events of Jeff Stryker. Here is my posting and the squashing it got immediately and unfairly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Stryker#Requested_Edit,_Introduction_sentence_alteration_as_introduction_does_not_reflect_Jeff_Stryker's_diverse_career
Thanks again and I hope you can help me,
Charles Casper Peyton (User:Charlescpeyton) Charlescpeyton (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:I was the one that collapsed the edit request (I only even saw this note because it was mistakenly written as an open edit request and showed up in the queue). There were certain tells in the text that were highly suspicious like machine-generated text often has, which I'm not going to mention per WP:BEANS ↗. I get a lot of these, and it's possible I looked too fast. But either way, there was no concrete edit request that anyone could have acted on, so it's all kind of irrelevant. And really, nobody that has a Wikipedia page about them should ever have to worry about it. It's not a CV; it's not a means of self-promotion, or documenting every little thing a person has done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon ↗ • videos ↗) 04:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
::BLP issues are ''not'' secondary to someone using climate change clippy. It's not a CV and we do follow sources but we should be alert to complaints of inaccuracy and Wp:ATTACK ↗ structures on BLP pages all the same.Simonm223 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding bludgeoning

Hello. While I appreciate the thank for my comment on the other editor's page, I am concerned about your conduct as well. While I understand when other users are not conducting themselves well its easy to get sucked in (such as the back and forth tangent with Wh1pla5h99 on the move discussion), sometimes one must leave it be. Just as editors who are bludgeoning need to remember WP:SATISFY ↗ (it is not someone's job to satisfy another editor), the inverse matters too. If someone is repeating their point over and over, creating unnecessary tagents, or even just over commenting to the point it's bogging down the discussion, ''you do not have to satisfy them or argue against the constantly growing list of points and refutes.'' Urchincrawler (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah. I'm done. I'm quite aware that, if a single perfect academic source was presented that said "this specific executive order is persecution" they'd respond "oh but it's just one source". I agree with you there's no further point in arguing. I only really went back to bring up WP:USEDBYOTHERS ↗ regarding Lemkin. But, for the record, in the Executive Order discussion where I had the bludgeoning concern, there was no comparing the frequency of posting https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Talk%3AExecutive_Order_14168&users=Sirfurboy&users=Simonm223&server=enwiki ↗. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::Yep, that's why I was talking about the move. Not so much the editorialising discussion. Glad you are aware. Unfortunately transgender topics tend to be a mess to discuss for everyone involved. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I haven't touched the move discussion since May 16 and had no intention of engaging there further so no worries on that front either. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::That's a bad faith accusation. Firstly, the frequency of posting is because I was finding and adding sources in a lot of consecutive edits. I think you know this. Secondly, no. You are importing beliefs about my motivations based on preconceptions that I suspect are unfounded. I literally have been posting up every academic source I have found, without fear or favour. And the next bit of work, which ideally will not be done by myself alone, is to read those sources and write the section in the main of the article, as per the talk discussion prior to your involvement.{{pb}}But I am interested: why do you think I would wish to ignore what the best sources are saying? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Please leave me alone. Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Going forward

I did not see the above discussion until I came here. This is not about piling on, so sorry for you to have to deal with two issues at once, but this is my own separate issue.

I would like to request that you and I limit all future discussion to content only. Please do not offer me any unsolicited advice, even if you think you are helping me. I understand we have some overlapping interests, so inevitably we are going to be editing some of the same pages. That does not mean you have to be so hyperfocused on me. Also, please do not make any references to me in your comments. For example, you may be doing this inadvertantly, but comments such as: "I'm explaining to you that..." sound condescending to me. It would be much more effective to go straight into the thing you are trying to explain without mentioning me at all. These simple things will help me to have a better experience editing here. Slava570 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

:You can ask me to avoid your talk page except for mandatory messages if that's what you want and I will abide by it. But if you say I'm saying something you see as synth when I'm actually explaining something that you appear to misunderstand and it's relevant to content discussion at article talk such as the "I am explaining to you" comment you are referring to, no, you cannot instruct me not to say that. I was literally telling you that it was ''not'' my POV opinion and was, instead, a summary of why different things are treated differently ''within reliable sources.'' Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative on the FTN reform proposal

I apologize for being late to the party, despite voicing such strong support for a deprecation/merger proposal. It's been a difficult week, and difficult circumstances for noticing and responding appropriately to project discussions. I've just lodged a detailed !vote in the thread. I don't know if it is likely to accomplish much to change the lean towards opposing a merger that's started to settle in, but I hoped to at least point out why I think some of those positions are in error and underappreciated the depths of the issues with the noticeboard. But in any event, I wanted to thank you for making the effort, and for a generally positive pattern of contributions to policy and community discussions of late that I have noticed. Not that this is atypical for you: I just happen to, by coincidence, been in a position to observe a lot of your contributions of late, and wanted to say I think you are hitting the nail on the head regularly. ''SnowRise let's rap'' 04:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you. Sincerely. Simonm223 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Careful with quotes in the citations!

Hey Simon, this edit ↗ added a pretty big chunk of text using the |quote= parameter, most of which isn't needed to support the claim the citation is for. That kind of stuff, while innocuous, can constitute copyright vios (per WP:NFCCEG ↗ and lead of WP:CV ↗). I cut it down to only have the part needed to support the text. Gotta be careful with these things, even when editing articles like that one, where I'm sure your attention is rightfully occupied with trying to comply with WP:BLP ↗ and WP:NPOV ↗ and all of that (which you're doing a good job at by the way!) ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley<math>\lor</math>investigate ↗ᛅ 01:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah that was my intention. Will try to trim more next time. Simonm223 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This was slander

This comment ↗ at the reliable sources noticeboard was a completely false accusation against me. Next time you accuse me of something you were not involved in, at least take the time to do due dilligence. You did not even look at the talk page at Genocide definitions to see my interaction with the other editor, which was 100% collegial. You did not even go back into the edit history to see what the other edits looked like. You said I {{tq|minimize Wikipedia discussing genocide as a unique category of crime}} This could not be more wrong. I was the one who was trying to make sure that genocide was characterized as a separate category of crime. This was not even the correct forum for such accusations against me. Totally unacceptable behavior on your part. Slava570 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:I would suggest, as you have asked me to limit messages to mandatory ones only on your userpage that you do the same with mine. I am very tired of this situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::With that being said I struck the line regarding minimization of genocide in the off chance that I did in fact misinterpret that diff. Please feel no need to reply. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::That's fine. This mean that if it happens again, my only recourse will be to the administrators. Slava570 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues related to my Topic Ban

Am I allowed to talk about issues related to my Topic Ban in here? CuckooCorey (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not the one that imposed it nor am I particularly invested in it. I did some minor clerking on an article talk page. I would suggest there's probably nothing I can do one way or the other to impact your topic ban and your efforts would be better spent elsewhere. IE: on some other article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::Alright, at the very least I would ask you review @CopyleftEverything comment under the membership discussion as he points out that the Guardian source is WP:CITOGEN ↗ and there isn't a consensus. CuckooCorey (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
:::You are not permitted to discuss this now that you are topic-banned. --JBL (talk ↗) 17:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I guess I should make my "no" clearer next time. Topic banned editors should not solicit others to edit on their behalf. Simonm223 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment

Apologies your comment was caught in a revert. I was lazy and restored the last WP:XC ↗ version, but didn’t notice another user already reverted the IP at the same time. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

:No worries. These things happen. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::Also didn't realize AA CTOP was EC only or I would have done the same as you rather than replying. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::It is since 2023 ↗. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The Cracker Factory and Dark Enlightenment

Hello, I know this is a month late, but I want to bring up 'The Cracker Factory' edit I made on The page for 'Dark Enlightenment' back in May you removed.

Nick Land talks about The Cracker Factory in his 2012 book simply titled 'Dark Enlightenment', the link I used - though probably not official or affiliated with Land or The Dark Enlightenment, was a chapter in one of his actual books. The sketchy link could've been what convinced you it wasn't official, which is understandable.

Would you agree with reinstating the Cracker Factory with a regular book citation link? Thanks
<ref>{{cite book
|last=Land
|first=Nick
|title=The Dark Enlightenment
|chapter=The Cracker Factory
|year=2012
}}</ref> Apallo334 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:I removed it on the grounds you were too dependent on <s>reliable</s>primary sources, not on the grounds you used the wrong citation. Please read WP:FRINGE ↗. Land is a fringe figure. His political philosophy, which includes elements of the bootstrap paradox ↗ as a justification for right-wing governance, is a fringe philosophy. As such the significance of any one of his fringe beliefs must be established by secondary sources rather than us just cramming the article with primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A note for my kind watchers

I'm aware of the latest drama at AE and AN regarding a filing I made about a week ago in AE. I am fully supportive of the decision Sennecaster made and am satisfied with the outcome. I have no intention of participating in these discussions (I understand the AN one closed anyway). I generally try to avoid anything that may smack of grave-dancing and, as such, I am generally very quiet about the outcomes of administrative actions where I have provided evidence or feedback if they have resulted in individual sanctions against another editor. However I do have a somewhat off-topic observation that I think people would do well to think on.

There's a certain group of people who think that it's an "uncomfortable truth" that some "self-identified racial groups" score lower on IQ tests and this group of people attribute these differences in test-scoring to environment.

I want them to consider for a minute the possibility is actually that IQ testing is not particularly good at measuring intelligence in any meaningful way. IQ tests are garbage. Their outcomes say nothing about the intelligence of individuals (in fact they were not even intended for this purpose and were, instead, designed to compare the relative preparedness of individual students for a standard curriculum) extrapolating IQ out to act as a treatment for the relative ''intelligence of any group of people'' is an invalid use of a badly designed tool. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Wishing you luck at the GOP article. I've been avoiding trying to add my 2 cents because it already looks like word salad. That, and I still have my T-shirt from the last time I tried to herd those cats, long ago ↗. DN (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

European Canadians demographic source

Would a better source be the 2021 census itself? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes.Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::Would this work? Census of Population ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
:::This is a raw primary source page and it's not taking me directly to the specific dataset so I'm going to need you to be clearer about where this has a count of Canadians of explicitly European descent. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I'll do some digging when I have more free time Lazarbeem (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Sure thing. I'm not trying to be obstructive here. We just need to make sure we're using solid citations and I don't think a (very new) advocacy group that is specifically one reacting to tariffs under the Trump administration is particularly reliable for Canadian demography. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Wait can't we just use the source I put there alongside the census source? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::The census source alone would be fine if you can point to where it actually says the information you want to cite to it. The URL you gave me did not. That's the problem. I have no objection to using the census as a source but you need to link to the correct information within it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks

i do hope op can help track these down though. Morwen (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Baijiu

As someone acquainted with East Asian culture I am somewhat amused, curious and concerned over this spirit's haunt of CBC you describe ↗. I've only managed to find one (tame) such article at https://www.cbc.ca/life/food/baijiu-primer-the-worlds-most-consumed-liquor-1.7552287 ↗ under the Life column. Is that the sole extent of the travesty? :-) In solidarity ↗, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:I'll be honest, I just found the one. I mostly thought it was funny because, back before the whole Meng Wanzhou ↗ kerfuffle, Baijiu was pretty common in Canadian liquor stores and it was just something you could, you know, go and buy if you wanted to drink it. Then it got yanked off shelves due to Canada and China's worsening relationship and now is being reintroduced as an exciting new product. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)