User talk:Stickymatch

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please stop manipulating PV Narsimha Rao page in which valid citations are given VideshiBhaktNRI (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there- the edits I changed, removed, or otherwise manipulated were not conducted in an encyclopedic tone, as in utilizing formal and neutral language. The statement "x is considered a hardcore hindu" is not formal, and the source that was provided for multiple edits was an opinion piece, meaning that it is most likely biased, and it should be backed up by other sources to ensure a neutral and factual POV. Stickymatch 06:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stickymatch, it's me, Samzzz07. I wanted to apologise about my edits to the page of Statistical Theory. I'm new to Wikipedia's editing system. I only did that to check how fast Wiki editors would change it and for the sole purpose of testing.

Won't happen again. I'm sorry Thank you Samzzz07 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025(UTC)

Hi, Stickymatch. I did not understand why my additional image was considered without consensus. I think it should be published because of the perspective it brings to page. It is different of all images. Best Regards. Ann Ann Thomas-Walker (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ann Thomas-Walker From my brief look-over of the page, it is of my opinion that it would not benefit from additional images, unless those images had accompanying text. (The bottom of the article is beginning to look like a miniature photo gallery) The image you added does not significantly add to the article/the readers understanding of the subject when alone. Consider taking a look at the level of detail that accompanies the images in Urogenital folds, and adding some relevant information to a new section along with your image, perhaps further information on the function of the labia minora. In any case, thank you for being WP:BOLD with your edits. Stickymatch 07:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Valereee (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Draft:UP3D per CSD G11, but FYI, G5 does not apply to a page that was merely created by a user who is now blocked; they need to have been blocked or banned (typically, on another account) at the time they created the page. If that page's creator did have some previous account that was blocked, that's the thing that should have been listed in {{db-g5}}, not the creator's own username. Just so you know! Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you for clarifying. I'll make sure to remember that in the future when tagging. Have a good day! Stickymatch 04:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heh and by the time I came to look at this, the link was already blue again. (No longer.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user has vandalized the page My Talking Tom just now, Antony is the football player and he vandalized other pages, his username is NeverBuyItForAntony and he could be underaged, he is currently blocked by Johnuniq, thank you. 2001:D08:D5:E3E1:78C9:CE6E:C0EB:4AF7 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:D08:D5:E3E1:78C9:CE6E:C0EB:4AF7

I see. Please make sure to avoid giving any information that may be personally identifying to the user, especially since they may be a minor. May I ask why you're contacting me about this? Stickymatch 17:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stickymatch, since you revert the edits that ILoveDrowningBunny did because of a vandalism, another user vandalized it again! Do you understand? 2001:D08:D5:E3E1:384C:D00F:8A57:689 (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:D08:D5:E3E1:384C:D00F:8A57:689

No, I don't understand you. Could you please try wording it differently? Stickymatch 09:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—United States DOGE Service—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 2601:642:4F84:1590:C8D:B02D:C9CB:6B91 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The repurposing of the Digital Service as DOGE is already noted at the target article. 2601:642:4F84:1590:C8D:B02D:C9CB:6B91 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate it. I support a merge as opposed to a flat out redirect. Stickymatch 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for restoring the content on the Shalva Papuashvili and Georgia (country) pages. I apologize for not providing adequate edit summaries earlier; I understand the importance of transparency in our contributions. Regarding the Edits:

Shalva Papuashvili Page: Content Removed: I removed statements questioning the legitimacy of Shalva Papuashvili's position as Speaker of the Parliament. Rationale: The assertions about the disputed legitimacy were not supported by concrete evidence. While there have been political disagreements, labeling his position as illegitimate without substantial proof contradicts Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For instance, although President Salome Zourabichvili has expressed concerns about the parliamentary elections, the official records recognize Papuashvili as the Speaker. (civil.ge)

Georgia (country) Page: Content Removed: I updated information regarding the tenure of the previous president to reflect accurate dates and details. Rationale: The previous information was outdated and did not include recent developments. According to official records, Mikheil Kavelashvili was elected as the new president on December 14, 2024, and inaugurated on December 29, 2024. (agenda.ge)

Sources:

Shalva Papuashvili Elected as New Parliament Speaker: https://civil.ge/archives/464965?

Mikheil Kavelashvili Elected as Georgia's Sixth President: https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/42140?

Inaugural Ceremony of Georgia’s 6th President Mikheil Kavelashvili Held: https://www.agenda.ge/en/news/2024/42312? Malev oleg (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Malev oleg Given the source you reference on your talk page states:

"compromised the ability of some voters to cast their ballots without fear of retribution"

this statement alone calls the legitimacy of the election results into question.

While we mustn't advocate for one side or another, part of maintaining a NPOV is accurately representing the common views on subjects by the international community- while some sources do confirm the election, many other, quality sources also do dispute it.

To maintain a neutral point of view, it is in my opinion that it's in the articles best interest to contain the information about the dispute, and pending a possible second election and or greater clarity into the process and posssible foul play; continue to refer to the leader(s) as disputed. Stickymatch 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I fully agree that maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) requires representing the full spectrum of perspectives, particularly those of reputable international organizations. However, neutrality also means avoiding editorializing or overstating conclusions beyond what sources explicitly state.

Addressing the Legitimacy Question

The phrase you cite from the OSCE report—“compromised the ability of some voters to cast their ballots without fear of retribution”—is indeed a serious concern, and I have never argued against including well-sourced critiques of the election process within the article. However, concerns about electoral integrity do not automatically equate to non-recognition of election results.

The OSCE’s careful diplomatic wording is intentional—they document issues but do not issue legal rulings on legitimacy. Their report does not state that the election results are invalid, nor does it call for a re-run of the election. Likewise, while the European Parliament passed a resolution expressing deep concerns about democratic backsliding, it is a political stance, not a legal determination that renders elected officials’ positions illegitimate.

No "Pending" Second Election

You mention a “pending second election,” but there is no indication from any governing body that a new election is forthcoming or even under serious consideration. The Georgian government has not committed to one, and no authoritative international body has formally demanded an immediate re-run. While political pressure exists, it is inaccurate to frame the current situation as if a new election is imminent. Presenting this as a likely outcome would be speculative, which conflicts with Wikipedia’s verifiability standard.

The Best Approach for NPOV

Rather than applying a blanket “disputed” label in the infobox—where concise wording can easily mislead readers—the most neutral and policy-compliant approach is to present all sourced perspectives clearly within the article text and, where appropriate, in footnotes. This allows readers to see the concerns raised by OSCE, the EU, and others without Wikipedia taking an unsourced stance that overstates the degree of non-recognition.

I am happy to discuss further and refine how we present the nuances of this issue, but any edits must be grounded in what sources actually state—not what they imply or what we might infer from them. Malev oleg (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please move this discussion to the relevant article's talk page. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say for allegedly being BLP violations the edits you reverted looks very tame Trade (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade I reverted it as I did not see a source that verified the information about his initial goal as to what his aspirations were, and the latter half seemed to be a disguised attempt at a lukewarm insult, especially seeing as there wasn't anything cited to back up this claimed lack of academic ability, not to mention the missing edit summary.

I understand the BLP policy to demand three things of edits-

1. That they be neutral in view. (the qualitative statement about academic ability did not appear to be)
2. That the information be verified, by a reliable source. (No source was provided)
3. WP:BLPBALANCE asks us to provide criticism, only in the case that we can provide a reliable, secondary source- which was not provided.

Due to these reasons, including the lack of edit summary which may have represented an attempt to fly under the radar with the addition, I was unable to assume good faith and compliance with the BLP policy, therefore I reverted the change. Stickymatch 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake here. I took the dog for a walk and all hell broke loose on this article. Joyous! Noise! 19:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]