User talk:GlowingLava

GlowingLava (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi GlowingLava! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. GlowingLava (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

When adding content to Wikipedia articles always remember to provide reliable sources to support the content added. Vsmith (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Doin' my best. GlowingLava (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The "this user" thing you wish to include (as mentioned on your userpage) is called a userbox. There's a collection of possibilities over at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I love them. Also I copied your name color. GlowingLava (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics [huge template removed] You are far from 500 edits, so you are unable to make edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which includes the ICC arrest warrants against PM Netanyahu. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, edit requests do not require EC status. Thanks. GlowingLava (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Only simple edit requests that do not require discussion are permitted(as a practical matter that is limited to spelling/grammar fixes). How prominently to place the ICC warrants in Bibi's article requires discussion that you cannot participate in. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I see, this was not apparent in the info provided on Edit Requests. I figured simply not participating in a discussion that I started was good enough but I guess that's not how it's done.

GlowingLava (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Your account is well over 30 days old, you only need to reach 500 substantive edits(i.e. not edits made simply to reach 500). 331dot (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You've now reached 500 edits. I highly suggest that you first discuss any potentially controversial changes to Netanayhu's article on the talk page before implementing them; you've already been reverted. Highly visible articles about contentious topics should be edited with care. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Owen250708. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2025 United States protests against mass deportation seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Owen250708 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Owen, that seems mostly fair. I think I was able to vastly improve my edit. In general, especially on articles that involve ongoing events, bold editing is useful. I want to be clear that if ICE commits large prominent repeated inflammatory illegal acts, it's not necessarily biased to write about it, even if it might be upsetting to read. GlowingLava (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you added content to the article Montreal, but didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable, so please include a citation for any content you add or change. A different Wikipedia article does not count as a reliable source. You may want to read/review Referencing for beginners. If you have any questions/comments/concerns, you can reply to this message. I would be happy to elaborate on sourcing (such as how to cite the city website properly) and/or the details of this edit (such as how placenames work in Quebec). Thank you. — W.andrea (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

[Message deleted by page owner] Bon courage (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you have said you're uninterested in having me post on your talk page, I respect that. Where I come from, boundaries usually go both ways. GlowingLava (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, I know there's no clean way to ask you to please reflect a little more about the degree to which you are imposing your particularly intense interest in circumcision onto the rest of the encyclopedia, but I can only be honest that that's what I see happening. Remsense 🌈 论 06:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair thing to ask. I figure I'll get a new special interest soon but I'll think about it. GlowingLava (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for thisw revert. I probably lost focus because of an interruption while running my watchlist and screwed this up when I got back to it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Oki yea! GlowingLava (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jim Pattison, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

fixed GlowingLava (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for all your good work! Please do not add any old accusations, which led to nothing, to the biographies of living persons as you did here. Our rules are very strict about such things. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know it was so strict. Makes sense. In the event such claims are substantiated I'll add them to a more appropriate part of the page. GlowingLava (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

[Bigass template deleted by page owner] _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I can tell for myself when a topic is contentious. Here you try: "Mandatory religious teachings in child prisons." Is this a contentious topic? Want me to post a huge thing on your page about it? GlowingLava (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic is a formal designation on Wikipedia, and it's required that a user be notified when they edit in one, because there are special rules when editing about such areas. See WP:CTOP. No need for snark. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You can post a notice at the top of this page to inform others of the contentious topics you are aware of, see Template:Contentious topics/aware, so you reduce the notices you get. You might want to add post-1992 US politics to that(as you've edited about ICE). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it! GlowingLava (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that you are declaring awareness of all contentious topics above - so you should not be edit warring on one of them. Seek consensus on the talk page instead. MrOllie (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The criteria for an edit war is based on the "3 revert rule". I have reverted twice and you have reverted 3 times. You are technically edit warring and I am not. I was already prepared to post on the talk page. GlowingLava (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You should count again, and take notice that you have been reverted by more than one person. You are also misunderstanding the relation between the 3 revert rule and edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision indicates it is a contentious topic. That means that any pushing of boundaries is likely to lead to a sanction. Editing can be frustrating but we have to live with how it is, or move elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll read up more on contentious topics, in the mean time I've posted on the talk page. GlowingLava (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that you reverted my edit on the page for the Super Bowl LX halftime show. Now, the reason I find this revert in particular strange is the fact that it was done only minutes after I posted it, and I can't say that I've ever seen you edit anything Super Bowl LX related, or anything football related for that matter (could be wrong, though). I'm concerned that you may be monitoring my edits and entering the first stages of WP:HOUNDING. I hope this is not the case. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I like finding pages through seeing what other users edit, I have no problem with avoiding doing this with users who I usually disagree with to avoid potential bias. I edit pages related to sports I've watched and teams I like. GlowingLava (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll take that as a tacit confirmation, and I ask that you refrain from doing that to me. Man-Man122 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with the claim of hounding, you like to assume bad intentions. I had already read the LX page specifically to see if it was most-watched before you edited. I will gladly avoid contesting your recent edits on other pages. GlowingLava (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I never said you were outright hounding but were possibly engaging in its first steps. Saying "I like to find pages through what others are editing" in response to essentially "have you been stalking my edit history?" didn't necessarily ease my suspicions either. At any rate, that's that and I appreciate you stating that you will no longer do that. Man-Man122 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If you continue to edit BLPs while engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and in violation of sourcing standards you will be topic banned from editing any biography of a living person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Understood, it was unintentional and I'm working on fixing it, already fixed 4 of the possible issues. GlowingLava (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I really want to make sure you understand. If sources aren't consistently referring to someone as an activist you cannot categorize or label them as one. You cannot combine multiple sources to come to a conclusion and then state it in an article. This is even more important in BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I thought it was more "It is clear that this person is trying to engage in activism by acting alongside and in support of activists over multiple years while talking emphatically and encouraging change in the world" but it is more "at least two quality sources refer to this person as an activist in those words specifically." In this spirit I need to remove a category link from Teller's page but the link on Rogan's page seems plenty appropriate. This clarifies things. Edit: I see you've deleted the writing on Rogan's article. I don't see what was wrong with it, Maybe reading more wiki policy will help me understand, I'll try. GlowingLava (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Much more than two. They need to regularly and consistently be referred to as an activist by reliable sources. You also can't use primary sources as you did in Joe Rogan. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. I also see you explained on the BLP page. Thanks for explaining. GlowingLava (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have denied it and given reasons. Please think further about this.

You have more than sufficient user rights to be able to create categories without using the request process, though you are welcome to continue to do so. Please bear in mind that a category needs:

• to be defined with good precision
• to have a decent population of member articles
• to have a parent category, since categories exist in a self created and enforced hierarchy

These things are true whether you use the request process or work independently. I felt that this clarification may help you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unsure and this is informative. GlowingLava (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hannah Sabio-Howell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Sabio-Howell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GlowingLava (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You and I have personally talked about the circumcision rate in the US and what should be said on the prevalence page. As you may need to be reminded, hospital discharge rates are not the actual newborn circumcision rates. We cannot make a wide-reaching conclusion that there has been a "~35% drop in circumcision rates" based on data that has consistently been found by studies and research to significantly undercount the actual rate of circumcision. Man-Man122 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Multiple very high quality studies have shown a ~35% decrease in newborn circumcision rates. There are not 35% more Muslims in the United States than there were in the 80's so the hand waving of "some people get circumcised a week later" doesn't move me. At this point I have to ask: Why are we sticking our head in the sand about a huge change in prevalence? There is room on the article for a second "newborn rate" or "rate by region" paragraph. It sometimes feels like you suppress facts that make you feel uncomfortable. Some countries are increasing their circumcision rates(largely UNAIDS program countries), most are decreasing them. I've edited articles to update the number for both situations. GlowingLava (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to tone down your response. That said, it's not a "Oh, you see, there are a billion Muslims and Jews in the US and their stats didn't get counted" type of issue. Rather, it's the fact the discharge records themselves aren't accurate. For the years 1970-1979, the nationwide hospital discharge claimed that 64% of babies born those years were circumcised when, in fact, the NHANES found that 82% of men born in those years were circumcised. For the years, 1990-1996, the discharge survey claimed that 61% of boys born in those years were circumcised; the NHANES found that it was in fact 76%. The fact of the matter is that we can't just say that there's been huge change in prevalence, because the data being used to make such a claim (i.e., the discharge data) is consistently unreliable. Hence, why we use sources that account for the underreporting in discharge data. For what its worth, even anti-circumcision organizations acknowledge the unreliability of discharge survey data. "Intact America" did a survey of mothers shortly after birth in 2020 (or 2022), and found a near identical number that Morris did for 2010. Man-Man122 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)