User talk:Herb-Sewell

I don't know if you've read the talk on the episode page or the guidelines of the List of Episodes project, but I feel the new format is an improvement. Known Shen Gong Wu already tracks each Shen Gong Wu, and the episode pages will all mark the exchanges when I'm done with them. Using the list of episodes as a Shen Gong Wu tracker instead of an episode guide is not helpful to people who are not fans of the show already, and I would like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. But please voice your opinion at Talk:List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes so we can build to more of a consensus. Jay32183 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we find it necessary we can remove the pictures, there is actually a template for that already built. There is a posting on the List of Episodes project so people who are unfamiliar with the show may start chiming in and helping out. Ryulong and I are doing are best at getting the episode summaries, if you want to help then do so and if not just give us some polite reminders on ones that are missing and we'll get to them as soon as we can. I do watch edits on the page so I should be able to get to them while I'm not at work. Jay32183 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Walther p38 l.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:2003_10_silversteinl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I have the article iPod on my watchlist, and so I check out changes to many articles. When I checked the diff for your last edit to the iPod article, I found that you changed the type of "incorrect title" template used at the top. Since it seems to me that the Template:Lowercase template is clearer and more appropriate, I'm curious as to why you changed it. I'd like to change it back, but I think it's a good idea to question why you changed it first, since you probably have a good reason for doing so. What is that reason? Thanks, Nihiltres 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: My reference point.

As above per Nihiltres. Template: Lowercase is clearer. Why did you change it? Tom H 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Larry Silverstein.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hbdragon88 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sizingupomi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Death of Adolf Hitler has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Abacus has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider how we can work together towards consensus at Talk:Ipse dixit#Humpty Dumpty. In this context, you may want to notice a small addition at Nominalism#History here. --Ansei (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not super attached to absolutely having the date for the Chicago Times article, even though Cornell University says it was the next day on another link. Since you didn't respect BRD and reverted my first reversion, and then I failed to call you on it and we both continued, now we're both at risk of getting blocked for 3RR violations, so I'll let it stay as is. It's okay that way anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't what was the purpose of that canned, generic response, but it was an eminent waste of time on my part for me to read it and I would imagine for you to post it. Indeed, you're hardly in a position to send me Wikipedia guidelines considering that you technically broke the three-revert rule in that last edit.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity if it fell on deaf ears, for WP:AGF is a key Wikipedia policy. More importantly, your accusation that I "technically broke the three-revert rule" is false: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert. My next (and so far latest) edit there was this one, which merely fixed grammar. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to make a suggestion about my behavior, don't use some cookie-cutter response that has no argumentative weight; a sanctimonious attitude won't make it for your arguments for you and it's not consistent with making sarcastic comments as edit summaries. About that "false" assertion, I was the one who made that mistake. Unless you can find an exception to the three-revert rule that includes grammatical corrections, you broke it. Q.E.D.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Following your reasoning, the folks at WP:GOCE have violated WP:3RR many times without getting blocked. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It only applies if an edit war is occurring, which would be rare for editors who merely correct grammar. In this case, all the conditions for a three-revert violation were fulfilled by that last edit.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No; reverting is the definition of edit war. Following your definition of revert—removing or rewriting anything—WP:3RR has been broken by about 90% of Wikipedia's most active editors. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And you "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Unless you can cite another standard, you broke the three-revert rule. I'm not going to contest or allow your statistic; it's irrelevant. WP:EW applies to every editor.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that Wikipedia policies are written by infallible beings. They are not. They are the work of humans, which is why we also have WP:IAR. (Did I improve Wikipedia by fixing grammar there? I believe I did.) Let's quote WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If anyone took that literally, this would have resulted in a block: , , , . But the user who did those edits won't get blocked because of those edits, and I'm sure you know that. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your argument directly contradicts the text of WP:EW: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)..." But even then, your argument becomes even more inconsequential, and it is clear that you are merely toppling a straw man. The rest of that sentence I quoted reads, "the violation of which often leads to a block." I didn't say your action would lead to a block. I merely said that you "technically broke the three-revert rule." (Note that in order to maintain that what I said was false, this is the statement that has to be disproved.) The reference of WP:IAR compounds irrelevancy upon irrelevancy. Just because you can ignore rules under certain situations doesn't mean you are unable to simultaneously break them.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. You don't appear to mind my edits as much as my alleged sarcasm. Are you expecting an apology? When I said that "similar" is a common word, I was just pointing out why some of the article's information was added by me. I'm not interested in insulting anyone, and I can't recall insulting or mocking even vandalism-only accounts and sock puppets. I have no interest in offending you—that's just not my character. The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. I don't have to explain my true motives or make them obvious by my actions. Regardless of your speculations, I still found it immensely pointless, (for several reasons I did not mention), for you to have posted on my wall that mechanical response that's more appropriate for a bot. It was you who decided to contest my claim that you violated the three-revert rule. Your sanctimonious facade might have been more convincing if you used it as soon as I accused you of the violation. My behavior regarding these posts has been perfectly straightforward. You posted a canned response about a rule, (with the implication that I somehow might benefit from reading it); I implied that this is hypocritical because you violated a rule; we then both contested the claim that you did violate said rule. I haven't made it entirely clear why your original post to my wall was absurd, but it's perfectly reasonable for my to defend my claim that you violated a rule once you contradicted me. Assuming that you've made that concession, (or dismissed it as immaterial in contrast to your previous fervor in defending it), no posts of mine should now inconvenience your "work".--Herb-Sewell (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have deleted our conversation from my talk page. I was willing to keep talking to you, but not anymore, since you referred to my contributions to Wikipedia as "work" (using quotation marks). Considering I have taken a few articles to GA level and some editors have told me that they appreciate my work, I'd say your comment is not based on an examination of my 10,000+ edits (and I doubt you've looked at even 2% of them). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I can say without further offense that I find your response on my page incredibly bizarre. Of all the reasons that you could have suggested as one that would justify ending the dialogue, you chose the fact that I used your own term and put it in quotes? You said, The content dispute is over, and I'd rather continue my work on improving Wikipedia. I honestly thought that this was an unusual term to describe what most would consider to be a hobby. The fact that I put it in quotes can be interpreted in numerous ways, (see the section on quotation marks) and anyone may very easily question your sensibilities in your being perturbed by the mere placement of quotation marks. Apparently, you derived an entire statement to the effect of disparaging your sum total contributions to this website from my selective punctuation. You aren't saying why this caused such annoyance, but I imagine you made several assumptions about my intent. I must ask now who's violating WP:AGF?--Herb-Sewell (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit war with Toccata quarta (talk · contribs) on the page Concerto for solo piano. Please try to resolve differences through discussions. Thanks, and keep up the contributions! Bubka42 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Golden Ass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Herb-Sewell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 149.34.250.35. Place any further information here. Herb-Sewell (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This IP address belongs to Surfshark. Please disable your VPN and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wanted to make some changes to Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots#Plot: Old Snake doesn't visit Big Boss's grave. He visits The Boss's grave. Herb-Sewell (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting vandalism, so the three-revert rule does not apply here. So that means the assassin can give birth? is not a constructive comment whatsoever. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

How does that constitute vandalism, quoting Wikipedia:Vandalism if you would, since I looked over the page, nothing there seems to apply. Herb-Sewell (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:SOAPBOX material and needs to be removed. The article is about an assassination attempt, not whether "the assassin can give birth". ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Herb-Sewell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request should be opened at a time. Please don't create new requests to reply. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Herb-Sewell (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide a reason for your unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Herb-Sewell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I didn't mean for what I said to be personal attacks, as they weren't personally meant against anyone. To claim I wasn't here to build an encyclopedia is patently false, since I literally justified every change I made by referencing the style guide. This was my last reasoning, to which there has been no response so far: "Per MOS:GENDERID/DEADNAME, prior names are included ONLY if notable under that name, introduced with “born” or “formerly”. All contemporaneous RS + charging docs used the birth name (Reuters 6/8/22; AP 6/8/22; WaPo 6/8/22; DOJ affidavit). Reinsert a single, contextual “born (BLP violation removed)” on FIRST occurrence to satisfy WP:V/clarity. Avoid repeats elsewhere. BLP1E/BLPCRIME govern scope, not removal of accurate identifiers."Herb-Sewell (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The conversation below is, frankly. thoroughly unconvincing of any genuine understanding that the comments were entirely inappropriate. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You’re right that my earlier statements minimized the impact. I now state plainly: my language violated WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL. Though, I apologize to all editors affected.

For other admins. See edit summaries: Special:Diff/1315450776 and Special:Diff/1315427214. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Trannylovers can’t even follow the site’s bullshit rules lol and those with the most dedication/least lives are libtards, so trannies are catered to are very clearly a personal attack on other editors. And, the personal attacks were not the only reason that I blocked you. I also blocked you for edit warring and attempting to push your POV into the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Struck and retracting my earlier phrasing as intemperate. Per WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, discussion should stick to sources and style. The content question is narrow: MOS allows a one-time, first-mention parenthetical when someone was notable under a former/birth name, then use current name/pronouns thereafter. I’ll keep the discussion on that point and avoid personal remarks. In no way was I pushing any POV in the article as much as clearly and citing my reasons for changes. Furthermore, I literally was not edit warring, which wasn't happening since I was not repeatedly overriding anyone's contributions. The other person removed or changed the names, and I reverted it. Herb-Sewell (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Another admin will evaluate your unblock request. You also either didn't read MOS:GENDERID very closely or you're misunderstanding it, because the substance of your edits are also incorrect:

Unless a living transgender ... person was notable ... under a former name ..., the former name should not be included in any page ..., even if reliable sourcing exists.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID states: “Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable … under a former name … the former name should not be included in any page …” and “In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, [a] birth/former name should be included … only if they were notable under that name. Introduce with ‘born’ or ‘formerly’.” In June 2022, the subject’s notability arose under “(BLP violation removed),” per Reuters/AP/WaPo and the DOJ affidavit. Per MOS, I’ve restored one parenthetical—on first occurrence only—and removed duplicates to minimize harm while preserving verifiability.

Below is a long, detailed defense. It cites Wikipedia’s guidelines, explains the “even if reliable sourcing exists” clause, and argues why that clause does not override inclusion in your case.

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, the policy states:

“If a living transgender or non-binary person was **not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page … even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.”

“In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name … should be included only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either ‘born’ or ‘formerly’.” (Wikipedia)

That clause—“even if reliable sourcing exists”—is meant to protect privacy and prevent gratuitous deadnaming in cases where the former name never had public traction. It is a guardrail: if a prior name was obscure, unused in independent coverage, or not tied to the person’s notability, the policy prohibits using it merely because a citation exists somewhere.

But that policy clause does not mandate suppression of every prior name; it only applies in cases where notability under that name is lacking. The policy’s own conditional logic is:

If a transgender or nonbinary person was not notable under a former name → do not include it even if sourcing exists.

If a person was notable under that name → the former name may / should be included (in lead, once) with the correct phrasing (“born” or “formerly”) in their main biographical article. (Wikipedia)

Thus the clause “even if reliable sourcing exists” is subordinate to the notability test. It does not automatically negate inclusion whenever you have sourcing. The inclusion is permitted (or required under certain circumstances) if the person was notably covered under that name.

In your case, there is strong evidence that the subject was publicly presented and reported under that name at the moment of notability:

The charging documents / criminal complaint / DOJ filings identify the defendant as “(BLP violation removed).”

Major news media outlets (AP, Reuters, Washington Post, etc.) when first reporting the event in June 2022 do so under “(BLP violation removed).”

Because those independent, high-reliability sources used that name in relation to the event that established the subject’s notability, one can argue he was indeed notable under that name—thus satisfying the policy precondition for inclusion of the prior name in lead (with “born” or “formerly”).

Therefore, the “even if reliable sourcing exists” language does not override the inclusion when the name itself was part of how the subject became known. It only forbids inclusion in the opposite scenario—if the prior name had no public footprint in relation to notability. In short:

The policy is not an absolute prohibition on prior names when sources exist.

The policy establishes a threshold: only include a prior name if it meets notability under that name.

In your case, the threshold is met, so the policy permits (and arguably directs) a limited, first-mention inclusion.

Hence the policy clause you quoted does not justify wholesale suppression of the name in this case. The proper reading is: include once, only in lead, only when the person was known under that name in dependable sources—then use their current name thereafter.

If you like, I can also prepare a ready-to-post talk page argument quoting these lines exactly and walking through the logic step by step. Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Roske is not notable under WP:1E or WP:CRIMINAL. That's why she's covered in the attempted assassination article (which is notable) and not her own article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a standalone-biography notability/deletion consideration for low-profile people tied to a single event. It determines whether a person merits their own article or should be covered in an event/topic article. It does not prescribe how names are formatted inside an event article; name handling is governed by the Manual of Style (see MOS:IDENTITY and its shortcut MOS:DEADNAME), with general living-person safeguards in WP:BLP.

The controlling style text for this question is in the Manual of Style. Per MOS:IDENTITY (see the “deadname” guidance at MOS:DEADNAME), do not include a former/birth name unless the subject was notable under that name; where inclusion is warranted, introduce it once at first mention with “born” or “formerly,” and then use the current name/pronouns thereafter. For non-biographical coverage of activity that occurred before the change, MOS directs editors to use the current name as primary and provide the former name once on first reference (e.g., parenthetical or footnote) only if the subject was notable under that former name; avoid repeats unless needed to prevent confusion. (All of this is summarized at MOS:IDENTITY/MOS:DEADNAME.)

The often-cited line “…should not be included… even if reliable sourcing exists” in MOS:DEADNAME is a privacy guardrail against gratuitous deadnaming when a prior name had no role in notability. It does not override the MOS allowance where the notability-under-that-name test is actually met. In this case, the subject’s initial, independent national coverage of the event and the charging documents identified the person under the earlier legal name; that is precisely the kind of public footprint that satisfies MOS’s “notable under that name” threshold.

Accordingly, the narrowly tailored, MOS-compliant implementation here is: (1) use the current name throughout the event article; (2) at first mention only, add a brief parenthetical (e.g., “born (BLP violation removed)”) to connect readers to the name used in contemporaneous reliable sources and court filings; (3) do not repeat the former name elsewhere unless strictly necessary to avoid confusion. This balances WP:V (verifiability), WP:BLP’s harm-minimization, and the specific name-handling rules in MOS:IDENTITY/MOS:DEADNAME, while leaving WP:BLP1E to its proper role (standalone-BLP scope) rather than using it to suppress a single, first-occurrence identifier inside an event article. Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS, I’ve restored one parenthetical—on first occurrence only This is literally not true! It's clearly visible in the edit history, you restored 3 instances of her deadname, not one parenthetical. I'm not sure why you feel the need to lie about this. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to go through correcting all of them, and I meant to imply that could be a compromise. I thought it was more consistent to have the names even multiple times there as opposed to removing them entirely. Don't you think if I was trying to impose some POV, I would have preferred this edit? Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

My comments address content and policy. I reaffirm WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA and will avoid any wording that could be read as derogatory; if any was, I retract it. The underlying question is MOS compliance: former names appear only if notable under that name, once at first mention (“born”/“formerly”), then use current name/pronouns. Let’s handle this on the article talk page/RfC. Furthermore, blocks are preventative, not punitive—thus my retraction and commitment to civility help show prevention isn’t needed. Herb-Sewell (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

if any was, I retract it Are you denying that the above comments that I quoted were derogatory? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not dispute that my phrasing was intemperate; the point I wish to make, however, is narrower. My remarks were aimed—however maladroitly—at the application of sitewide policy and process, not at the character of individual editors. In other words, I meant to criticize an editorial approach in the abstract, not persons; that this distinction was not made sufficiently manifest by my wording is precisely why I have struck it. I recognize that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL govern irrespective of intent, and I accept that standard; accordingly, I retract the language, will avoid like constructions, and will keep further discussion to sources, policies, and article text. My objective is to build the encyclopedia, and I am content to resolve the underlying content question (the limited, first-mention handling of a prior name under MOS:IDENTITY/MOS:DEADNAME) through normal on-wiki dispute resolution rather than rhetoric. Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

My remarks were aimed—however maladroitly—at the application of sitewide policy and process, not at the character of individual editors. Bullshit. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Already struck and retracted has been the intemperate phrasing and redirected to sources, MOS, and diffs. At that point, the ordinary expectation applies.

From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."

So let us keep our eyes on the page, not the person.

From WP:TALK: "Comment on content, not on the contributor … Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating."

From WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. The following comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on … gender identity … or political beliefs … directed against another editor or a group of editors."

Judgments about an editor’s capacity move away from edits and toward people; policy cautions against that.

From WP:COMPETENCE (essay, widely cited): "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person."

On sanctions, the standard is preventive, not retributive; a course-correction matters.

From WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."

From WP:Administrators' guide/Blocking: "One critical point to remember is that we block users to protect the encyclopedia from harm; blocks should not be punitive."

Given that the disputed wording has been struck, apologized for, and not repeated, the preventive rationale is thin; what remains is article-work. The content question is narrowly framed by MOS:IDENTITY / MOS:DEADNAME: when (and only when) a subject was notable under a former/birth name, a single first-mention parenthetical (“born …” or “formerly …”) may be used, with the article otherwise employing the current name and pronouns. That is where I intend to keep the discussion.

If colleagues prefer a different reading, let us pursue it where policy directs—on the article talk page, with quotations and diffs—rather than through character assessments. Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive One person made a change you didn't like, and you immediately started throwing slurs. You claim it was "intemperate", but you managed to do it 3 times today. Does not seem to me you are able to edit in a non-disruptive way. Hate is disruptive. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I fully understand that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL prohibit personal attacks and slurs, and that disruption is measured by effect, not intention. My point is not to excuse the language—which I have already struck and retracted—but to clarify that the intent was not to attack editors personally. It was a poorly chosen expression of frustration about policy enforcement, not about individuals or any group’s worth.

As WP:NPA notes, “Comment on content, not on the contributor.” That is what I should have done, and that is what I will do going forward. Wikipedia does not define “personal attack” solely by the presence of harsh words but by whether the comment targets a person instead of their edits or arguments. I see now that my phrasing obscured that line and therefore violated WP:CIVIL’s expectation that editors “treat each other with consideration and respect.”

I have corrected this: the comments have been struck, I have apologized, and my subsequent posts focus entirely on sourcing and the Manual of Style. WP:BLOCK states that blocks are preventive, not punitive and “should be used only to prevent disruption.” Since I have retracted, ceased the behavior, and redirected to content, there is no ongoing disruption to prevent.

In short, I accept that my earlier language was inappropriate under WP:CIVIL, but it was not intended or repeated as a campaign of hostility. I am cooperating with policy, not resisting it, and will continue editing in a neutral, source-based manner to help build the encyclopedia.

"One person made a change you didn't like, and you immediately started throwing slurs."

Strictly speaking, this isn't accurate. I said "libtards" when somebody made edits I reverted, (edits actually quite consistent with my supposed "POV"), but ones I liked, calling them "based." Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep saying that *you* struck the language. @Voorts struck the language. You used it repeatedly, spread out over the course of 10 hours. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I was informed how it constituted a personal attack per WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, so I'm saying to "strike" it Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait, I was actually referencing that the edit summaries were deleted. Herb-Sewell (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Because they are generating their comments with ChatGPT or similar, so as is typical with such things it makes up a story that would be nice, regardless of whether it's true or not. Why they haven't had TPA pulled yet is an interesting question, but really there's no point in talking to this person. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No, damnit, it's because I had other things to do during the day and couldn't retain all the details about what happened😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think someone who can use the words you used but then says "intent was not to attack editors personally" and "was not intended or repeated as a campaign of hostility" is compatible with editing here. You aren't a 5 year old repeating words you've heard adults using that you didn't understand, you're someone who is clearly mature enough and given your editing patterns familiar enough with them to know what these words meant and how fucking offensive they were. IMO your only real hope to come back is per WP:SO. Stay away for at least 6 months and seriously consider what you actually said and come back with a proper appeal reflecting the seriousness of what lead to you being blocked. Because in the unlikely event some admin does unblock you, I'd be taking you to ANI to ask for a community ban. No editor should have to put up with the disgusting personal attacks you made and then to have it so trivialised by you when discussing it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly... this kind of thing has zero place on Wikipedia. This sort of behavior has to be eradicated and destroyed completely and IMO an editor who partakes in it should not be allowed to return via a standard talk page unblock request. Electricmemory (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

1. "Eradicated and destroyed completely" really smacks to me of neuroticism on your part, but that's just a personal remark 😒

2. Secondly, as I pointed out by implication in another places, actually in multiple places, this desire of a "final solution" isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy. Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Furtheremore, (backing up what I said, unlike other people here 🙄)as I said, elsewhere, the words I recognize were offensive; I have struck and will not repeat them. What I meant to convey (poorly) was frustration with process, not hostility toward editors. That may sound unlikely to you; it is, however, possible. Two points of context: (i) at least one instance was a revert where the software auto-prefilled the prior summary, carrying forward phrasing I should have retyped; (ii) a second instance arose from an edit-conflict retry that duplicated language before I’d cooled off and struck it. None of this makes the wording acceptable under policy; it does explain how “three times” can occur within a short window without a campaign to target people.

On conduct, our policies set bright lines and also instruct how to proceed once they’re crossed and corrected. From WP:NPA: “Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.” From WP:CIVIL: “Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect … behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.” I am conforming to those expectations now—comments struck, apology made, and further discussion limited to sources and style.

Once an editor corrects course, WP:AGF applies: “Assuming good faith means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle.” Continued character judgments—“not able to edit in a non-disruptive way,” threats to “take to ANI for a community ban”—shift away from content and toward the contributor, which WP:TALK cautions against: “Comment on content, not on the contributor … Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page.” WP:COMPETENCE (widely cited) is explicit: “Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack … Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor.”

On sanctions, WP:BLOCK: “Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.” Where the behavior has ceased and a forward-looking commitment is in place, the preventive rationale is weak. WP:UNBLOCK recognizes that blocks may be lifted where an editor demonstrates understanding of the issue and agrees to abide by policy. As for WP:SO, it is a commonly used essay, not binding policy; admins retain discretion to impose proportionate, preventative measures based on present risk. I will accept any narrowly tailored, preventive condition (topic-bound civility parole, 1RR on the page, or an interaction restriction) to make that prevention clear in practice.

Finally, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/WP:WIN: “Wikipedia is not a battleground … disputes are not meant to be ‘won’ but resolved by consensus.” I intend to keep to the content question alone: the limited, first-mention handling required by MOS:IDENTITY/MOS:DEADNAME where a subject was notable under a prior name, with the article otherwise using the current name and pronouns. If my "colleagues"🙄 prefer a different reading, let’s test it on the article talk page with quotations and diffs, not character assessments. Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT Electricmemory (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Fine 🙄 Offending wording has been struck and will not recur. The target was process, not persons; unlikely to some, yet possible. The “three” owes partly to duplicative mechanics (autofilled revert summary; edit-conflict resend). In any case, I proceed per WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL—content, not contributors. Having corrected course, WP:AGF obtains; competence/motive judgments cut against WP:TALK and WP:COMPETENCE. Blocks are preventive, not punitive; with conduct ceased and a forward pledge, prevention is satisfied. WP:UNBLOCK permits discretion; if needed, I accept narrow safeguards (page-bound civility parole/1RR/IR). Let us return to the bounded MOS issue (MOS:IDENTITY/MOS:DEADNAME). By WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/WP:WIN, consensus—not character—should settle it.

Is that short enough for you?😒

"Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short." --Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 1787) Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

And yes, transphobia and all other forms of baseless hate must be eradicated and destroyed. There is zero place for it in a civilized society. None. Electricmemory (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely neuroticism, lol. Expect NEVER to be satisfied in that way😁 But anyway, your political opinions are irrelevant, and I've already explained how what you want isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy. Outrage against transphobes, which you probably stab every day and night in your sleeping or waking dreams, are not to the point🙄 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

And there goes the unblock. Herb, if you can't see how that comment contains a personal attack, you aren't fit to edit Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

He's said the same thing about four other times on this page already. Electricmemory (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I was seriously hoping that he would actually change, but which you probably stab every day and night in your sleeping and waking dreams cemented the point that Herb simply cannot keep things civil. I would oppose an unblock at this point in time. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SO and an indef tban from gender and sexuality. This is beyond gross on so many levels. Electricmemory (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Also the routine conservative transphobic talking point of calling it a "political opinion". Electricmemory (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a personal attack😒 I'm not even saying that I said nothing wrong, only pointing out how ludicrous it is to infer from what I said that I want all trans dead, or something. Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Transphobia is not a "political opinion". And I've already explained how Wikimedia Foundation policy explicitly states transphobia is not to be tolerated. Electricmemory (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

For any admins responding to future unblock requests, see also Special:Diff/1315429211, where they use the slur to say they want trans people to die. Don't know how I missed this one the first time through, but this would be block-worthy on its own. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Is that not worthy of a ban or something? Seems far beyond just a block. Absolutely disgusting behavior Electricmemory (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Idk, why don't you actually do research of Wikipedia policy, like I did, instead of emoting😝 Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation policy is that transphobia is not to be tolerated, so right back at you there. Electricmemory (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That is completely unacceptable. Herb needs to stay blocked. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, that diff should probably be revdelled. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I left a message at voorts' talk page requesting a revdel. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR @Wasianpower Should this go to ANI or something? Electricmemory (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I understand why you feel that way. The words I used were wrong; I struck them and I won’t do that again—full stop. The question now is whether a continued block is preventive or simply punitive.

From WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. The duration of blocks should be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior."

I have already removed the language, apologized, and confined myself to content/policy. That materially lowers the forward risk. If prevention is the standard (and it is), an indefinite hold doesn’t fit the purpose here.

I accept the conduct rules without equivocation:

From WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

From WP:CIVIL: "Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect … even during heated debates."

I will abide by both. I’ve shifted to sources, MOS, and diffs. I get that it read badly—that’s on me—not an excuse. But policy also expects that once an editor corrects course, others treat that commitment as sincere unless there’s ongoing misconduct:

From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle."

Unblocking with guardrails is consistent with practice and policy. WP:UNBLOCK allows lifting a block when the editor demonstrates understanding and agrees to comply going forward. I’m willing to accept narrow, preventive conditions—e.g., a civility parole limited to the article/talk, a 1RR on the page, or an interaction restriction—so that if I slip, it’s instantly actionable. That is targeted prevention, not a blanket punishment.

We all want the same endpoint: improve the article. I’ve already refocused there and will keep doing so. If I breach again, reblock me. But continuing a block now—after retraction, apology, and a concrete pledge to comply—doesn’t advance prevention. It just punishes past words I’ve already undone. Becuase the risk has been addressed, the proportionate next step is to let me edit under the stated conditions, and judge me by what I do next, not by what I’ve has already been strucked. Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider giving you a second chance, with the unblock restriction of a topic ban from gender and sexuality. Like you said, you have promised that the issues will not recur, so I'm willing to give one final chance. However, you would have to abide by the ban from gender-related topics, and you would be immediately reblocked if the disruptive behavior recurs. Also, I can't do this myself since I'm not an admin, so you need to hope whichever admin reviews your next unblock request agrees with me, since I am often on the lenient side for unblocks. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJRSee below- this guy is claiming him saying he wants trans people dead was "just a joke". An unblock is absolutely not warranted at all. Electricmemory (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a way to AGF read that to imply that he was referring to not caring if the attempted killer died, as opposed to not caring if trans people die. It's still certainly unacceptable, but he has promised to avoid making further remarks like that, so I'd like to give him one last chance, with a TBAN in place to make sure he isn't in a position to make statements like that again. I am strongly opposed to all forms of hatred on Wikipedia, but I also support giving people one last chance if they promise to change. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The sole reason he has made that promise is because he suddenly realized he's actually risking his future ability to edit Wikipedia. The emojis, snark etc tell me he has learned nothing from this. Electricmemory (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention the other edits he was blocked from apart from this one. Electricmemory (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really remember those, but those were like years ago and pretty insignificant, lol

'The learned, the judicious, the pious Boerhaave relates, that he never saw a criminal dragged to execution without asking himself, “Who knows whether this man is not less culpable than me?"'

There's a better Johnson quote😒 let me see if I can find it🧐 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if I don't do it again, why does it matter? Am I to be punished for my supposed intentions? You have the tenacity of a Spanish Inquisitor😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you also complained about the emojis😒 I said I was sorry without them several times. Look at this face and tell me I don't seem sorry: 🥺 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be against this. I'm all for WP:ROPE in principle, but I would feel downright unsafe to see this person unbanned with the violence they've expressed. AGF is not a WP:PACT, etc. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Electricmemory (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

And what violence is that?🧐 Let's see more the a bare assertion without engaging in libel. Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you really have no shame in putting words in my mouth? What I said was pretty bad? I bet if I actually said, "I want trans people dead, 100% serious," you would claim then I wanted to personally torture every single one of them personally, perhaps invent immortality to make it perpetual😒 I'm not some monster! Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Um maybe, but would that include the article about Kavanaugh? If so, that seems like a pretty slippery slope, (unless there's some policy which determines this), or does any one trans connected with an article make that about that topic? Also, it's pretty questionable that my edits so far have impeded progress on that article, (we're talking about one change and a single revert, not including the changes I removing the male references). Furthermore, on this point, it wouldn't literally be about gender and sexuality, since it's about indicating someone's name with which they were born. You know, it might actually make sense to consider objectively the arguments I've made, pretty thoroughly referencing wikipedia policy in favor of my change, which had nothing to do with gender/sexuality/"lol, he's a guy"🙄 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Your "arguments" will not be considered. You are far beyond any chance of an unblock at this point, and if somehow you were unblocked I will personally bring this all right back to ANI. You have shown next to zero remorse for anything despite what you claim, and you are continuing to dig yourself into a deeper hole. Electricmemory (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It would allow you to edit parts of Kavanaugh's article that do not relate to the assassination attempt. It would prohibit you from making any edits related to transgender topics, including trans people. If you end up taking the standard offer and get unblocked in six months, you would most likely be required to accept this as a condition of your unblock. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't play nice, do you, just making shit up? 😒 Explain to me how what I said IMPLIES I want trans to die, or should I explain how that isn't the case? It shows a lot that, despite how abominable is what I did, it's almost always associated with wild exaggerations, which is a problem when people can just get by with bare assertions. Herb-Sewell (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The exact wording was "if nobody but the (Redacted) died, does it really count?", the redacted word being a slur against trans people. This pretty clearly implies that you don't see transgender deaths as significant. Even if that wasn't the intent, comments like that could easily be construed as such. We have a pretty low view of transphobia here on Wikipedia, motivated in part by our sizable population of trans editors. Using offensive terms and implying that you don't care if they die is very problematic. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I apologized, recognized it was derogatory and against policy, but at least you managed to fairly acucrately report what I said, (unlike the somoone else), but it doesn't actually imply that, since i was merely asking a question, and it was obviously a joke 😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It was not a joke when you said it, it was and is gross transphobia. Also, your other comments say quite the opposite of you understanding what you did wrong. Electricmemory (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The fact you're trying to say it was "just a question and obviously a joke" proves our point earlier. You don't get it. Electricmemory (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Somebody said something that was factually untrue or unwarranted and I'm correcting it. It would be one thing if I said, because it was a joke, it wasn't against policy, only refuting the interpretations given.

It's a pretty unfair this method of debating, where anything at all could be said of me, and becasue i correct statements whne they're not true, i'm to be attacked as perverse as if what i'm saying, while strictly true, implies something disavantageous to me😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You know damn well it wasn't "just a joke" when you said it. Can it. Electricmemory (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Um, I'm being 100% serious with you that it was a joke, which I'm not even saying as much of a defense😒 I think the "😁" would have made that clear🙄 Like, when Carlin said we should crucify bankers, do you think he was being 100% serious, or making a joke, considering he was a comedian, and doing standup when he said it?😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that analogy is that George Carlin was actually funny. You're just a jerk on the internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, jokes like that are highly unacceptable, and if you are to be unblocked, you should make sure you don't say anything like that again. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It's quite common for people like this to make gross comments such as that then try to claim it was "just a joke" after the fact. I really don't buy it. Electricmemory (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, they literally are joking, not saying something they literally mean, but it reveals a bigotry they actually have🫠 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes sir🫡 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you have preferred I say that you dehumanized trans people and don't believe their lives are valuable? I simplified that statement as I believe it speaks for itself. The little smiley face, the use of slurs, the dehumanization — yes, you clearly were expressing joy at the thought of a person dying. It's a sad excuse of a motte and bailey for you to act like you didn't know what you were saying. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer that, but the smily face suggests it was a joke🤔 So, better would be to say I made a "joke dehuumanizing..." I don't think the fallacy reference applies. It was claimed I said some things, and I clarified that I didn't literally say those things and that I literally didn't mean those things because I was joking, being deliberately provocative😒 Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Electricmemory (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING: Per Wikipedia:User pages#Blocked and_banned users, the purpose of your talk page at this point is rarely for anything other than making unblock requests. Yet, you continue to use this user talk page to insult and belittle people. This ends now. You can either make a legitimate unblock request following the recommendations at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks or you can continue to abuse the privilege of editing this talk page. If you choose the latter, your talk page access will be revoked. Please choose wisely. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you chose the latter, I have revoked your talk page access. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Herb-Sewell; in reply to your email; your referred to people as having neuroticism and implied they committed libel (which falls afoul of WP:NLT). I am not going to debate your actions with you and continue what went on for hours above. This ends now. You abused your talk page privileges, were warned about it, and lost those privileges. At WP:AN/I, it was asked to remove your talk page access. You were aware of that discussion for nearly an hour, and engaged in 13 additional edits here in that time none of which were unblock requests. Following my warning, you engaged in three more edits that had nothing to do with requesting an unblock, but instead continued the same pattern as before, while introducing an implication of libel. This was your choice. You chose poorly, and your talk page access was revoked. I will not entertain any further argumentation about the nature of your continued editing on this talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

was declined. Wikipedia takes a zero tolerance approach to WP:HATESPEECH. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't email me again. --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla: If they are abusing the email feature, you might consider changing the block to disable email. I noted in the section above, after they emailed me the first time, "I will not entertain any further argumentation about the nature of your continued editing on this talk page." They emailed again and did exactly that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Noting here for the record that they emailed me too, and I pointed them to UTRS. I advised them to wait six months for the standard offer, but it would appear they ignored that advice. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Email access revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)