User talk:Orca

Hello. Your recent edit to Abbeville, Alabama appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. The non-notable addition has been removed. Either write the article first or provide reliable sources for verifiability per WP:SOURCELIST and to demonstrate that the person meets the inclusion requirements per WP:LISTPEOPLE. A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: (1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement; and (2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Scottyoak2 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lordpaulorca! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 03:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lordpaulorca. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jimmy Rane, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lordpaulorca. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jimmy Rane".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@OrcaLord Thanks always for your map contributions, could you do Delaware maps next? It would be really great to see more detailed results for a much smaller state. Do you have any data to make for those maps and a base map to work from? Putitonamap98 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I will do Delaware in the future. OrcaLord (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

okay but do you have a svg precinct map for delaware and the data? i can make the maps in inkscape Putitonamap98 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not use inkscape to make the maps and I make the svg files with QGIS. Using inkscape would be extremely inefficient. Data for basically all of my maps that I post are from the voting and election science team at the harvard dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/electionscience OrcaLord (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I added some Delaware maps that you might want to know about:

OrcaLord (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey sorry, but what application do you use to see the precinct results? Putitonamap98 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? You go on the wikipedia page and click the image. OrcaLord (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to make a map for the 2016 elections in Delaware Putitonamap98 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I use QGIS. Here is a tutorial I made on how to map them out for Wikipedia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDG68ffWtM&t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpaBa-WHfXg OrcaLord (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing the 2018 TN Precinct map! If you want to, could you make a better version of the 2022 gubernatorial map? WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. I need to find a matching shapefile for 2022. Once I do I will make a precinct map for Wikipedia. OrcaLord (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yay! You do a lot of great work, thank you for making maps! WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem. OrcaLord (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

i need them ASAP. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 01:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of them are from the Voting and Election Science Team at the Harvard Dataverse. Occasionally I get results from state board of elections websites or county clerks, (for example, the 2023 Green Bay mayoral election results were from the Outagamie County Clerk) Redistricting Data Hub, (where I get most house results from) or other places. OrcaLord (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Aight, got it. Thanks! WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 14:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, OrcaLord.
I've noticed that you've made a lot of precinct maps for various elections both statewide and for specific congressional districts. If it's not too much trouble, could you try making a precinct map for the State Auditor's race in Missouri in 2018? If you could do that, it would be much appreciated.
Alongside this, here are some elections from 2012 that might be interesting to try mapping by precinct:
Missouri US Senate
Minnesota's 6th congressional district (Michele Bachmann)
Washington US Senate (I've been wanting to know how Cantwell won Yakima County)
Thank you,
PrusBis6187 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kline. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Elissa Slotkin, you may be blocked from editing. Don't assemble various sources to make a novel point. WP:SECONDARY sources are required to describe a politician's position, not voting records. And if you add a secondary source that does not name the politician, you are violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, if you look at the deleted section you can see that it is not just the roll calls but also articles linked as a source. Why did you delete my edits if they are linked to secondary sources? Also, the points that I am making are not novel points, these are parts of her ideology which fall under political positions. Can you provide further reasoning as to why my edits needed to be reverted, and if not can you please put them back? OrcaLord (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I can see that you replaced the part talking about Slotkin's anti-student debt forgiveness part, which was properly cited, with a pro-student debt forgiveness part. By doing this I am inclined to view your actions as more malicious than genuine. Please do not delete properly cited works of others that is relevant to the title simply due to biases. OrcaLord (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing good will come from you accusing me of malicious behavior.

You wrote that "Slotkin was the only Michigan Congressional Democrat to vote against an amendment to ban nuclear testing." You only provided primary sources, which means that you are performing your own analysis of the voting results—a violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet He do not priovide primary source, but I find one https://thehill.com/policy/defense/508206-house-votes-to-block-funding-for-nuclear-testing/ Do you think with this source it should be kept? 165.91.13.231 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a fine source. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the nuclear testing section with that source. Please let me know if it is okay and if any modifications are needed to be made. OrcaLord (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Love your political maps and appreciate the work! Heart (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

thx OrcaLord (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

How did you make the prescient map for va attorney general 2021 Jm33746 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I got the data from here https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=6174184&version=4.0 and used QGIS to map it out. OrcaLord (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you may have information about. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is OrcaLord. Thank you.)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 United States presidential election in Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding No consensus on UAW RFC. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Elissa Slotkin".The discussion is about the topic UAW Strike Quote.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

andrew.robbins (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to tell you that I really like the election maps that you make! Also, is it possible for you to make very detailed (basically precinct) of Canadian election? CGP05 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't do non-USA maps, sorry Orca (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I understand CGP05 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Results by winning party vote share in 2024 Nebraska legislature election please JNOJ1423 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can 2017 version for precinct map Jean Stothert vs Heath Mello, please. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=4931772&version=94.0…, https://votedouglascounty.com/elections/2017/General/LG17ResultsDetail2017-05-09.xls…, it has same as same 2021 one map but without the grey area please respond back. JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I was interested in making NYC election maps using the State Senate & Congressional boundaries. What is the shapefile you use for NYC? 02rufus02 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You can find all NYC related shapefiles here: https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/bytes-archive.page Orca (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:ExtendedSwitcher has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you can delete that, it doesn't even work properly. Orca (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to comment on the TfD listing, the closing admin won't look here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you very much for creating the precinct map for the election page. Could you please make a precinct map of the primary results? I think these are good resources for it, just change race to City of Seattle Mayor in the 2nd one: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2021/08/the-e-republican-line-mapping-2021-primary-election-results-for-capitol-hill-and-the-central-district/ https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/jason.weill/viz/KingCountyWAAugust2021PrimaryElectionFinalResults/Votesbyracedashboard Thank you! C. W. Edward (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I will do it when I get the time Orca (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! I have followed tutorials online to make maps using SHP files-> SVG files in QGIS/Inkscape. It has all worked, except for when I get the file into Inkscape, as the line thickness between the district boundaries is almost non-existent (compared to what it is/should be on Wikipedia maps made by others such as you). Do you know why that might be? 02rufus02 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I only reverted it since the admin said it doesn't count as a reversion. I am not edit warring, just restoring it to the status quo until RfC decision is made Orca (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

What admin? You don’t even agree on what the status quo is in the first place, and you’re calling names and bludgeoning the RfC. Walk away for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't call names... Orca (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Destructive editing" in more than one place - it's an argument about map colors. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't start the argument though Orca (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not a justification for bludgeoning the RfC and edit-warring. You can both wait until other editors have had their say. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 24 July 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.

Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I think it'd be helpful if you read WP:BLUDGEONING, which outlines how people are expected to conduct themselves during an RfC or other consensus-building exercise on Wikipedia.

Replying and countering every opinion that doesn't match your own in a RfC is not necessary. You've already made your position very clear and others are welcome to read it and factor that into their own opinion, but you don't need to attempt to sway everyone who has an opposing opinion. RachelTensions (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you fuck off since those people are violating WP:CANVASSING yet I don't see you criticizing them. If anything their comments shouldn't even be permitted on the RfC. Orca (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Orca, you are running out of opportunities to avoid a block for bludgeoning discussions and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Shouting "canvassing" is not the same as showing canvassing, nor is the arrival of other experienced editors evidence of canvassing, whether from the RfC notice or from Discord. If RachelTensions specifically solicited participation from a selected group of editors, on or off-wiki, that would be canvassing - merely mentioning that there is a contentious discussion is not. I don't know, since I don't use Discord, but you must back up your allegations with convincing evidence that specific POVs were directly solicited, not through mere mention of Discord. And while you may politely ask people to stay away from your talkpage, and while we don't block people merely for profanity, the overall impression I'm getting of your conduct is that it's disruptive, and you need to wait for consensus to develop. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok fine I'll stop. Orca (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please take note of the message I left in the RfC and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Orca. I just noticed the request at WP:CR got archived as I was writing a response, so I'm going to post it here instead. I will try to respond to each of the points you raised. I should clarify that I am not an admin, but I am open to adding a disclaimer specifying that for my closure in this RFC to rectify that.

I am not going to prescribe what colors should be used uniformly for the article, that would not reflect the no consensus that I found in the RFC, although I do understand and empathize with how frustrating this situation is. It might be best to leave the colors as is, with new diagrams reflecting the colors used in the sections they are added to. Reverting the colors in the infobox to the diff you shared might be considered disruptive to the consensus (or lack thereof) of the article, but changing the labels and Zohran's photo would be allowed. I recommend giving time for consensus to change/form before restarting the discussion on the colors. I purposefully avoided making this determination of colors in my closure because I felt that returning the article to the status quo from a no consensus would be too favorable to those supporting yellow for Mamdani who used the status quo in their own arguments. You are right that there is a numerical majority in favor of yellow for Cuomo, but as I explained in my closure, I felt that this was too close to establish a consensus, especially with a single vote swap that could have altered the majority or induce a tie, and that reason is what justifies my no consensus closure the most.

As you said, I don't believe that campaign colors represents any precedent to my knowledge, nor did I think any editor make such a claim. Upon reflection on the arguments made, I can see how the precedent argument is somewhat stronger that the campaign colors argument, but I'm still not convinced that it is strong enough to result in consensus with the result of the votes.

No one in the discussion justified the reasoning for the colors on June 7th, so I did not consider the reasoning you gave in my closure, nor does it change my assessment of the consensus in the RFC.

If you have more questions about what edits would be allowed per this RFC, do feel free to ask me and I can try my best to help figure out what would be acceptable based on the lack of consensus for the issue. Gramix13 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gramix13: so how can I get this resolved, do I have to start a new RfC? Because it really is ridiculous for two different color schemes to be on the same page and these arguments are not of equal weight whatsoever. Orca🐋 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Also the status quo was Blue Zohran Yellow Cuomo since that was what the original precinct and borough maps for the second and final round were on. They only altered my maps afterwards and claimed it was the status quo due to the color schemes even though they literally had to remake my maps to do it (you can see in the description they literally derived it from my maps, not made their own). Orca🐋 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I will not settle on this, the maps in the infobox must be blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo, or I am not going to upload any more maps to Wikipedia. So you need to let me know what pathway I can get that done by. This is not something I am willing to compromise on whatsoever. Orca🐋 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think making a new RFC would definitely be disruptive, especially so soon after I closed this one. Instead, I might recommend a closure review at the Administrator's Noticeboard by following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. However, you should be well aware of WP:FORUMSHOP before going forward with this, and I wouldn't be surprised if others view such a request for review as disruptive behavior (even if I can understand where you are coming from and how strongly you feel the need for this discrepancy to be rectified). Perhaps the safest approach is to just wait this out, give it say 3 months, come back to the article with a clear mind, and see if the consensus has changed or formed. Gramix13 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gramix13: 3 months is not enough, I need this rectified by the general election Orca🐋 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I can understand why there is urgency in needing this clarified. My understanding is that this closure only affect this article locally, and that it shouldn't affect the general election article. I don't see the need for consensus for the primary election to assist in the colors being used in the general election. If that still doesn't resolve the issue, and you really feel that this needs to be fixed sooner than later, then I think a closure review should be done at AN (following the guidelines I linked above). Gramix13 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Orca, this sequence of posts should not have occurred. The Wikipedia:Closure requests page is not for continuing a discussion that was started elsewhere (that falls foul of WP:FORUMSHOP), it is for posting requests for a discussion to be closed independently, and for the closer to then reply that it has either been closed, or explain why not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• the arguments for yellow Zohran are completely ridiculous
• I will not settle on this, the maps in the infobox must be blue Zohran, yellow Cuomo
• I need this rectified by the general election

I am not sure why you imagine that it is so essential that your opinion prevail in this discussion, but I perceive a clear and growing problem with your conduct. Whether you upload any more maps is a matter of indifference to the encyclopedia if you have no interest in respecting other editors or living with an outcome with which you disagree. Any further noticeboard filibustering may draw a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I do have an intention of going through the proper pathways. I don't think you understand how this is from my perspective as the original mapmaker. I took the time out of my day (hours, mind you) to make all of these maps, changing it to a more reasonable color scheme, and not only do people attack me for what the closer and a majority of people admit are a logical decision, but my maps get stolen and modified (not remade) into a version that I have been vehemently opposed to. I have added thousands of maps during my time on Wikipedia most of which is underappreciated, and to be treated like this when I have put in years of work on Wikipedia (not to mention training other editors on how to add similar maps to Wikipedia) is frankly ridiculous. Yeah, I am upset, but I am still doing it the proper way, and judging my anger (not towards others, mind you) as opposition to doing this via proper channels is wrong. I have not been mean to any editors, just expressing my frustration to the closer. I didn't mention any names and I was not hostile as of recently on any threads. @Acroterion: Orca🐋 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Umm, you do understand that any and all content you upload may be mercilessly edited, sometimes in ways you don't agree with? That you don't own anything once you've uploaded it? That it can't be "stolen"? I'm not unsympathetic, but turning it into a personal crusade isn't going to make anybody happy, most especially you. Really, I appreciate the work you've done as a long-term contributor, but you have to be able to let go sometimes and live with things you wouldn't personally do. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as you may recall, I was one of the editors who argued in the RfC in favor of your preferred color scheme. I understand and genuinely appreciate that you put a lot of time into making maps for this election, and I also understand how supremely frustrating it is to have other editors undo or modify those time-consuming contributions to produce a result that seems worse. But I want to gently encourage you, for the sake of your own long-term productivity as an editor, to take a step back on this one. Being the sole torch bearer of blue-on-yellow across talk pages and administrator noticeboards is both personally exhausting and requires community attention that could be spent making other kinds of improvements. (For the same reason, I also found the whole RfC unnecessary to begin with, and I suspect you agree.) Again, I appreciate that you are spending time and energy on this project, but for the sake of avoiding burn-out it is important that you spend it in a way that delivers a sense of accomplishment in article space rather than a sense of ill will in increasingly arcane administrative backrooms. Sometimes that means moving on to edit a different article, even if the one you want to focus on in the moment is not ideal. Einsof (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not moving on from this. This is an extremely important article to me and I will not let it go. Consensus favors me so I'm getting it fixed the right way. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What's actually going to happen if you don't let it go is that you are going to be blocked for disruptive behavior. You should consider your actions in that light: the choice you are making is not between "drop it and let others handle the issue one way or another" and "get your way", it's between "voluntarily drop it and let others handle the issue" and "be blocked". 173.79.19.248 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Module:ExtendedSwitcher has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that aside from original research (WP:NOR), privacy rules apply WP:DOB re Weaver. We run into that quite a bit and with people much more notable than Weaver. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

So then what do you expect to happen? Because by excluding the birthdate it's just getting rid of verifiably accurate information. That was why I left the source out originally. Orca🐋 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need not (indeed, in most cases should not) include every possible piece of verifiably accurate information about their subject, and exact birth dates of individuals are almost never biographically significant. Have you read the link WP:DOB? --JBL (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No question that modern online tools make obtaining probable DOBs much easier than in the past. Nevertheless we have good reasons to exclude, which are outlined in WP:DOB. I think that this particular subject is a prime example of why we don't allow birth dates when they are not available through secondary sources. She is only marginally notable. As I mentioned, even highly notable people who do not have well-sourced birth dates (some well-known actresses of advanced years come to mind) wind up with only speculative and approximate birth dates in their articles. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)