User talk:P. Musgrave

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:20070729 ne.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG 11:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Westboro Baptist Church Composition, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ViperSnake151. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the statement that Nick Shirley had propagated false claims about immigrants eating pets and Ukraine using US money to buy a Ferris wheel? Can you please restore it? V. S. Video (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Either you linked the wrong source to the statement or the information wasn't in the source. The NYT article you cited didn't mention Ukraine or the pet eating incident. If it did when you linked it, it may have since been removed from the article. Additionally, neither of those claims have been reported in any other source—I checked.

Given that the statement was augmented with an AI-generated image of Trump "saving pets from hungry Haitians" within the article (which has little to nothing to do with Shirley's biography itself), the statement seemed more an attempt to smear than an encyclopedic entry. WP:BLP is strict about what should and should not be included in an article, including information that could be libelous. If the NYT article removed the information because it was potentially libelous, that's all the more reason not to include it in this article. WP:NPOV is clear that editors must retain a neutral point of view, but particular caution must be paid to BLP. To wit: "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately without waiting for discussion."

If you still feel I am off the mark on this, please start a discussion on the Talk:Nick Shirley page so we can discuss with other editors. Until a consensus is reached, I will not restore the material unilaterally. P. Musgrave (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The Minnesota Star source says that: "He faced criticism for a video he filmed in Kyiv, Ukraine, in 2024, when he falsely implied that American tax dollars were used to buy luxury cars and install a Ferris wheel in the city."

The New York Times source says that: Shirley "roamed the streets of Springfield, Ohio, amplifying false rumors, spread by Mr. Trump, that Haitian immigrants there had been eating dogs and cats."

Do you oppose returning those statements with those sources? V. S. Video (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@P. Musgrave. V. S. Video (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, if you feel I am wrong please bring these points up on the Talk:Nick Shirley page to discuss with other editors. Personally, I believe that the content included in the "Political videos" section of the article illustrates the point that Shirley's credibility is questioned well enough, but if you insist on documenting these relatively minute additional details then it's something that should be done on consensus. However, I remind you that BLPs are not a tabloid or list of controversies and must be written conservatively.

Please remember this article was created less than 48 hours ago and is in a state of flux. It has been updated 85 times since that revision was made—and revisions have been made on top of those revisions. As Nick Shirley is a controversial political figure, it's important to be vigilant to ensure WP:BLP standards are being met, particularly as the article is in a state of flux during construction.

Future discussions on this matter will only be addressed on the Talk:Nick Shirley page. Please ensure your sources are marked (subscription required) for other editors. P. Musgrave (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I will explicitely note this is largely procedural, due to your involvement at WP:ANI#AcademicallyPerfect - A POV-pusher/using OR to justify adding their allegations into political articles. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information @45dogs. I've no intent of delving any further into the subject at this time but appreciate the primer nonetheless. P. Musgrave (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)