User talk:Simonm223

While 'Bioleninism' is a term frequently used by Neoreactionaries online, and Land himself has used it - I couldn't find a proper source explaining Bioleninism - you're right, and I apologize for all of that.

However, that same day I used proper sources to expand the section for 'The Cracker Factory', adding how Land uses Hegelian dialects to analyze The Cracker Factory in practice^[1], which Land talks about in that very same chapter. I also added a whole new section for 'Slave, Sister, Sexborg, and Sphinx' ^[2] which is Land's feminine metaphors for Capitalism and analysis of Patriarchal social norms ^[3] and I also added Moldbug and Land's criticism of Richard Dawkins under The Cathedral section. I would like to see those reinstated. ^{[4] [5]}Thank you Apallo334 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You are significantly over-using Nick Land, who is a WP:PRIMARY source for these WP:FRINGE political theories. You need to find reliable secondary sources to establish that such fringe theories are notable. Land mis-applying Hegel is just a Tuesday. I'd say more about how I think he arrived at such fringe interpretations but it'd be a BLP violation. The Hypatia source is good. Their criticism of Dawkins is, again, something where, as you are dealing with WP:FRINGE content, you need secondary sources to establish significance before just quoting them. So they have critiques of Dawkins? So what? So do I but I don't have my opinions on a Wikipedia page because they aren't really significant. Same thing with Land and Moldbug. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For teaching me a new word: Pretendian. Tiamut (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hah no problem. It's a serious issue within First Nations communities who have often had their right to decide who counts as a First Nations person overtaken by white-settler led states. If you like horror movies, the Mi'kmaw helmed zombie movie Blood Quantum explores the question of Indigenous identity in aome really crunchy ways. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't often share information like this, but I have tears streaming down my face. The consideration in your reply was deeply touching. It is rare to find in what is often a hostile editing environment, where a lot of people engaged in what I call "hate editing". Thank you. Tiamut (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I do really wish the PIA topic area was less hostile. I hesitate to involve myself in AE filings because I think the "vote them off the island" mentality makes this worse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The Dazed article makes mention of the Film 01 stuff in the Instagram story image. I will revert that specific edit, but please inform me if that is not reliable or if there's any issue with that. Aradicus (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

For your information Angelicism01 is a big figure in the Dimes Square scene. It seems he can't be added to notable people because he doesn't have his own page yet but I think given how many of these notable figures in the scene have been mentioned in the media enough there should be section redirects for brief biographies on them with reliable sources. Just because they can't have their own pages at the moment. It seems most editors rn think Dimes Square is just a neighbourhood and not a scene Aradicus (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

An Instagram caption is not RS compliant. And even if it were it would be WP:PASSING at best. You need to establish with reliable sources that anyone cares about some random New Yorker's indy film project. Simonm223 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Angelicism01 Film01 is literally mentioned in Artforum bro like https://www.artforum.com/columns/paige-k-bradley-around-new-york-252792/. Like how are people who don't know what Post-CoreCore Internet Cinema is policing pages about said topics? Aradicus (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not policing anything. I keep an eye on pages about far-right political movements and that's the source of my interest. I will review the artforum source when I have a chance but, the thing is, sources need to be in the article to be relevant. Please avoid personal attacks and also don't me bro. I am not a child. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There's not a single personal attack there. And bro is slang man lol. Fair enough if you are around the far-right movement stuff, a lot of the Dimes Square figures are in those spaces, but I've been mainly trying to add the figures who are artists in the scene and there seems to be some clash, there's people who are focusing more on the far-right / neighbourhood stuff, while I might be the only person looking specifically at the sources for the art scene, take a figure like Blaketheman1000 for example, who isn't connected to the far right stuff but has sourcing on how he is part of the Dimes Square music scene in Rolling Stone magazine: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/dimes-square-rapper-blaketheman1000-profile-1234623584/ Aradicus (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The artforum source is eminently usable and establishes this indy filmmaker as meeting criteria for inclusion on the Dimes Square page. Please go ahead with properly cited inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

As for Rolling Stone, that requires more caution per WP:ROLLINGSTONE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, btw I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive. Aradicus (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to say Thank you, I greatly appreciate you helping me and straightening some of the errors out. I have more and I am stumbling around trying to find out how to correct them, the into to the Jeff Stryker page states "a pornographic actor"... This kinda takes the wind out of the "Jeff Stryker character's sails"but I will work on that now... I do want to thank you for taking the time to review my BLP complaint and for the corrections you made to the Traci Lords, categories, and Legal Battles items.

I appreciate the work and help setting the record straight. Charles Peyton Charlescpeyton (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think it's important that bio articles be appropriately encyclopedic. And while that means accurate reflection of reliable sources is important, that does not mean the inclusion of extraneous salacious information with minimal sourcing. Thank you for cooperating with our COI regulations. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223. I want to thank you again for the help you gave me a few days ago, I have a lot of record to set straight. The current intro denies me the 40 plus years of accomplishments I achieved from that adult career springboard. I don't want to bury the Porn past, I am proud of where I came from. I just filed "a new edit request asking about the introduction to the article" and it was squashed immediately and mistaken for AI... I went to great lengths, spent hours wanting everything "sourced and referenced" as I thought was the way to do it. I did it, not AI, I was so disappointed. No question, I knew not to use AI, I didn't want to get blocked, I have a lot of work to do, step by step and I got slapped down from the start.

I went to such great lengths trying to make it perfect for Wikipedia. I followed every Wikipedia instruction to the tee. I used the exact format I was supposed to and I saw on other Wikipedia examples, starting with the {{request edit}} template. I do not see where I went wrong. I am sick with the work I put into creating that perfect page and then to have it dismissed as AI. Would you be willing to take a fresh look? I would appreciate it. I believe you can see that it is "human and done with care and investigation of every word used".

I searched out Stallone as he started in Porn too, wow then the references that popped up, all natural and all genuine. I have a lot to clean up after a 20 or 30 year absence from Wikipedia but like my page said, "Rip Van Stryker is awake". and no AI can be that clever to come up with something like that. I am preparing for the greatest projects in my career and all I am trying to do is show the true accomplishments and events of Jeff Stryker. Here is my posting and the squashing it got immediately and unfairly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Stryker#Requested_Edit,_Introduction_sentence_alteration_as_introduction_does_not_reflect_Jeff_Stryker's_diverse_career Thanks again and I hope you can help me, Charles Casper Peyton (User:Charlescpeyton) Charlescpeyton (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I was the one that collapsed the edit request (I only even saw this note because it was mistakenly written as an open edit request and showed up in the queue). There were certain tells in the text that were highly suspicious like machine-generated text often has, which I'm not going to mention per WP:BEANS. I get a lot of these, and it's possible I looked too fast. But either way, there was no concrete edit request that anyone could have acted on, so it's all kind of irrelevant. And really, nobody that has a Wikipedia page about them should ever have to worry about it. It's not a CV; it's not a means of self-promotion, or documenting every little thing a person has done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

BLP issues are not secondary to someone using climate change clippy. It's not a CV and we do follow sources but we should be alert to complaints of inaccuracy and Wp:ATTACK structures on BLP pages all the same.Simonm223 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. While I appreciate the thank for my comment on the other editor's page, I am concerned about your conduct as well. While I understand when other users are not conducting themselves well its easy to get sucked in (such as the back and forth tangent with Wh1pla5h99 on the move discussion), sometimes one must leave it be. Just as editors who are bludgeoning need to remember WP:SATISFY (it is not someone's job to satisfy another editor), the inverse matters too. If someone is repeating their point over and over, creating unnecessary tagents, or even just over commenting to the point it's bogging down the discussion, you do not have to satisfy them or argue against the constantly growing list of points and refutes. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm done. I'm quite aware that, if a single perfect academic source was presented that said "this specific executive order is persecution" they'd respond "oh but it's just one source". I agree with you there's no further point in arguing. I only really went back to bring up WP:USEDBYOTHERS regarding Lemkin. But, for the record, in the Executive Order discussion where I had the bludgeoning concern, there was no comparing the frequency of posting . Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I was talking about the move. Not so much the editorialising discussion. Glad you are aware. Unfortunately transgender topics tend to be a mess to discuss for everyone involved. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't touched the move discussion since May 16 and had no intention of engaging there further so no worries on that front either. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a bad faith accusation. Firstly, the frequency of posting is because I was finding and adding sources in a lot of consecutive edits. I think you know this. Secondly, no. You are importing beliefs about my motivations based on preconceptions that I suspect are unfounded. I literally have been posting up every academic source I have found, without fear or favour. And the next bit of work, which ideally will not be done by myself alone, is to read those sources and write the section in the main of the article, as per the talk discussion prior to your involvement.

But I am interested: why do you think I would wish to ignore what the best sources are saying? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not see the above discussion until I came here. This is not about piling on, so sorry for you to have to deal with two issues at once, but this is my own separate issue.

I would like to request that you and I limit all future discussion to content only. Please do not offer me any unsolicited advice, even if you think you are helping me. I understand we have some overlapping interests, so inevitably we are going to be editing some of the same pages. That does not mean you have to be so hyperfocused on me. Also, please do not make any references to me in your comments. For example, you may be doing this inadvertantly, but comments such as: "I'm explaining to you that..." sound condescending to me. It would be much more effective to go straight into the thing you are trying to explain without mentioning me at all. These simple things will help me to have a better experience editing here. Slava570 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You can ask me to avoid your talk page except for mandatory messages if that's what you want and I will abide by it. But if you say I'm saying something you see as synth when I'm actually explaining something that you appear to misunderstand and it's relevant to content discussion at article talk such as the "I am explaining to you" comment you are referring to, no, you cannot instruct me not to say that. I was literally telling you that it was not my POV opinion and was, instead, a summary of why different things are treated differently within reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for being late to the party, despite voicing such strong support for a deprecation/merger proposal. It's been a difficult week, and difficult circumstances for noticing and responding appropriately to project discussions. I've just lodged a detailed !vote in the thread. I don't know if it is likely to accomplish much to change the lean towards opposing a merger that's started to settle in, but I hoped to at least point out why I think some of those positions are in error and underappreciated the depths of the issues with the noticeboard. But in any event, I wanted to thank you for making the effort, and for a generally positive pattern of contributions to policy and community discussions of late that I have noticed. Not that this is atypical for you: I just happen to, by coincidence, been in a position to observe a lot of your contributions of late, and wanted to say I think you are hitting the nail on the head regularly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely. Simonm223 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Simon, this edit added a pretty big chunk of text using the |quote= parameter, most of which isn't needed to support the claim the citation is for. That kind of stuff, while innocuous, can constitute copyright vios (per WP:NFCCEG and lead of WP:CV). I cut it down to only have the part needed to support the text. Gotta be careful with these things, even when editing articles like that one, where I'm sure your attention is rightfully occupied with trying to comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and all of that (which you're doing a good job at by the way!) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that was my intention. Will try to trim more next time. Simonm223 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This comment at the reliable sources noticeboard was a completely false accusation against me. Next time you accuse me of something you were not involved in, at least take the time to do due dilligence. You did not even look at the talk page at Genocide definitions to see my interaction with the other editor, which was 100% collegial. You did not even go back into the edit history to see what the other edits looked like. You said I minimize Wikipedia discussing genocide as a unique category of crime This could not be more wrong. I was the one who was trying to make sure that genocide was characterized as a separate category of crime. This was not even the correct forum for such accusations against me. Totally unacceptable behavior on your part. Slava570 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest, as you have asked me to limit messages to mandatory ones only on your userpage that you do the same with mine. I am very tired of this situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

With that being said I struck the line regarding minimization of genocide in the off chance that I did in fact misinterpret that diff. Please feel no need to reply. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. This mean that if it happens again, my only recourse will be to the administrators. Slava570 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to talk about issues related to my Topic Ban in here? CuckooCorey (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one that imposed it nor am I particularly invested in it. I did some minor clerking on an article talk page. I would suggest there's probably nothing I can do one way or the other to impact your topic ban and your efforts would be better spent elsewhere. IE: on some other article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, at the very least I would ask you review @CopyleftEverything comment under the membership discussion as he points out that the Guardian source is WP:CITOGEN and there isn't a consensus. CuckooCorey (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

You are not permitted to discuss this now that you are topic-banned. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I should make my "no" clearer next time. Topic banned editors should not solicit others to edit on their behalf. Simonm223 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies your comment was caught in a revert. I was lazy and restored the last WP:XC version, but didn’t notice another user already reverted the IP at the same time. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. These things happen. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also didn't realize AA CTOP was EC only or I would have done the same as you rather than replying. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It is since 2023. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I know this is a month late, but I want to bring up 'The Cracker Factory' edit I made on The page for 'Dark Enlightenment' back in May you removed.

Nick Land talks about The Cracker Factory in his 2012 book simply titled 'Dark Enlightenment', the link I used - though probably not official or affiliated with Land or The Dark Enlightenment, was a chapter in one of his actual books. The sketchy link could've been what convinced you it wasn't official, which is understandable.

Would you agree with reinstating the Cracker Factory with a regular book citation link? Thanks ^[1] Apallo334 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed it on the grounds you were too dependent on reliableprimary sources, not on the grounds you used the wrong citation. Please read WP:FRINGE. Land is a fringe figure. His political philosophy, which includes elements of the bootstrap paradox as a justification for right-wing governance, is a fringe philosophy. As such the significance of any one of his fringe beliefs must be established by secondary sources rather than us just cramming the article with primary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the latest drama at AE and AN regarding a filing I made about a week ago in AE. I am fully supportive of the decision Sennecaster made and am satisfied with the outcome. I have no intention of participating in these discussions (I understand the AN one closed anyway). I generally try to avoid anything that may smack of grave-dancing and, as such, I am generally very quiet about the outcomes of administrative actions where I have provided evidence or feedback if they have resulted in individual sanctions against another editor. However I do have a somewhat off-topic observation that I think people would do well to think on.

There's a certain group of people who think that it's an "uncomfortable truth" that some "self-identified racial groups" score lower on IQ tests and this group of people attribute these differences in test-scoring to environment.

I want them to consider for a minute the possibility is actually that IQ testing is not particularly good at measuring intelligence in any meaningful way. IQ tests are garbage. Their outcomes say nothing about the intelligence of individuals (in fact they were not even intended for this purpose and were, instead, designed to compare the relative preparedness of individual students for a standard curriculum) extrapolating IQ out to act as a treatment for the relative intelligence of any group of people is an invalid use of a badly designed tool. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Would a better source be the 2021 census itself? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes.Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Would this work? Census of Population Lazarbeem (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a raw primary source page and it's not taking me directly to the specific dataset so I'm going to need you to be clearer about where this has a count of Canadians of explicitly European descent. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll do some digging when I have more free time Lazarbeem (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm not trying to be obstructive here. We just need to make sure we're using solid citations and I don't think a (very new) advocacy group that is specifically one reacting to tariffs under the Trump administration is particularly reliable for Canadian demography. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait can't we just use the source I put there alongside the census source? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The census source alone would be fine if you can point to where it actually says the information you want to cite to it. The URL you gave me did not. That's the problem. I have no objection to using the census as a source but you need to link to the correct information within it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Found the source, sorry for the wait

Religion by visible minority and generation status: Canada, provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations with parts Lazarbeem (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool. Remember to avoid WP:SYNTH when using primary sources and have at it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

i do hope op can help track these down though. Morwen (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone acquainted with East Asian culture I am somewhat amused, curious and concerned over this spirit's haunt of CBC you describe. I've only managed to find one (tame) such article at under the Life column. Is that the sole extent of the travesty? :-) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I just found the one. I mostly thought it was funny because, back before the whole Meng Wanzhou kerfuffle, Baijiu was pretty common in Canadian liquor stores and it was just something you could, you know, go and buy if you wanted to drink it. Then it got yanked off shelves due to Canada and China's worsening relationship and now is being reintroduced as an exciting new product. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit was your second revert. Remedying that would restore another 1RR violation, so I'm going to leave things as they are, but please do not violate 1RR again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot 1RR was on that page. Will not violate again. Do you want me to self-revert? Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No, because you reverted a 1rr violation so if you revert them I'll have to back to ask them to revert again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Lol OK I will leave it alone then. Simonm223 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Larry Sanger, who was blocked indefinitely for off-site canvassing over another issue at WP:SANGERBAN, also tried to dilute the Epoch Times RFC over whether it should be described as "far-right" by advertising it to his 96k followers on his rather conspiracy laden X account.

Also there has not been much scrutiny of single-purpose accounts per WP:SPA. User:ClifV had previously tried to push the same views, and was previously blocked and unblocked due to some unconfirmed sockpuppet allegations. ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I need you to agree that autocratic, authoritarian, autocratic regime, authoritarian regime, etc. are used interchangeably by a sufficient number of scholarly authors. I need you to agree that when the word autocratic, or authoritarian, is replaced with “anti-democratic,” or “illiberal,” the meaning of the term is not different enough to warrant removal from the page I proposed. I need you to agree that terms like anti-democratic toolkit are not sufficiently different as to warrant their own page, at this stage. I also need you to agree that the headers I proposed are fair use, not WP:SYNTH. Finally, I would like you to recognize the use of The Guardian, Human Rights Watch, Protect Democracy, and Amnesty as sources on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Authoritarian playbook Thalorin (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what? Simonm223 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I have five questions I'd like your opinion on, but please, keep the discussion on the noticeboard. Thalorin (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You can't show up on somebody's User Talk page, berate them incoherently about things that you "need", and then try to direct them to reply somewhere else as if they are the one picking the wrong venue. That thread is about an article that has already been deleted at AfD. I have no idea what the ongoing noise is about, as it is way beyond TL;DR, but I see that it has been going on for ages and there are a lot of people involved, not just Simon and yourself. If you want the article back then that should be raised as a Deletion Review. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh is this about the Authoritatian Playbook OR thing? That's over with. Article deleted. No further discussion required. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2/Evidence; private evidence may be sent to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org. Additional parties may be proposed during the first week of the evidence phase. Please add your evidence by August 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)