This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles the Arab–Israeli conflict climate change the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Regarding this exchange, and because we haven't found any trout yet this year, I hereby whack you with this lobster. Fill yer boots, bud! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinchy and delicious. (And hey, Mr. Seafood is just down the block.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been meaning to tell you, it's MR (initials) Seafood, not Mister Seafood. I don't know what the MR is though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here I've been calling it Mister Seafood like a chump for a year! Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind suggestions. Hope sweet pastry is your thing! :) Ltyl (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cup of tea to go with you baklava. Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your commentary on Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, I think that really help clarifiying the issue. Now its more clear to me what kind of sources would be needed to make a clear case. Maybe these sources exist, but I won't bring up this topic in a time. I understand rules needs to be harsh on conspiracy theories or else it would be very exposed to promotion.

Regarding the Pinochet article I am unhappy with the first part of "Ideology and public image", it seem to me a collection of straw remarks with no good prose that unifies into a readable narrative. I have myself contributed to it, having added plenty of material in that section but not found any easy way to merge it all into a good text. I also think that if the section is going include selected opinions there should be some sympathetic ones also. Given that you seem interested in the topic but have a different approach on editing I will comment in the talk page before making further changes. Dentren | ^Talk 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With a contentious historical figure like Pinochet, it's always best to discuss first and edit later. This is especially significant considering how he's lionized currently in certain sectors of the far-right. Giving an accurate neutral and scholarly historical account of the dictator is especially relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies for errasing over 140,000 bytes of info in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) article. A accident with the spacebar on my keyboard errased all the content of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These things happen. No worries. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want my block of 140george (talk · contribs) to appear as if I was preempting your warning. I was convinced they were using article space to work off some frustration and would not stop. Thanks for all your efforts Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. (TBH I'd forgotten you were an admin, and was mostly warning them that I'd be going to AN/I if they continued - your block seemed appropriate.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...for taking the step of restoring the disputed material to Right-wing populism; it will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I think that I've become something of a personal lightning rod, so I'm inclined not to continue to get involved with the discussions about it. I will, however, monitor them to see if they're any more productive than past discussions have been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not long. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, this attempt to have Wikipedia point out the very real ties between the resurgence of fascism and the rise of right populism is going to have to wait until more of the pro-far-right populist crowd pulls blocks probably. For myself, I'm getting fatigued dealing with this nonsense daily and am trying to step back from Wikipedia a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simonm223, while I understand that the Prager discussion boarders on climate change your warnings posted at my talk page do seem a bit like intimidation. I've hardly touched on the subject. Regardless, your RSN suggestion was good and I think things should go there. Springee (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. My edit was about climate change. I'm arguing PragerU is a fringe source specifically within the context of it being a climate change denialist outlet. The last time you were notified about Climate Change sanctions was in 2016 by HughD. This was purely administrative and there was no intent to intimidate. In fact, if this discussion goes vexatious, I'd have been remiss not to have warned you as you don't have the ds/aware template on your talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Human Rights Tribunal was pretty harsh in its decision against her, including a $6,000 fine. They said she weaponized the human rights process as a means of extortion. It's now an important precedent in Canada [1]. I think this warrants more than a couple of sentences in wikipedia. You've been fairly vocal about keeping this out of the project. What are your thoughts now? Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really think we should entertain TERFs using Wikipedia as a platform to weaponize one person's over-reach with a human rights tribunal. Nor did I ask you to reach out to me on this matter. My position on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS remains the same. Please kindly don't post here again on this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My finger slipped and I clicked archive entirely by accident. I deserve all the trout but I was not intending to edit the page in any way, I certainly wasn't trying to archive an open Arbcom Enforcement case. Oooops. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how to mention users so they get notified automatically, so I'm leaving a comment in your talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Call-out_culture#Obama's_view - Sridc (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I added an intro in my userpage just so you don't have to need to speculate where might come from. I understand that I'm new to editing Wikipedia with its rules, and therefore will be continuing to learn it, but at the same time it feels like I have to fight hard to get even *reasonable* changes included (the Haidt one being a great example). - Sridc (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've completely revamped the article Police misconduct allegations during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Can you please take a look at it and remove the NPOV tag if you think it's ok. Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI. I mentioned and quoted you here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found this. Reported it to WP:UAA [2]. Should be blocked soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you were inactive since January, so I hope that all is well. —PaleoNeonate – 13:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. Just kind of sick of Wikipedia's bullshit at the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if it'll stick but I felt like jumping back in mostly to do some work on continental philosophy stuff. (And to bang my drum about stricter use of news sources as WP:RS) Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simonm223. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anti-communist propaganda".

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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!} 16:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that been involved with (Chinese lists of cults) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of Chinese new religious movements). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am unclear as to what you are opposed to in my proposed edit that you request a citation for. It is self-evident that before the American Revolution the British monarchy and aristocracy was the political system in power. That didn't change until after the Revolution. Therefore, after the revolution liberalism flourished because monarchy and aristocracy were no longer extant. Shoreranger (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it changes the context of a cited source in a way that strays into WP:SYNTH - I thought I made that clear at article talk.Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: this editor hasn't edited in 2 months and hasn't edited Uyghur genocide ever as far as I can tell. Why did you post this here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't noticed their edits in the space until now, the restriction is not just for the specific page but for the wider issue which Simonm223 appears to be involved in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Simon!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Simonm223, if it wasn't for your contributions, I'd consider speedy deletion due to all significant edits having been topic ban / restriction violations... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is far more on that specific page than I feel up to the task of piecing out but getting some discussion at the talk page would probably be a good start. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I wonder how the situation would look like if you replaced your contributions by an addition of ((db-g5)). I think I'd perform that. I was mostly here to throw that idea into the room. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Tamzin had less scruples. It's already done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not refer to other users as "parochial Americans." This goes against the civility policy, and I am not going to explain this a second time. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not referring to any specific American as parochial but I find American culture, in general, to be deeply parochial, IE: having a limited or narrow outlook or scope. I also think poorly of people who use the bludgeon of etiquette to avoid ever hearing anyone dislikes their positions or outlook. So do kindly take your complaint elsewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll admit that I was too harsh, and I do apologize for any offense I might have caused, but I will state the discussion is not about the quality of U.S. culture -- it is about whether or not one person is more notable than another. Personally, I do not think that how "parochial" U.S. culture should factor into this at all. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]