User talk:SNdeC

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 14:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Domitian. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Wikipedia runs off consensus. You continue to make edits which run contrary to it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Holbech. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Laun chba ller 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently "appear" to be vandalizing an article and crippling valuable information for no reason. It's not me who should "collaborate", it's someone else who should be recognize its absolute value and there can be no consensus on what's obvious. SNdeC (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added does not belong on a disambiguation page. Also, courtesy ping to @Praxicidae:, who also reverted you.--Laun chba ller 14:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a disambiguation page, it's a page on the subject of the surname, like so many I've seen on Wikipedia, that's what both of you don't want to accept. SNdeC (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairer point, although a) it still shouldn't be on the same page as the list (e.g. Spencer (surname)), b) you shouldn't have reinstated the edit after being reverted, and c) there's no way that should be only one paragraph. Let's try this again - pinging @Praxidicae: this time.--Laun chba ller 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's as it goes on Elliott. It was wrongly reverted on false grounds. More than one paragraph still isn't justified. SNdeC (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Family of Pope Leo XIV, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all over the site's pages. If someone wants to use them, just has to take them from there. SNdeC (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNdeC, please read the following essays on what qualifies as a valid source to use on Wikipedia: WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR and WP:USERGENERATED. All sources must meet these standards. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The official records mentioned on a user generated source are neither original research nor unreliable. SNdeC (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are, however, WP:PRIMARY. The reporting the the NYTimes article was excellent secondary coverage. That type of information is what is needed. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No newspaper can cover an entire genealogy. And that primary rule leaves lots of information out for no reason. SNdeC (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Using primary sources, especially for genealogy, relies on experts making connections that are not explicitly there but experts are able to deduce and report on. Such research done by experts can then be reported on in reliable secondary sources. For example, there was a source indicating the birthdate of the pope's brother, Louis Prevost. However, even if we know that someone names Louis Prevost lives in that area, we as Wikipedia editors cannot make that assumption that he is the proper Louis Prevost. That is original research from primary sources and is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Especially in an article like this that there is some traffic on as people are curious about the Pope's heritage, all sourcing must be impeccable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation presented by the website is blameless. SNdeC (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is excellent. Anything beyond that will need further reliable secondary reporting. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That means throwing away valid data. SNdeC (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an indiscriminate collection in this case, it's an objective and structured genealogy. SNdeC (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what genealogic websites and databases are for. But not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia based primarily on reliable secondary sources and does not claim or aim to contain all knowledge. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales said he wanted all the knowledge in the world in Wikipedia. Ans it's not all knowledge, it was some, with the respective external link. SNdeC (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales is not a dictator and arbiter of what is or is not contained on Wikipedia. WP:JIMMY ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is he doing here? What is he good for? "Let's build an encyclopedia! You do that!..." SNdeC (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Galba. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NebY (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not warring, it's countervandalism. It's worse that someone deletes truthful content than the fact that the one trying to restore it is warring against that someone. SNdeC (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning - see WP:VANDALISM, particularly the introduction and within it, WP:NOTVANDALISM. Your edits do not qualify as exempt under WP:NOT3RR. NebY (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Dugal

added a link pointing to Dugald

Edward Nevill, 8th Baron Bergavenny

added a link pointing to Canidelo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Do not add external links to an article unless the article's text and sources justify it. For example, if an article doesn't say anything about a person's sexuality, then it shouldn't have any ELs about their sexuality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

Hello! Please do not categorize biographies as belonging to any sexual category when there is no reliable evidence, only speculation and guessing, not to say gossip (which sells books and tabloids)! Stating that such an article "says" someone is this or that does not make it so. Sexual preference should only be included in biographies if it (1) has been declared by the subject h-self and (2) is relevant to the life story. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITWAR; WP:BRD

The recent edit you made to Beatrice Lillie have been reverted. Please do not WP:EDITWAR. Instead, once your edits have been opposed, WP:BRD, if you wish to pursue the matter further, then open a discussion on the article's Talk page and try to raise a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your views. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor obviously ignores warnings like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. SNdeC (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 (2)

We do not do this sort of thing. We discuss on an article's talk page to achieve consensus. Consensus cannot be achieved by arbitrary editing with edit surmmaries. You have been warned before, I see, and now I can only try to help by telling you frankly that during the 16 years I've been logged in, I've seen many users blocked for this specific behavior. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. SNdeC (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry. Instead, per WP:BRD, use Talk pages to make your proposals and discuss sources and evidence. That way you can discuss sources and article development with ALL the editors interested in an article, and it will help you avoid bad mistakes like edit warring over someone's sexuality when you haven't even checked the source that you are citing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the apology you continue to engage in the same behaviour in other articles. If a category has been disputed you must go to the talk page and try and resolve the dispute instead of re-adding it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where? If you mean the LGBTQ categories, the ones that were deleted were the ones that stated as an absolute truth that the biographed were such, I merely added categories that stated, based on the article itself, that they were suspected of being LGBTQ. That's not disputing nor readding, it's accepting what was told and adjusting the categorization to that. SNdeC (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to seek consensus on the article talk page and you have ignored that instruction. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to seek consensus. If I wanted to readd a category not sustained by the text I would have to seek consensus, but, before the lack of evidence, I added a more appropriate category instead, one that refers to the doubt about the facts, leaving the issue of certainty to the experts on the matter, discussion in which I don't wish to get involved for manifest lack of knowledge. If they reach a consensus over a certainty, then that category shall be added. If we don't have a certainty, I merely add a category that states a mere possibility. SNdeC (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to be hopeless when it comes to arbitrarily category-labeling people about whom speculative literature "stated as an absolute truth that the biographed were such" or "that they were suspected of being LGBTQ" (?? hardly the same things). We may have to block this user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not arbitrarily, if the text sustains in I had a corresponding category, which might be a Category of certainty or of possibility. It's not the same thing and I make that distinction. When you don't agree with people even if they're right you threaten with blocking... SNdeC (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in placing categories about sexuality on the bios of people - "of posssibility" or for any other reason - does not improve this project, and, what's worse, your interest in arguing with each of us experienced editors who are trying to give you good advice, and constantly talking back to us, is not in your own best interest here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category was created for the cases of mere possibility and it does add to the project. In any case, what matters isn't so much the experience but the knowledge over the matter, and if and when someone proves something based on actual works, I always give in. SNdeC (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your incessant interest in labelling people's sexuality and your constant talking back to helpful editors are both quite disturbing. Clearar? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing on something you dislike isn't disturbing, that's not something that should be taken into account in a project! And I don't talk back, I merely reply to the issues lifted, you don't know in which tone I'm doing so. SNdeC (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Papal name

added links pointing to Pope John Paul, Pope Adrian, Pope Agapetus, Pope Urban, Pope Gregory, Pope Leo, Pope John, Pope Paul, Pope Stephen, Pope Pius, Pope Benedict, Pope Clement, Pope Alexander, Pope Innocent, Pope Victor, Pope Callixtus, Pope Lucius, Pope Sixtus, Pope Felix, Pope Marcellus, Pope Sylvester, Pope Damasus, Pope Anastasius, Pope Boniface, Pope Celestine, Pope Gelasius, Pope Pelagius, Pope Martin, Pope Adeodatus, Pope Julius, Pope Honorius, Pope Theodore, Pope Eugene, Pope Paschal, Pope Sergius, Pope Nicholas and Pope Marinus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for disambiguation of links where there is more than one person and the link points to the dab page (as on Papal name) is set out at WP:INTDAB.— Rod ^talk 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]