I appreciate your edits on the page but I would suggest a small wording change to be more specific "one of the inscriptions". Since there's not multiple, I think otherwise it over-represents the evidence which is already very weak LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. Psychloppos (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're working hard to keep the article clear perhaps your like to fix this nonsense POV edit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=1311920013

Thus is an extraordinary claim and the source cited says no such thing. 2001:8F8:1B69:ADD:DCD8:1447:CFF0:978F (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa ! Indeed, the source says no such thing. Thanks for the heads-up. Psychloppos (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay A. Several of the sources at the end of the sentence have Conservative figures calling for action against the trans community, I do not know what urls you are reading but certainly not those. B. The sourcing at the end of the paragraph also says as much. Snokalok (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: hi. I looked at the two sources pointed out by that IP and they said no such thing. It was mostly about some vague and confusing statement by Trump answering to a question about the rainbow flag. I have no doubt that some lunatics have been proposing nonsense crackdowns, though, but we should not infer that extreme measures are about to be implemented. Could you please let me know which sources you have for this ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MoJo source at the end of the paragraph has Nancy Mace, Donald Trump Jr, Megan Kelly, and Laura Loomer all quoted.

The Common Dreams source has a congressman calling for mass incarceration while Trump weighs a pride flag ban. Now you can dispute the reliability (or at the very least the impartiality) of Common Dreams, but the source does say that. I've also added a more trustworthy Advocate source to a similar effect. Snokalok (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: I just had a look. Nancy Mace said "It’s out of control, and enough is enough, and I’m going to double down on this." which, let's be fair, is not very precise. The others put the blame on "transgender ideology", trans radicals, and so on. The most precise one is Laura Loomer who advocates designating the "transgender movement" as terrorist and says " They need to be socially ostracized and the President should make medical transitioning ILLEGAL in our country".

I have no idea if Common Dreams is a reputable source but regarding the Pride flag, Trump was his usual vague self.

While I do agree that some hardcore conservatives have been putting the blame on transgender people as a whole (and in my humble opinion, this is bad), we cannot afford, based on this, to write that "prominent conservative figures [called] for further action against the trans community, including banning pride flags and incarcerating all transgender people en masse". While Laura Loomer is notable, calling her simply a "prominent conservative figure", conflating her with more moderate figures and suggesting that "conservative figures" in general are advocating that would be misleading. The same thing could be said, to some extent, about Ronny Jackson, who is advocating not mass incarceration but mass institutionalization of people whom he says are mentally ill. While I agree that this is pretty extreme, we can or say that "prominent conservatives"in general are advocating this (at least, not yet: let's hope it stays that way).Psychloppos (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd counterpoint that Laura Loomer and Ronny Jackson both count as hard, explicit calls for action, Trump saying he wants to ban pride flags in the wake of this because it "makes people feel threatened" likewise is an action against the trans community that he is explicitly advocating, and that Nancy Mace's "It's out of control, enough is enough" is an implicit call for action that, combined with the others, makes for enough to say "prominent conservative figures called for" Snokalok (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: once again, I do agree that all this is pretty bad. However, Mace (and even Trump, to some extent) are just too vague in their intentions. We can't elaborate on something so "implicit". While Loomer and Jackson's positions are undeniably hardcore, we can't infer from them that there is going to be a vast coordinated crackdown on trans people as a whole from the Trump administration, let alone "conservatives" as a whole. Maybe it will happen but we can't predict this. This is not to say, of course, that we musn't stay alert on what is being said and done. Psychloppos (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there is going to be a crackdown, nor does the text I advocate predict this. What I'm saying, is that action is being called for. What that action is, who knows. It could be a gun ban, passports, or yes full incarceration. But it's being called for. I'd also say that President Trump advocating a ban on trans-related symbology in response to this assassination is sufficient to say that he called for action against the trans community. Likewise, I'm not saying that Mace called for incarceration or a pride flag ban, just that she called for action. The "including" there refers to Ronny Jackson and Donald Trump, but obviously any reader will be able to take away that different conservatives advocated for different actions.

We could perhaps use the stronger "right-wing" instead of "conservative" Snokalok (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: I don't know, even right-wingers as a whole cannot be conflated with this kind of rethoric. I wouldn't say that Trump has been "advocating a ban on trans-related symbology". He just said something about the rainbow flag (which is not even limited to trans people: it's also about gay people) which was just too vague and disjointed to be even considered a declaration of intentions. Until Trump really announces concrete and precise repressive policies, we must remain cautious and keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. Psychloppos (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we need that threshold. We’re not saying in the article that they introduced or formally drafted any specific policies, just that they called for action - broadly construed, and some of them called for X specific action. I think the sources support that wording perfectly well enough.

Also, to your comment about this not being representative of the right wing, I have to ask what would you consider representative? This is no longer the Bush Era, the Republicans aren’t defined by their economics or whatnot anymore, “Kamala is for they/them” was the most effective ad of the election. At the risk of being called hyperbolic, I’d say that characterizing transphobia as something the right wing can’t be conflated with would be a bit like saying we couldn’t conflate the Nazis with antisemitism. Sure, the Nazis had other policies. But we know what they valued most Snokalok (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: while the trans issue is certainly a subject of controversy, it is highly debatable that being a Republican, a conservative, or even right-wing, is now mostly about this. This certainly motivated some people to vote for Trump, but there were many other factors to his election. Nor can we let readers infer that Republicans plan to do to trans people what the Nazis did to Jews. Some Republicans may want that, mind you, but this is like saying Democrats only care about implementing gender-affirmig surgery for pre-schoolers. Psychloppos (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again, our difference comes from you making the jump to me pinning specific actions yet to happen on them. I'm not. What I'm doing is saying that they've made trans people central to their messaging and platform the same way the Nazis did with Jews. That's already happened. All I'm doing is writing about things that have already happened. Snokalok (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they're running out of late-night talk show hosts and comic book writers to cancel so I imagine the Conservative media machine will probably be moving on to other matters soon enough. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: well, me too. But then we will have to wait for the trial, and so on so I'm afraid we're not done with that stuff. And maybe we will even have a "Charlie Kirk Act" about something and this will go on non-stop on for months and months (let's hope not). Psychloppos (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: me too. Asides from the horror of the murder itself, I'm already starting to experience what could be called "Charlie Kirk fatigue". Psychloppos (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Survived Kirk

Congrats, you survived the Charlie Kirk move discussion. Thanks for all you've done during this time. Wear this shirt with honor. Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 17:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Babysharkboss2: thanks. To think that one week ago I could barely tell apart Charlie Kirk from Steven Crowder... Psychloppos (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Certainly deserving, but why blue and not red? kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Why red? Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 03:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Dunno. Because Kirk was Republican, maybe ? Psychloppos (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Blue Business Shirt.jpg is blue. Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 12:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yeah. Maybe kencf0618 meant that a red shirt would have been more appropriate ? Anyway, since blue - leaving all political references aside - is my favorite color, I don't mind. Psychloppos (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I thought it was a thinly vieled reference to his death. Either way, I just used Blue Business Shirt.jpg, which is blue. My favorite colors are black, red, and the third color fluctuates depending on the day. Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 12:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, I hope that was a reference to the Republican party as I assumed, because it would be nicer than alluding to gore. Psychloppos (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Red Shirt is a ST:TNG trope. I haven't the skill set to work up a Barn Star for y'all, so-ooo... User:Kencf0618/Userboxes/Assassination of Charlie Kirk Alumnus kencf0618 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Ok, forgive my ignorance. Psychloppos (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really trying to direct the comment about the George Floyd comparisons at you in particular, FYI. I've seen it rather a lot on Wikipedia in the last while, mostly from IPs. But, considering the general tone of Kirk's entire career with regard to race in America in general and George Floyd, as a person, in specific, I find that specific comparison, in particular, really rankles me and your comment happened to be the one where I was like, "can we not?" But it was much more a "we" statement than a "you" statement. I hope this makes sense. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: I'm not looking for any sort of controversy here. Charlie Kirk and George Floyd were of course very different persons, and their murders occurred in different contexts. What they have in common is that they are pretty recent, that they occurred in the United States, that the murders were filmed for the whole world to see, and that both had huge political repercussions, disproportionate to the victims themselves. That's all. That, and of course the fact that there were so many reactions and consequences being documented on Wikipedia that it required splitting the pages. Psychloppos (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was more writing here to say I was also not looking to stir up unnecessary drama. Just wish that we could find some other comparable to use in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: honestly, I feel that this is the comparison that comes to mind most naturally. I even heard several unrelated people commenting that Kirk's murder could be described as basically "George Floyd in reverse". Psychloppos (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you realize how naive and ill-informed your last two comments about foreigners and immigrants sound:

(1) "I may be wrong, but I tend to assume that most foreigners, especially illegals, would tend to just not care at all about him [Charlie Kirk] (assuming they even were aware of him before his death, that is)." [1]

(2) "I wouldn't speculate about immigrants, notably illegal ones, being more intelligent than American citizens (or less intelligent, for that matter) but my assumption was simply that someone who comes to a country to work - generally in underpaid, difficult jobs - and may not even know the language of that country has other things to worry about than the latest political shenanigans."[2]

I'm not going to try and educate you. I did provide a source for my statement:

"Many are more intelligent, better informed and far more willing to have meaningful discussions of politics than U.S. citizens." [3]

If you want to try and find a good reliable source that echoes your negative views of immigrants and foreigners, feel free. Maybe you'll learn something from that search. Or try to meet some immigrants and foreigners and discuss it with them. You might be surprised by what they have to say. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: whoa there ! I told you that you didn't have to answer me, as I wasn't seeking debate. And I don't need to be "educated", thank you, nor do I have "negative views" about foreigners and immigrants (nor am I going to speculate if you have negative views about American citizens, which some could believe from your remarks).

I don't have to tell you about my personal life, but I happen to know enough immigrants - including people who live in a country they don't speak the language of - to know that when you immigrate to another place in order to scrape a living you don't necessarily care that much about the local politics, simply because you have other things to do. So while I expect anyone who lives in the US to know who Donald Trump is, I don't necessarily expect recent immigrants working blue-collar jobs to know, or care, about someone like Charlie Kirk. That's all, and I didn't need such preaching on my talk page. Psychloppos (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits rendered at least one sentence incoherent. Could you go back and fix this please? Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: I just fixed a typo, which I had noticed before reading your message. Could you tell me if there is anything else to fix ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you've left it the text suggests that Soral has more than one sister. However, looking at the sources it seems that it's the same sister in both paragraphs. (?) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: as far as I know he just has one (younger) sister. If that's ambiguous I'll try to fix it. Psychloppos (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Breach (film), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mario David was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, given that there's a dispute about such content, I find it concerning that you added content without discussing it first, then demanded that I discuss it before removing it. ONUS had already been brought up in the discussion and is being ignored by others.

You also appear to be ignoring Sibshops' comments. --Hipal (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: please assume good faith and note that you entirely removed content without having reached consensus. ONUS is also on you to prove that the content, which was there before that discussion, is not relevant at all. However, I did agree with you that the text was too long and needed to be trimmed. Psychloppos (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if anything I've written could be interpreted as not assuming good faith about you. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written to address this.

As for your interpretation of ONUS, that's more the reverse of what it actually says.

Another way to frame this would simply to say that the time to be bold is long past. You were being bold, I reverted. There was already a relevant discussion that directly applied to the content. --Hipal (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: well, you were also being bold by removing everything. You needed consensus for that, which you did not have. Then again, I do not wish to have a conflict about this, which is why I've been trying from the start to find a middle ground between you and Jsswoot1. Psychloppos (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted.

You needed consensus for that NO, ONUS indicates that you need consensus for your inclusion, and Jsswoot1 for theirs.

While I commend your work to create consensus, if the consensus we create doesn't follow policies and guidelines, then we are wasting our time. --Hipal (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: sorry, but WP:ONUS only concerns the inclusion of disputed content. What you wish to entirely remove is (as far as I can tell) not factually disputed, had been included in the page for some time, and is arguably relevant. So the ONUS for a complete removal of that content is on you.

The fact that Sydney Sweeney likes sports and did a lot of them as a kid is some very basic information that is also relevant for her background. I fail to see how it could be controversial or disputed. However, I must say that I don't have a passion either for Sweeney's sport practice. So I guess Talk:Sydney Sweeney would be a better place than my own talk page to discuss the wording that we want to use. Cheers, Psychloppos (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of this. It's so very wrong that it's shocking. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: well, I am not requesting that you make anything of it. You are free to excuse yourself from the article, which your edits are damaging, and to work on other topics. Or you can try and build consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting that you follow ONUS, not make things up to justify reversing it.

In what way are my edits "damaging"? --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: And I am requesting that you follow WP:ONUS by building consensus. Your edits are detrimental to the article as they remove relevant, sourced material. The page is worse off after your edits. If we could avoid wasting time in such an asinine edit war, this would be great. Now I would appreciate if you would try to build consensus on the article's talk page before removing anything. Please stop coming to my talk page, as this is getting pointless. Discuss with Jsswoot1. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to determine if you will follow policies and guidelines or not. The answer appears to be "no", and that you misinterpreting them to get your way. Please reconsider your approach. --Hipal (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: Allow me to think that you are misinterpreting the guidelines instead. Now I would really appreciate if you would stop coming to my talk page and try instead to build consensus with Jsswoot1 on the article's talk page. I am sorry, but your attitude is not helpful. Have a nice day. Psychloppos (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop presenting the dispute between four people as if it is between two. Thank you. [4][5][6]--Hipal (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: This is precisely why you should be discussing on the article's talk page instead of spamming mine. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but it's a request that you stop a specific, problematic behavior that I alluded to when I started this discussion when I raised the point that you appear to be ignoring Sibshops. --Hipal (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: I am not ignoring anyone. I am mentioning Jsswoot1 because he's the one with whom we have the most disagreements. Now as I said before, please stop leaving message on my talk page as it's just not helpful. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Irwin Schiff. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]