Jollyrime

Re:Stepehen Douglass

Hello Jollyrime, I do not see Douglass being explicitly referred to as a white supremacist by the Politico article, nor by any other news agency. The Politico article does mention that Douglass and his wife posted racist and antisemitic messages, which was already included in the article. Please note that Wikipedia has very serious policies on biographies of living persons, Douglass included. The responses of other Vermont Republicans are certainly worth including, though they should not be sourced to a tweet (see (WP:RSPTWITTER). I must strongly suggest discussing some of your proposed changes on Douglass' talk page before implementing them. All the best. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Would Vermont Governor Phil Scott directly stating so and a local news agency be enough? The second described him as "expressing white supremacist and antisemitic views". He has not denied the comments attributed to him. This doesn't seem to be an ambigious case to me. I'll look it over. Someone mentioned it was absent from his Wikipedia article on a website I visit so I thought I'd personally add it. Jollyrime (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Neither Scott nor the local news agency (at least the one I believe you're referring to) specifically mention white supremacy, much less identify Douglass as a white supremacist, which is my main concern. Generally, we would need multiple reliable sources to consistently and explicitly refer to Douglass as a white supremacist to justify this label's inclusion. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's discuss it on the discussion page. Jollyrime (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Since we've already discussed this, I'll wait to hear what other editors have to say. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jollyrime (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Samuel Douglass (politician) are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Jay Jones (politician). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Not an edit war. The onus is on inclusion. I'm happy to discuss this on talk. Jollyrime (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Was extensively discussed on the talk page. It's also nonsensical to excluse this story from the lead when it's by far the largest part of his career section, see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY FMSky (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll write more about that on tomorrow, but a RFC would be the bedr way to resolve this if we can't get a consensus. Jollyrime (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jollyrime,

I noticed your comment suggesting that an RfC may be needed if consensus cannot be reached. However, the material you removed was already the result of prior consensus, and there was ongoing discussion about it on the talk page. Making unilateral changes to consensus-based content while not participating in the existing discussion undermines collaborative editing and can be viewed as disruptive.

Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, if you disagree with established content, the next step is to engage on the talk page — not to revert first and discuss later. Please take part in resolving concerns through discussion so we can move forward constructively.

Thanks in advance for working within the collaborative process. Contentcreator (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, but I've never seen an analogous situation to this

Even, say, Graham Platner doesn't have his controversies in his lead.

I'll respond more in depth tomorrow. It's 9:03 PM here.

Thanks for reaching out. :) Jollyrime (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! It’s always good to see new editors eager to jump in and make changes — boldness can be valuable here. Please be sure, though, to familiarize yourself with our core guidelines: Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Your recent edits showed some initiative, but removing well-sourced content without discussion unfortunately crossed into what could be seen as disruptive editing. Even when trying to address issues like undue weight, large deletions without consensus can resemble vandalism more than improvement.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated — and with just a bit more care in following editing standards and collaborating on talk pages, your contributions can actually help and not hinder! If you ever need assistance, feel free to reach out. Thanks, and happy editing! Contentcreator (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLPBALANCE

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

Cinaroot (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Jollyrime (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your work on the Republican Party article, but you need stronger sources

Greetings! I noticed your work on the Republican Party article and want to thank you for the effort you've clearly put into updating it. However, I've noticed that some of the sources you've used are not as strong as they could be.

My knowledge of the current academic literature is that you are mostly accurate in your history of the party in the Lincoln-era and its current demographic and ideological trends, but if you want your edits to remain on the page and not be reverted, you will need to improve the quality of the sources you are using. For instance, using Jacobin, a socialist magazine, is not going to stand up to scrutiny in the long run.

I would strongly recommend using academic journal articles, published books from reputable printing houses, and other high-quality sources. Google scholar is a good place to start and only requires an internet connection. BootsED (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election

On 9 March 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 09:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we work together on the GOP material

Jollyrime, would you be interested in working together on the GOP edits? I think we have different perspectives on this but I suspect if we made a good effort to work together on adding the material we would likely have a winner. Are you interested? Springee (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

That works with me. Jollyrime (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Great! Are you OK if we use this page for working or should we setup a sandbox page? Springee (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with either. Jollyrime (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I haven't had much time to work on this last weekend. How about we start with your recent big addition. I'll try to get some time later today to copy it as well as some of the other parts of that section to your talk page so we can word smith it. I think it's a problem that the section on political positions doesn't have any sort of historical summary. It's a very typical Wikipedia type section. Each time editors decided something had to be added it was just added either to the end or sometimes to the beginning the section. Ideally we would cover a lot of the general things the GOP has argued for over time (reduced spending - though not always if they want something, secure military/boarders, socially conservative policies, etc). We then have a sentence or two talking about the shift towards Christain conservative issues with Gingritch and now the authoritarian, national populist shift since 2016. That provides an intro paragraph to the various sections below it. The material you have added needs to have a logical place in the long list. I can make a case for the end of the list since it's historically new and may not be lasting when Trump's presidency ends. However, the alternative argument is that it's very important and timely thus should be first. I'm interested in your take. Second, that materail should probably be down to two long or three shorter paragraphs. Also, the section itself needs some sort of introduction. I think that is where we should have 2-3 sentences summarizing the sources (not by name). Then we go into the sources that support the claims. If 2 sources say the same thing then we should either say something like "According to studies by X and Y, the GOP is ..." or state it without attribution, "starting in 2016 the GOP did X [citations X,Y,Z]". A writing style we should absolutely avoid is starting a section with "Source A says XYZ. Source B says UVW. etc. When introducing a fact, we need to tie it to an umbrella topic. This is one of those things that good advisors often have to teach their incoming grad students. What do you think? Springee (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you create a sandbox? I'm not sure how to. My preference is to emphasize the party's current ideology, with brief mentions of the past, and then list the rest in the "History of the Republican Party" page. Jollyrime (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful to not put too much in the history part. For example, being anti-regulation may not be a Trump thing but it's likely still a part of what many GOP voters and members are interested in. Also, I think authoritarian isn't so much an ideology as a method used to push your policy aims. This means the authoritarian type material might belong in a different section but I'm not sure just yet. Springee (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a sandbox page Springee (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind making a case for some of your changes on the GOP talk page. You edited several refs as well as placed verification failed tags. Given the level of discussion associated with the article it seems unlikely any long term material will fail V. You may be right about some of the edits but it would be best to propose them first. Springee (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure. :) I just wrote back on the article's talk page. Jollyrime (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind removing the pictures from the source list. I don't think it really matters what the person looks like but if you are using a smaller screen/split screen it pushes the reference text off to the side where it gets squished. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You can change it to pixels. I'll do that once I finished Klaas citation.

What avaliable sources deny the party is far-right populist?

That is, one's that are taking a comparative politics view. Jollyrime (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not reformat the RfC I've started. If you wish to add a source review add it after the discussion section. Springee (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You put the source review section in the front. Jollyrime (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

??? Jollyrime (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I used a common RfC format. Survey is the survey of editors. Discussion is where editors can further discuss sources etc. If you take a look at the RfCs listed at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment you will find it's a common format with perhaps half the RfCs using something like it (as an example from the current list ). Springee (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, when adding sources to your table you must add a link to the source so others can review it. Springee (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Chiles / conversion therapy articles

I had to undo a lot of edits you made on these articles. The Advocate source that you cited makes the claim this case made conversion therapy legal, but that's just not correct and overstated the decision, at least from a NPOV standard. The case should be seen as narrow in that conversion therapy is protected speech, but it can still be banned as long as the law passes strict scrutiny, which is likely going to fail in Colorados case on remand to the lower courts. The ruling does not have any direct effect on other state laws though certainly we can expect groups to now use this ruling to challenge them with the strict scrutiny standard. But it's likely some will survive if they are content based and not viewpoint based.

Its absolutely not a good decision on those that fight for trans rights, but we still need to treat it carefully rather than follow hyperbole in wikivoice. We can cite and attribute concerns about the decision to the Advocate. Masem (t) 19:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that.

De jure, you're correct. Insofar as they're simply referring it to the lower court under strict scrutiny under the standaeds of the First Amendment.

De facto, American newspapers of record are describing it as allowing certain forms of conversion therapy nationally, as "talk-based treatments" (not saying it is a treatment) are still considered by academics to fall within the term. "Treatments" such as castration, molestation, and forced surgeries, far rarer, are almost certainly still enforceable.

As talk-based forms are by far the most common, and it still represents conversion therapy per se, that would make forms of it de jure constitutionally protected, even under the most conservative interpretation of SCOTUS's judgement. The original edits had a note over this, although it could probably be explained better.

It is correct to report that a large majority of lawyers see all or the vast portion of current conversion therapy bans as now invalid. They're still on the books but almost certainly unenforceable. Jollyrime (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The reference above says so explicitly, so this would not be original research. @Masem Jollyrime (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

France 24, LA Times, and every other news agency I could find is interpreting the ruling as de facto ruling that talk-based conversion therapy is constitutionally protected (under 1st Amendment/strict scr reasons) throughout the United States.

@Masem, maybe we could use phrasing similar to that present on Furman v. Georgia, whose outcome appears analogous to this. Jollyrime (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if newspapers are calling it de facto, that doesn't mean legally it blocks bans on conservation therapy. However, as all sources are saying, with strict scrutiny in play, it becomes almost impossible for such bans to remain if they are based on viewpoint discrimination, and I can expect a number of lawsuits immediately to be filed to challenge every state with a similar ban, but those bans are not suddenly erased because the court ruled that way. A key point is that Kagan's concurrence pointed out that if there was a way to ban conversion therapy in a viewpoint-neutral manner, that would have a far better chance of surviving a challenge. Its still a difficult challenge to met but it does not immediately rule all conversion therapy is completely unbannable by state laws.

So key in the ruling is that is says talk-based conversion therapy is protected speech legally (that is explicit in the decision), and practically, it is near impossible to place bans on protected speech (not explicit). But that doesn't mean yet that 2+2=4, and we can say that the court has ruled it impossible to ban talk-based conversion therapy. Its making a distinction from what the court actually said, and what the downstream effects likely are, until such a time a case rules specifically that banning conversion therapy itself is completely unconstitutional. Masem (t) 23:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

But just to add, we absolutely should include a section on the SCOTUS case page that reflects that multiple sources considered the ruling a de facto restriction on banning conversion therapy due to these issues, with attribution, and likely mention this in the lede. That's absolutely DUE from what's I've read. We just can't say the ruling factually restricted such bans universally. Masem (t) 00:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Jollyrime, please consider what Masem is saying here. In addition to questions of DUE, when making controversial edits you really need to stick carefully to the sources. This is the problem with the "white nationalist" section you added to the GOP article as well . You started the section by claiming "White nationalists compose a significant portion of the modern Republican Party". That is a serious REDFLAG claim that would need very strong sourcing. The source you use to support the claim is a Washington Monthly article that never even uses the term "white nationalist". It's also a source that is reasonably biased thus probably not the most objective one for such a claim. What you shouldn't do is try to interpret the claims in the WM article and then expand their scope when adding them as a subsection in the GOP article. Springee (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Jollyrime, I know you are a new editor and I think you are working in good faith - and I acknowledge we don't agree - but you are making a complete mess of the GOP talk page. Please talk this as constructive feedback. I think you will find many who agree with your edits but feel the same way. A source table is good but it needs to be simple, avoid editor commentary and needs to be open to all editor additions. It should be a single table. A table to say how editor are !voting isn't something you should be doing with a formal RFC. That's for the discussion closer. This is especially true when summarizing the arguments of other editors. I certainly can understand the desire to reply and comment a lot. However, if perhaps 75 of the last 100 edits to the talk page are yours, it's probably overkill. Either you are right or you're not but adding so much text isn't helping (again I know the desire to reply to everything). While this is negative feedback, I'll also offer some positive feedback. You don't have a negative tone nor are you condescending to others. That's really a big plus. Too many think that it's good to run up to the limits of civility when relying to others. You don't. That makes it much easier to carry out disagreements in good faith. I hope you take this as constructive feedback even though we don't agree on content. Springee (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Democrats are far-left

yo, I think demokkkrats far-left, I made it tf up. Are you interested in starting an RFC on dems talk page on labeling them far-left? ~2026-20281-62 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

GOP far-right RfC closure

Given how charged the topic is, I’d say that it’s probably worth having an outsider summarize it. Wondering what your thoughts on this are because it’s still your RfC Retr0r0cket (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely not my place to attempt that. Jollyrime (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

An outsider would need to. Jollyrime (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Jollyrime, several of your edits appear to be contrary to the various RfCs either closings or current status. You need to slow down and get consensus for the edits you are making. Such large changes by a new editor raise red flags. Springee (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits on the article talk page. You have already restored content that is was questioned in the recent RfC close. Springee (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Republican Party (United States)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Republican Party (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Republican Party (United States)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Republican Party (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please follow BRD

Jollyrime, please get consensus for changes to the opening of the GOP article. You are a new editor and have frequently failed to follow BRD and other best practices when dealing with contentious articles. There isn't a rush. Springee (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

no sweat - reached out on GOP side page Jollyrime (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: Paragraphs

Consensus was to have this as one paragraph.

Please point me to it. 290 words is way too large for younger people. Most recommended paragraph sizes tend to be around 200 words these days. I realize that older generations and some academics prefer longer paragraphs in their specialized fields, but reading habits have drastically changed over the last 20 years due to screens. 290 words no longer works. And please don't revert something as innocuous as a paragraph size. That comes off as rigid and inflexible. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It was just an informal consensus. Editors kept reverting it to the status quo, and I personally had no objection to the longer paragraph. My preference is similarly towards one. My opinions on it though... are weak. For the roll back: I thought you didn't mean to publish the edit (and were just fooling around by the tone). I am sorry. Jollyrime (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. It's good to reach an understanding. Keep up the great edits. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Jollyrime (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to weigh in on the survey supporting or opposing your proposed edits? I find Mason's idea to be very off. They (and others) are arguing that neither democratic backsliding or the J6 insurrection were historically significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. I believe we have numerous sources that say otherwise. There's also the larger center-right talking point that is expressed on this page that provides justification for Mason's position (sans sources of course), which argues that these events are momentary blips in the history of the American experiment that will be reversed in time and therefore do not necessitate mentioning in the lead.

This position is a popular one with centrists, and is generally considered their rallying cry (along with the center-right abundance movement and its offshoots). The problem is, it is historically wrong. Nixon's changes to the U.S. weren't reversed, Reagan's alteration to the fabric of America weren't reverted, the changes wrought by Bush 41 and Bush 43 are still in place, and no Democratic president has ever gone beyond the predominant tactics of Two Santa Clauses, either as a faux-controlled opposition party that shares the same donors as the GOP, or as neoliberal alternatives to the GOP's socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else platform.

My point is that when you look at the last 60 years of democratic backsliding, nothing was reversed, contrary to the protestations of the centrists. At least three known incidents of the bait and switch are widely written about: when Clinton was elected to override the excesses of the successive Reagan and Bush admins, he did nothing of the sort. Instead, he dropped the universal healthcare policy he was voted into office for and embraced the GOP policy of NAFTA, which decimated workers and signed legislation paving the way for the corporate takeover of the public internet.

When Obama was voted in to reverse the excesses of Bush's son and rollback the creeping fascism, he pulled a Clinton again, giving us not the universal healthcare people voted him in for, but instead a conservative healthcare plan for poor people written by the Heritage institute that did nothing to fix healthcare. He then went on to govern as a moderate Republican for eight years (according to analysts). Drone strikes increased, Guantanamo stayed open, and nothing changed between the Bush and the Obama admin.

When Biden was elected to fix the excesses of the Trump admin, nothing changed, and he appointed people friendly with the Federalist Society like Merrick Garland, who then slow-walked the case against Trump, allowing him to take back the White House. There were any number of things Biden could have done to stop Trump. None were taken. This is the game, it is widely known, and what I'm saying isn't unusual or out of step with reality.

This idea that the next administration (real soon now) is going to reverse all of the changes that have occurred and bring us back from the new, far-right, postliberal United States into the liberal, pre-Trump, pre-Bush, pre-Reagan era from 50 years ago, has no basis in history. This is a form of copium promoted by centrists to get people to vote harder for the next candidate, who takes the same money from the same donors as the same candidates on the other side. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern

Hi. I am concerned that you tried to ram through your POV at Talk:Liberal Party of Canada via a WP:NAC of a discussion that clearly had no consensus to implement a change, done while citing WP:SNOW, which in the best-faith interpretation is simply bizarre. 30 minutes after this close was reverted, you opened a RfC in which you !vote for the position you tried to implement a Snow close of. Given that this is enough to indicate that you are involved and have a distinct opinion on the matter, this makes the NAC a WP:BADNAC. Please avoid this behaviour in the future. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)