Red Slash

Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it. (See also User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.)

January 2026

Hello, I'm Darth Stabro. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Killing of Renee Good seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Let me add to that. Red Slash, Killing of Renee Good is a highly active WP:CTOP and difficult to edit. Three editors including an admin have been cleaning up your spurt of edits. May I suggest that you engage on the talk page before additional edits? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

"Tacoma" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tacoma has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13 § Tacoma until a consensus is reached. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

NYT Reporting around Renee Good

Hello. I noticed you made an edit at 18:06, 17 January 2026, citing reporting "according to USA Today and the NYT at least" about Good's vehicle striking Ross.

The NYT has released an article with their video analysis: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/video/ice-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis-videos.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E1A.72RN.diPhBmSsTsD-&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Which states:

In a video analysis, The Times focuses on some of the key contested moments of the agent’s cellphone video alongside other footage. More videos are likely to emerge, but the visual evidence shows no indication that the agent who fired the shots, Jonathan Ross, had been run over. The footage provides visibility into the positioning between the agent and Ms. Good’s S.U.V., and the key moments of escalation. It also establishes how Mr. Ross put himself in a dangerous position near her vehicle in the first place.

The page and its talk page are both protected, or I would edit them myself. TT-flaw (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I see this is the second time you’ve been warned about neutrality at this article. Please be mindful that this is your second warning Mikewem (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem: I have given Red Slash a third warning, see below. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You re-added this inaccurate assertion that the NYT concluded Good struck Ross with her vehicle: 20:56, 17 January 2026

Further, the transcript of the NYT video used in the citation states:

On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded.

And:

The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV.

I am not sure how you could have arrived at the conclusion that you did, but it is inaccurate with respect to the NYT's reporting. TT-flaw (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Two more contentious topics alerts

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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.

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia 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. Mikewem (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

removal of relevant content at the Killing of Renee Good page

I'm not sure if you are being hyperbolic or ironic or what, but saying just someone please explain how in the world CBS's internal newsroom drama is in any way deserving of being included in an article about someone shooting Renee Good seems a bit, uninformed?

@Red Slash: Did you read the article that was referenced, from The Guardian?

This removal of important context seems inappropriate. The Guardian piece has called into question the editorial integrity related to CBS News reporting around Jonathan Good's medical diagnosis, and DHS/ICE claims that he suffered internal bleeding etc.

It wasn't just newsroom drama as you said here and here, it was an actual internal debate about the veracity of their very own reporting.

I hope you can better explain your removal, otherwise please self-revert. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable debate to have. In order to remain reliable, a news source must evaluate if a source is fishy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah I put it on the talk page, not sure what else you want Red Slash 08:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the deletion here, but be careful when mixing templates like quote and cite news. They can conflict and end up messing up the talk page. -- Veggies (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

oh my gosh thank you so much Red Slash 08:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Suicide among LGBTQ people

From a quick glance at the page history, I see that you have made several contributions to the Transgender suicides section. I would appreciate it if you did not plainly revert my edit. The new sources in that section are WP:MEDRS (mostly meta-analyses), and represent consensus among subject-matter experts. The claim previously attributed to the Cass review has also not been removed, simply rephrased and attributed to better studies. Other previous material, such as the claim that treatment increases suicide (which is not found in any MEDRS and was previously sourced to a legal expert) as well as the mention of an unpublished study's results (which is not MEDRS either, and highly undue when MEDRS exist (we should not be using faulty evidence like this to "prove the point")) are not encyclopedic for an article discussing suicide rates.

I hope you see this is as an acceptable compromise. Amateur Truther (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'd much rather respond to you on the talk page there.

I think there are some things to discuss in the edits you made, as well as a lot of good. The article was in a really bad place when I found it, no offense to anyone who had worked on it, so I may have overresponded. But in any case, the article talk page is a good place to discuss this.

I appreciate you reaching out!! Red Slash 21:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Why I nominated Category:Mass shootings by transgender individuals for deletion

1. Shouldn't it be "Category:Mass shootings commited by transgender individuals?"

2. There are no other category pages that classify mass shootings by the race, sex, gender, etc of the perpetrator for obvious reasons. It is unencyclopedic idea to even entertain changing this standard.

3. Whether the perpetrator of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting identified as transgender at the time of their crime is unclear, so even if the category you created stays, this specific article should excluded.

I believe your edits are in good faith, but there are several major, inherent flaws with the category you created, hence why I nominated it for deletion NesserWiki (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to nominate it. I was frustrated because there is a lot of misinformation out there about the topic, and I was not thrilled that Wikipedia made it harder to gauge the scope of what has actually occurred, so I made the category.

No comment on #3, that can be discussed later or by people who are more informed than me. #1 you might be right? Red Slash 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Red Slash, I understand where you're coming from. There is a massive disinformation campaign designed to convince people that transgender people are more likely to commit acts of mass violence than cis people despite the mountain of evidence against that hypothesis. With that said, I wholeheartedly believe that the category you created will not solve anything. Regardless, this will all be bored out during the CfD discussion. NesserWiki (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Palantir

Hi. I noticed you closed the talk in favor for the renaming of the page Palantir, but I believe you may have mis-counted the votes as there were 6 for, 7 against and 1 for rename to Palantir (company). If you must close the discussion, then the majority is Oppose, not Support, right? I am unfamiliar with these things, so please help: would you re-open the discussion, rename the page, do an RfC, ask people to vote again or how does it go? Thanks. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 01:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! So, first off, I appreciate you coming to me directly. That's awesome!

Second, you're probably right about the vote count, but at Wikipedia, we don't count votes, but rather assess the strength of arguments. (It would be trivial to start a few WP:SOCKpuppet accounts to stack votes in favor of one side or another, so we very early on started focusing on the strength of argument, instead.) I detailed in the RM close why it seemed quite apparent that the arguments in favor of the move were much, much stronger than those against, which relied on a completely unbacked claim of higher long-term significance for the fictional object over the very real company.

Third, and finally, we DO have a way to appeal move request closures if/when the closer doesn't retract it. It's called WP:Move Review. It's open for you to do as soon as you've had a conversation with the closer (which you have just satisfied!). It's a lengthy process--usually it takes about a month--but if you're right and I'm wrong, this process is likely to confirm that and either overturn my decision or reopen the request. Up to you if you'd like to pursue that! Red Slash 17:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of The Argument (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Argument (magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Argument (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Argument (magazine)

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

• A bare URL and 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) 05:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

FIFA Peace Prize

There was an AfD on that article with consensus to merge, and the closure was endorsed. Do not recreate the article unless and until there is new information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Also do not make major changes to the prose without consensus. While not officially a WP:CTOP, it appears to be very closely related to US politics because of the lack of transparency regarding the award itself and other actions by Infantino toward Trump. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

"Second Gulf War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Second Gulf War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6 § Second gulf war until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Your edits to indigenous peoples

Hello there,

I reverted your edits to this article because many of the changes you made are not supported by the cited sources. As for whether upper case should be used for Indigenous peoples (or indigenous peoples) the sources use both. I don't mind either way, but you need to gain consensus to change the standard established in the article. happy to discuss on the Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of "I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article "I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of "I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article "I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working", to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"I have two Microsoft Outlooks and neither one of those are working" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of 2025 Texas A&M–South Carolina football sideline incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Texas A&M–South Carolina football sideline incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Texas A&M–South Carolina football sideline incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Wisenerd (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Your recent edit

It's worrisome when edits like this one change the meaning of the content without consulting the sources cited or even the body of the article. Furthermore, your edit introduced completely incorrect information such as "Conversion therapy for adults is with the consent of the patient". Not only is there no source provided that says so, this is contradicted with RS in the article body. (t · c) buIdhe 23:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Corn dog, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yellow mustard was added. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Rumours

You moved this article without explanation or discussion even though at Talk:Rumours#Requested move 21 January 2023 there was no consensus and I think per WP:PLURALPT such as move would likely be controversial. Can you revert and start a RM please, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

will do, gracias Red Slash 18:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please also move the edit history of Rumors (music) (the merged plural British DAB page) back to Rumours, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

cannot do that one, sorry--someone who knows more than me should try Red Slash 01:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it is possible to make that move since page mover now allows moving a page over a redirect regardless of the redirect target. Given Rumours has no other history it should be possible to move Rumors (music) there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Legacy: A Tribute to Fleetwood Mac's Rumours moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Legacy: A Tribute to Fleetwood Mac's Rumours. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. 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. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 08:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hillside Motel

Do you know much about the Hillside Motel in Seattle? I come across it from this YouTube video. What looks like happened is the main building was set on fire in 2020 because the person wanted revenge for a stolen laptop, in 2023 there was a fire in the long building and then it appears to whole thing was demolished in 2024. We do have an article on probably one of the best known abandoned buildings in America Grossinger's Resort though. I have created User:Crouch, Swale/28 Roseangle and Draft:Share and Coulter, the latter of which probably is notable. There is an interesting article here about Detroit and we already have Decline of Detroit. Other places that I've looked into in detail are The Gwysaney Arms Hotel and The Royal Castle but I doubt these would qualify for an article. WP:NBUILD would indeed probably suggest the Share and Coulter is notable per WP:GEOFEAT given it is a listed building and given it is a pub there is clearly other coverage of it, 28 Roseangle may be notable as it is listed but there doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the listing (and it being derelict) but given The Gwysaney Arms Hotel, The Royal Castle and the Hillside Motel don't have any national heritage protection they may well not be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)