User talk:RadioactOlive

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 10 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 2.

Welcome!

Hi Odanr! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Odanr. I made should not have put that edit in because it was unnecessary and unhelpful. I have just started so I don’t really know who to be a wiki editor on here. I am inexperienced but I want to learn. Peace be with you Ajron Bach (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I debated putting an explanation...

mainly because I thought the edit might explain itself and not come across amateurish. But the reason I did what I did is because there's both repeated information as well as a repeated reference, so I wanted to trim that bit of fat from the article. ~2025-36122-86 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask where else in the article you're seeing that? At least with a quick glance, I'm not seeing it duplicated. Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 07:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot you don't get a ping since this isn't your talk page and you're a temp account so you don't have a watchlist - @~2025-36122-86 Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 07:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hillsy hills

Reply, reply mate, you're the one barging in and defending killers, why are you so quiet mate? Awaiting orders? Awaiting orders you are? I'm trying to build an INFORMATIONAL and USEFUL encyclopedia here and you're shutting it all down in the name of loser scum who could only gain fame through murder? really? really that's who they hire? Let me remove the name, small things like this will slowly but surely eradicate the satanic creep, like god approved .. Hillsy hills (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you must know, I was creating a new draft article. I understand your concern, and I am myself unhappy with the degree to which we glorify these killers. However, Wikipedia is not censored. (Also see WP:DISC). I'd recommend taking up your concern with AP News, Taiwan News, and France 24, who are the sources for the "Perpetrator" section of the article. Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 07:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned

Counter-warning, not interested in warring but holding you accountable, no knee-jerk lazy jumpto conclusions and my edits were in line with the text and in line wit wikipedia policy of self descriptive headings. Instead you play knee-jerk god/godess and issued an unwarranted warning to me. Please stop. If you continue this attitude on "now-dying (due to small theopolitically biased small group of editors) wikipedia in the era of AI", you will be held accountable and blocked from editing under the public scrutiny. I am restoring my edits at Human rights in Pakistan. 14:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, that's not how warnings work (there are a limited set of them, which should be substituted from their templates [see WP:User warnings] and used in increasing order rather than starting with the icon for a level-3 warning.) Secondly, simply stating warnings isn't much of a threat without the actual possibility of an admin blocking me, which I don't think is very likely given my behaviour so far. Thirdly, while I am also not interested in edit warring, it seems consensus agrees with me, as I will note that another editor reverted your edits while I was asleep. Lastly, I have to ask, if Wikipedia is "now-dying," why are you so concerned with the particulars of what it says? Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 23:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop removing the Women in Red wikiproject tags from subjects that are within the scope of the wikiproject, simply because the article subject does not identify as a woman. The scope of this Wikiproject includes all gender minorities, not just women. Per the Wikiproject itself, "If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman, a non-binary person, and/or any other gender minority, that person is included within the scope of Women in Red." I understand that there is a limited discussion on the WiR talk page about this subject, but there does not seem to be a consensus about the exact solution; until such a consensus is formed and the actual scope of the Wikiproject is changed (something that requires a wider consensus than just a couple of people in a wikiproject of well over 1400 members), it is inappropriate to remove the tags. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually disagree that they are within the overall scope of the Wikiproject, but I do believe that leaving the banner on their articles is a form of misgendering regardless of the Wikiproject's scope. I would also point out that, for the vast majority of these articles which are BLPs, WP:NOCON suggests the material under discussion should be removed if there is a lack of consensus. Nevertheless, I will desist for the moment, despite my disagreement. Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 23:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized after dinner that my message seemed maybe a bit harsher than intended. I don't have strong opinions on the underlying matter, just that it's a bit premature to make the change until the scope change is actually reflected in the WP's documentation. Additionally, I'm also not suggesting you undo what you've already done (that would be pointless if the decision is ultimately to reduce the scope), just that it'd be better to hold off until the project scope change is actually made and formalized. If anything, it'll prevent confusion from folks like me who had one of the pages on our watchlist (Jules Hoffman, in this case -- my daughter is an enormous fan of them on Ms. Rachel) and see the removal and get confused when it doesn't align with what the WP's stated scope says. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all good. I also may have a bit of a hair-trigger response to things that I perceive as misgendering/transphobic. Anyways, I was doing this WP:BOLDly, I can't be that surprised to get some puchback. Odanr_(she/it)(talk) 01:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360

Online events:

New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A
Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025

Announcements from other communities

Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026.

Tip of the month:

Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies.

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
Follow us on social media:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Re: User ~2025-43626-87

I don't know that I have a great solution for you. I'm not on the Wikimedia Discord and, from my understanding, it is largely independent of what happens here. I'll keep an eye on the IP range underlying that temp account on-wiki, but perhaps a Discord mod might have some more direction about how to handle the issue as it migrates off this site? (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's more or less what I expected. Thank you for the offer to keep an eye on the IP; I'd appreciate that. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent you an email — I'm a moderator on the Discord server. Giraffer (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice on privacy settings, that's useful to know. I was hoping you'd have some silver bullet I didn't know of, but better privacy settings is still good. re:Oversight, I don't have anything I think I need suppressed, but thank you very much for the offer. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 22:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are edit warring at Kuntaa Nikkil; please do not do that any more. The editor you were reverting was removing WP:BLPCRIME violations; you were actually re-adding disruptive material. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agh understood my apologies. I thought the material was well-sourced, but clearly I was wrong in that judgement. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 06:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]