User talk:Sibshops

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Sibshops! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Hipal (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cryptocurrency and crime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanctions. 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) 07:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start an RfC to garner consensus for reinclusion of the section per WP:ONUS:

Removed section by Sibshops

In October 2025, Spotify was criticized for running recruitment advertisements from ICE.¹ Users both free and paid subscribers stated that the ads were politically charged and portrayed immigrants as criminals, with some accusing the message as insensitive.² Many users responded by cancelling their subscriptions and calling for a boycott.¹ Spotify defended the advertisements by stating they were part of a government campaign, which complied with its ad policies and stated that users could provide feedback or thumbs-down such ads.¹

However, sources have now specifically written about Spotify airing ICE ads:

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/spotify-no-longer-running-ice-recruitment-ads-after-us-government-campaign-ends
• https://variety.com/2026/digital/news/spotify-confirms-ice-recruitment-ads-are-no-longer-running-1236626243/

Therefore, per WP:SNOW, criteria for WP:NOTABILITY are conferred by these sources so I'm adding the section back. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any issues with how it was reimplemented Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting points. Can we move this conversation on Talk:Criticism_of_Spotify? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being polite and willing to engage in good faith discussion in a heated environment. You might think being civil is common sense. But common sense is rarely found these days.

Thank you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thank you for being polite and willing to engage in good faith discussion in a heated environment.

Arutoria (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sibshops, thank you for helping to review the page stablecoin. I wonder if you would be interested to complete the GA review as well (Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Economics and business)? The topic is probably too technical for a lot of people and you have good understanding on the topic. Thank you and good day! Arutoria (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. can I postpone for a bit? There are still a number of things I want to add to the article. De-pegging risks still needs to be made more general about stablecoins. And I'd like to add some information about the latest coverage with the clarity act, since that's getting a lot of coverage in the news. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Take your time!

I have been looking at Clarity Act as well and just waiting for its eventual legislation. Arutoria (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. according to WP:Good Articles, since I contributed significantly to the article, I'm not encouraged to review it. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OH. Ok.

I thought the contribution can be part of the review. Nvm. Arutoria (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Elbridge Colby, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. YggdrasiII (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the removals were given in the edit summaries and discussed on the talk page. Could I have more information about which specific removal I made you believe lacked a reason, and which policy-based concern you think doesn't apply? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear pattern that is becoming apparent here........ Wrolen (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting content. Use the "talk" page instead to question specific pieces of information instead of deleting the entire section.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Elbridge Colby, you may be blocked from editing.

YggdrasiII (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to continue to delete and remove large portions of content from Elbridge Colby. He appears to enjoy removing content that does not appeal to his political beliefs. Wrolen (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. YggdrasiII (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say I am really not at all bothered with your Carlson revert. I don't have a high opinion of the Atlantic but the main thing I found going through the article was just how little change cutting it out as a source made. Often it was used to reiterate a point of Carlson's expressed in other sources but with some specific turn of phrase. In other words: it was being used as a quote-mine. As such, while I would like to close this quote-mine because my experience with BLP, in general, is that these are often used for gotchas (for example Piker's misunderstanding of Einstein's politics), I don't really think it's doing anything much one way or the other at the Carlson page except padding out the word count. Cards on the table: I think that one of the most important things an editor can do to support neutrality is be consistent and sometimes that consistency does need to be supported with action. But another thing I try to be consistent about is not edit warring. And so even if I think I'm right about the Atlantic (I do), I am happy to wait and see what consensus forms. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh and regarding Piker's Einstein comment, what I'd say is that, if the Atlantic wants to get left-wing perspectives on history that don't make dumb mistakes, they should talk to an historian rather than a twitch streamer. Piker is an entertainer who makes a living by being a fast, persuasive, talker. Accurate and nuanced assessment of history is never going to come from him. It'd be like asking David Abraham to manage a twitch stream chat and then to criticize him for bungling a raid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something. I did a little bit more digging into The Atlantic's fact-checking policy, and it isn't completely clear what and how much is covered for online publications when compared to publications for the magazine.

I added a comment to the discussion:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Atlantic_a_reliable_source_for_BLP_articles? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FOX-affiliated local news outlets are generally considered usable for routine, non-opinion reporting on Wikipedia, particularly for local events, crime reporting, court proceedings, interviews, and factual developments. A source being affiliated with Fox does not automatically make all of its reporting “political” or unreliable. Wikipedia distinguishes between straight news reporting and partisan commentary/opinion content. Unless there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or editorialized reporting in the specific article, routine local reporting from a FOX local affiliate can be treated the same way as other mainstream local television news sources. Wrolen (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion is about improvements to the article Nick Shirley, can we move the discussion to Talk:Nick Shirley? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a separate discussion. Its dangerous to assume all news coming from Fox is inherently political. A large portion of their reporting (esp. local news) is based on apolitical issues, such as crime, and should be deemed relevant. This is outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing. Wrolen (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume that Fox News is usable in this case, it still can't be used to synthesize a connection between Nick Shirley and Feeding Our Future. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need to synthesize a connection between Feeding our Future and Nick Shirley.

Due weight must be given to what is widely reported at the time, we cant just ignore that a large number of news sites are reporting on newly discovered fraud allegations in Minnesota and across the country, and are directly mentioning Nick Shirley in them, including his ties to fraud reporting.

Anything else would essentially be ignoring further developments in news related to Nick Shirley.

Regardless, the original statement of "As of December 2025" is now antiquated and innaccurate. We cant simply ignore news as it develops and not attribute it's due weight in relevant articles.

Whether or not Nick Shirley's reporting had anything to do with the charges brought forth is less relevant than the preponderance of mainstream news articles that link him to the recent uptick in Federal fraud charges. Wrolen (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alice Beck Dubow. Thanks! CopyleftEverything (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CopyleftEverything I've made the requested changes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Alice_Beck_Dubow&oldid=1359924981

I added a See also section and uncommented out the categories pending a move to mainspace. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a birth date sourced to a reliable source. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Beck Dubow, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

• See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

• Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

• Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CopyleftEverything (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the call out. I agree the original wording was too close to the IMF source, so I reworded it. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]