This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
additional guidance may be found. Shortcuts WP:CRITSWP:CRITS WP:CSECTIONWP:CSECTION An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic, as well as one dedicated...
Click to read more »csections.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links...
Click to read more »csections.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links...
Click to read more »sum up the article and three paragraphs of it are "controversy" (see WP:CSECTION). The article is a third as long as the Ocean 8 article and hasn't been...
Click to read more »Collection of trivial non-encyclopedic events in line with our essay of WP:CSECTION. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »that are too positive, but the article also has a controversy section,(WP:CSECTION). Article uses a facebook post by Brown to talk about endorsements Third...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Comment. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted solely to criticism or controversy...
Click to read more »an article this bloated in concept and scope, essentially a massive WP:CSECTION/WP:CONTENTFORK hybrid. This material is anything but encyclopedic. KidAd...
Click to read more »controversy section into reception is a great idea imo. After reading WP:CSECTION (I'll be honest - I didn't know that the policy even existed, and I've...
Click to read more »strangely organized and written, its "Controversy" section both violates WP:CSECTION and has no discernable "controversy", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:11...
Click to read more »merge/redirect than merge. IgelRM (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC) Per WP:CSECTION, that would be a preferable section title. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 24...
Click to read more »isn't what CSECTION means at all, nor is that what I meant above. Wikipedia covers notable disputes and controversies all the time. CSECTION is about not...
Click to read more »these questions? While a criticism type section is allowed, the essay WP:CSECTION makes a strong case that a better organization is to integrate the issues...
Click to read more »must not deviate from the subject at hand (for more information, see WP:CSECTION). For example: in Source 1, Alice says something related to Topic A. In...
Click to read more »WP:OVERLAP factors. The Supply side economics article has long suffered from WP:CSECTION issues. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC) So how about Supply-side...
Click to read more »dropping the sensational quotes and the standalone "Controversy" heading (WP:CSECTION suggests merging it into "Private life"). I raised this as an edit request...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Articles such as this are frowned upon per WP:CSECTION as they tend to be POV forks. This article fits the bill of POV fork as...
Click to read more »trouble. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) That WP:CSECTION uses the word "normally" and the part specifically about controversies...
Click to read more »'Criticisms / Controversy' (now included, but ultimately integrated WP:CSECTION ) is a more enlightened method to handle the differing elements of this...
Click to read more »content should be selectively weaved into the article and no dedicated WP:CSECTION should be built. Worse still is a CPAGE though! Delete this if a merge...
Click to read more »removed. The content is relevant, but needs to be restructured per WP:CSECTION. The bibliography is largely unsourced and has a lot of external links...
Click to read more »--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Not suitable article. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted to criticism or controversy. Also...
Click to read more »a sickness. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Weak delete: WP:CSECTION (essay, not policy) has been often cited in relation to this article. Previous...
Click to read more »WP:GACR#1b isn't fulfilled. "Controversy" sections have been deprecated; see WP:CSECTION. A GA-class biography can not have the body laid out as follows: "Biography"...
Click to read more »19:42, August 17, 2020 See WP:CSECTION 04:13, August 18, 2020 stop causing disruptive edits and being stubborn. Read WP:CSECTION. You can’t make up your own...
Click to read more »the sourcing of every statement. You would also do well to consider WP:CSECTION. Is there another way you could frame the "Controversy" section/daughter...
Click to read more »and subjective. It's use is questionable in articles with context (WP:CSECTION), but as a category it's a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP mess. Grayfell (talk) 05:06...
Click to read more »at least couple of times) Bookku (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) WP:CSECTION --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks @ User:HyperGaruda...
Click to read more »sections in BLPs?" Valereee (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) See Wikipedia:CSECTION which says Sections or article titles should generally not include the...
Click to read more »it into the History section rather than keeping it in a designated WP:CSECTION. Happy to take a pass at drafting this if other editors are aligned, but...
Click to read more »WP:TNT case, but it does need some cleanup, e.g. some WP:NPOV issues and WP:CSECTION. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Keep, The article has certain...
Click to read more »company.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Merger WP:CSECTION - Articles dedicated to negative criticism of a topic are discouraged because...
Click to read more »should respond on the Siddha Yoga talk page where you told me to see WP:CSECTION as for why there should be no controversy page yet that article explicitly...
Click to read more »company but would suggest incorporating it under history so as to avoid WP:CSECTION. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Comment article has been...
Click to read more »stated on my user talk page. I stated that "I also understand that under WP:CSECTION controversies should generally be integrated into the article rather than...
Click to read more »— essentially saying the 3RR rule doesn't apply to himself. And as WP:CSECTION notes, "Criticism" is standard and "Controversy" should not be used except...
Click to read more »the unverified content can just be removed, again). (Off topic) Under WP:CSECTION, having one is discouraged, especially if it is just a list of complaints...
Click to read more »{{Create list}} {{Controversy-section}}, {{Csection}}, {{Criticism-section}}, {{Controversy section}}, {{CSECTION}}, {{Critsection}}, {{Crit section}} → {{Criticism...
Click to read more »consensus/compromise for contested edits, refusing to recognise RS, MEDRS, WP:CSECTION, removing content, and not attempting to build consensus but continuing...
Click to read more »violation of NPOV, should we have an "achievements" section too? No.... see WP:CSECTION & WP:STRUCTURE. They continue to alter reality as to support their claims...
Click to read more »recent political contributions, with negative connotations solely. WP:CSECTION - sections created essentially titled "controversy" WP:NOTE - the subjects...
Click to read more »Democratic Society protesters against the Iran war. The article violates WP:CSECTION. DSA doesn't even have a history article yet: History of the Democratic...
Click to read more »Layfield defender here, I always try to rework a controversy section (WP:CSECTION) when I see one and I've done it for articles across the political spectrum...
Click to read more »-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) done Controversy section: WP:CSECTION says that such sections focusing on negative content should be avoided...
Click to read more »things" to create a false balance. The best advice we have on this is WP:CSECTION, in that we should try to avoid criticism sections or the like and better...
Click to read more »2012 (UTC) Hmmm. In two minds on this one. I'm very much in favour of {{csection}} and this deals with a similar problem; on the other hand, it is not quite...
Click to read more »Collection of trivial non-encyclopedic events in line with our essay of WP:CSECTION. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Note: This...
Click to read more »Many thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC) KJP1 WP:CSECTION is the guideline that says that you shouldn't have a controversy section...
Click to read more »--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Not suitable article. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted to criticism or controversy. Also...
Click to read more »at least couple of times) Bookku (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) WP:CSECTION --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks @ User:HyperGaruda...
Click to read more »section by citing reliable policies. One user had removed by citing it as WP:CSECTION and said that controversy is not allowed. Discussion can be found on my...
Click to read more »bathwater. In a given case, editors might agree with the essay (not policy) WP:CSECTION and find a way to work the criticisms into the other sections, or they...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Comment. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted solely to criticism or controversy...
Click to read more »an article this bloated in concept and scope, essentially a massive WP:CSECTION/WP:CONTENTFORK hybrid. This material is anything but encyclopedic. KidAd...
Click to read more »Layfield defender here, I always try to rework a controversy section (WP:CSECTION) when I see one and I've done it for articles across the political spectrum...
Click to read more »'Criticisms / Controversy' (now included, but ultimately integrated WP:CSECTION ) is a more enlightened method to handle the differing elements of this...
Click to read more »company.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Merger WP:CSECTION - Articles dedicated to negative criticism of a topic are discouraged because...
Click to read more »WP:TNT case, but it does need some cleanup, e.g. some WP:NPOV issues and WP:CSECTION. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Keep, The article has certain...
Click to read more »a sickness. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Weak delete: WP:CSECTION (essay, not policy) has been often cited in relation to this article. Previous...
Click to read more »16:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC) There's (part of) an essay on the subject: WP:CSECTION. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Courtesy links: Talk:Alvin_Bragg#Controversies...
Click to read more »several sections, is that the editors had decided to follow WP:CRIT and WP:CSECTION by integrating relevant information of due weight and proper sourcing into...
Click to read more »question. The most immediate thing I'd raise concerns about is that, per WP:CSECTION, "praise / criticism" isn't generally a good way to arrange sources; in...
Click to read more »is given to any particular point of view. You may also want to keep WP:CSECTION in mind here. Siawase (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) An interview[39]...
Click to read more »unbalanced, they're not a policy issue. It's also important not to use CSECTION as an excuse to whitewash an article - if you're removing a controversy...
Click to read more »BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Delete or *Redirect. WP:CSECTION: "An article dedicated to the negative criticism of a topic is usually...
Click to read more »July and was only one day old when it demonstrated familiarity with WP:CSECTION, as shown here. I only came to know about that essay a few months ago,...
Click to read more »links | watch | logs) Temporary semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. WP:CSECTION The IPs belong to a broad range and an IP block might not be reasonable...
Click to read more »be more specific as to the particular concerns". They also, as per WP:CSECTION, removed the controversy section’s title. Shortly after this post was made...
Click to read more »points aren't discussed in criticisms, but commentary is hived off to a WP:CSECTION (bad style) where it is far from apparent how/if it applies. And on examination...
Click to read more »someone based on WP:ATP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION, but the editor added it back. Looking at the history of the person that...
Click to read more »vandalism – IPs trying to turn this into a tabloid newspaper, violating WP:CSECTION to add content already in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 10 June...
Click to read more »section based on a single newspaper report seems undue to me. Also per WP:CSECTION, we discourage the creation of separate 'controversy' sections. AndyTheGrump...
Click to read more »merged the material into the career section, as per the guidance at WP:CSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Can some people...
Click to read more »section title "Controversy" remains, which is generally consider WP:POV (WP:CSECTION), isolating negative items into a section instead of integrating tidbits...
Click to read more »18:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Oppose for the usual reasons and because a CSECTION on a BLP is never appropriate in my book. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:07...
Click to read more »policies recommend. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC) WP:CSECTION. So any sugestions? any sources any statment to move us forward? Moxy-...
Click to read more »State of Israel. I think that could be a way around WP:POVFORK and WP:CSECTION here. Just because people have said these things doesn't mean they deserve...
Click to read more »career is covered under early life. Unnecessary controversy section (WP:CSECTION), with undue expanded statements; needs to be heavily condensed and incorporated...
Click to read more »structure it - I'm not sold on putting controversy in the header per WP:CSECTION, but having a broader section for long-term reception of the film makes...
Click to read more »12:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Template:Abot Template:ITN candidate Oppose WP:CSECTION and needs more citations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »are resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Support per WP:CSECTION, I've incorporated well-cited text from the "Controversies" section into...
Click to read more »now, as there are many sources still needed, and the article violates WP:CSECTION (shouldn't have controversy sections). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 13 April...
Click to read more »Twitter and the article about him ... surprise, surprise... has no Twitter CSECTION. Why? Because of our policy at WP:BLPBALANCE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs)...
Click to read more »18 January 2022 (UTC) Also, the "legal disputes" section violates WP:CSECTION: Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally...
Click to read more »with that one-line, single source "controversy" section in BLP; Cf. WP:CSECTION. Is this a controversy about him or about his businesses? If it's the former...
Click to read more »user and the Controversy and criticism section. Does it conform to WP:CSECTION? There have also been attempts to transfer those criticisms to other sections...
Click to read more »blurb or not. But if we do, something should first be done about the WP:CSECTION. IMO, a separate section for controversies is inherently undue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs...
Click to read more »why a blurb makes sense. --Masem (t) 14:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Well WP:CSECTION exists and are what make bios look unecyclopedic on here (as opposed to...
Click to read more »certainly needs more attention and reliable sources, but whitewashing and WP:CSECTIONs are not the proper solution. Meisenberg is notable for exactly two things:...
Click to read more »reliable source? I would venture a guess as yes. But does this deserve a WP:CSECTION? I would say no. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Oppose...
Click to read more »policy within NPOV policy. The essay Wikipedia:Criticism, especially WP:CSECTION, may prove useful to you, but note that it is an essay – not a policy or...
Click to read more »the content into the previous section on his political career as per WP:CSECTION. Since that sentence is actually the only prose with a cited source at...
Click to read more »should instead be included in the main sections of an article as per WP:CSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) They're discouraged...
Click to read more »understand how serious this is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC) WP:CSECTION is relevant here as well; content should not be under a "controversy" section...
Click to read more »September 2019 (UTC) Oppose until the "Criticism" section is dealt with. WP:CSECTION recommends that the problems with these sections can often be dealt with...
Click to read more »article is certainly not neutral either. I've made a small edit per WP:CSECTION and will try to look at this more closely later today. —Mx. Granger (talk...
Click to read more »— Citations still needed. More importantly, there is an unnecessary WP:CSECTION. Even Donald Trump, the most controversial person in our time, does not...
Click to read more »these questions? While a criticism type section is allowed, the essay WP:CSECTION makes a strong case that a better organization is to integrate the issues...
Click to read more »out this most recent edit, where UHF is edit warring to reinsert a WP:CSECTION with said unreliable sources, and saying the victim was "allegedly" a victim...
Click to read more »Cossde (talk · contribs) UtoD (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Inclusion of WP:CSECTION in the page when a separate article entirely dedicated for the content...
Click to read more »trouble. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) That WP:CSECTION uses the word "normally" and the part specifically about controversies...
Click to read more »“Historical Inaccuracy and Broadcast Warnings”, “Inaccuracy” is against wp:CSECTION rule not to have titles with negative connotation. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk)...
Click to read more »which I offered here. The summary version: Avoid crit sections per WP:CSECTION, incorporate relevant criticisms into the article, cut the trivia. (note...
Click to read more »Jeffries Show" section rather than a "controversies" section as per WP:CSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Here are the mainstream...
Click to read more »sum up the article and three paragraphs of it are "controversy" (see WP:CSECTION). The article is a third as long as the Ocean 8 article and hasn't been...
Click to read more »seem to have an axe to grind with Dilip Ghosh (and overcoverage per WP:CSECTION), but I'm not sure this rises to "conflict of interest." GeneralNotability...
Click to read more »Sherenk1 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSECTION. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Oppose (sadly). Massive...
Click to read more »wording of much of the content is a BLP and NPOV concern to me (see also WP:CSECTION). Take, for instance, he attracted "outrage" after performing a Nazi salute...
Click to read more »section covering both positive and negative coverage is needed. See WP:CSECTION. Also: My issue with the controversies [now Reception] is that I think...
Click to read more »few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are...
Click to read more »RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) General comments: Per WP:CSECTION, I would be wary of dividing reception into praise and criticism sections...
Click to read more »nonsense right-wing fringe), but it still holds in that an obvious csection is csection even if the name is slightly changed. seek consensus 23:09, 4 November...
Click to read more »in the edit summary: Revert edit warring. Aside from the fact that WP:CSECTIONs are forbidden, this material has been restored by multiple editors. We...
Click to read more »Democratic Society protesters against the Iran war. The article violates WP:CSECTION. DSA doesn't even have a history article yet: History of the Democratic...
Click to read more »them from a structural standpoint - they sort of have a mirror of the WP:CSECTION problem in that, even when we can find sources supporting individual entries...
Click to read more »isn't what CSECTION means at all, nor is that what I meant above. Wikipedia covers notable disputes and controversies all the time. CSECTION is about not...
Click to read more »Otr500 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC) Maybe you're thinking of WP:CSECTION, which is part of an essay. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2026...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:WPSCHOOLS/AG 2 MOS:SYNTAX 2 Wikipedia:ALBUMSTYLE 2 Wikipedia:BURL 2 Wikipedia:CSECTION 2 Wikipedia:DERRY 2 Wikipedia:Dead link 2 Wikipedia:ESSAY 2 Wikipedia:JWG...
Click to read more »WP:OVERLAP factors. The Supply side economics article has long suffered from WP:CSECTION issues. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC) So how about Supply-side...
Click to read more »merge/redirect than merge. IgelRM (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC) Per WP:CSECTION, that would be a preferable section title. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 24...
Click to read more »company but would suggest incorporating it under history so as to avoid WP:CSECTION. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Comment article has been...
Click to read more »Asimov had a monopoly on it. Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are...
Click to read more »Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Acquired a slightly WP:WEASELy WP:CSECTION recently, which should be worked into the rest of the article. --Hob Gadling...
Click to read more »"scrubbing" without consideration of peer arguments around due weight and WP:CSECTION, WP:ONUS, and WP:CONSENSUS. They do appear to try and wait out the 24 mark...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Articles such as this are frowned upon per WP:CSECTION as they tend to be POV forks. This article fits the bill of POV fork as...
Click to read more »of this behaviour. New editors and IP use it a lot, specifically the WP:CSECTION, to remove criticisms or controversial items from articles. Most of the...
Click to read more »removed. The content is relevant, but needs to be restructured per WP:CSECTION. The bibliography is largely unsourced and has a lot of external links...
Click to read more »that are too positive, but the article also has a controversy section,(WP:CSECTION). Article uses a facebook post by Brown to talk about endorsements Third...
Click to read more »msg me 02:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) pretty standard CSECTION enforcement - Just as a side point, CSECTION is an essay and shouldn't be "enforced" by edit...
Click to read more »strangely organized and written, its "Controversy" section both violates WP:CSECTION and has no discernable "controversy", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:11...
Click to read more »certainly isn't neutral. mathrick (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC) WP:CSECTION provides some good reasoning to avoid using a giant "Criticism" section...
Click to read more »Khan#Controversies section which OP has been told not to create per WP:CSECTION in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be merged...
Click to read more »(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Yes, I just merged it into the body per WP:CSECTION. Gotitbro (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Is it contrary to WP:BLP policy...
Click to read more »few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are...
Click to read more »I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on...
Click to read more »January 2025 (UTC) New editors and IP use it a lot, specifically the WP:CSECTION, to remove criticisms or controversial items from articles. Most of the...
Click to read more »section which User:SheriffIsInTown has been told not to create per WP:CSECTION in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be merged...
Click to read more »January 2024 (UTC) Just a friendly reminder that these are still BLPs. WP:CSECTIONs acting as a coatrack for picked quotes are still a no-no for BLPs. There...
Click to read more »State of Israel. I think that could be a way around WP:POVFORK and WP:CSECTION here. Just because people have said these things doesn't mean they deserve...
Click to read more »BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Delete or *Redirect. WP:CSECTION: "An article dedicated to the negative criticism of a topic is usually...
Click to read more »Hello, @Dagoofybloke. You may want to reconsider this, in the light of WP:CSECTION. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC) didnt know about that. But...
Click to read more »it? Thanks in advance. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC) WP:CSECTION.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Thank you! Samuelshraga...
Click to read more »content should be selectively weaved into the article and no dedicated WP:CSECTION should be built. Worse still is a CPAGE though! Delete this if a merge...
Click to read more »article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" (see WP:CSECTION). If there is consensus to include the information, it should be included...
Click to read more »Talk:Angelo Mozilo § Email incident is tagged as potential issue per WP:CSECTION. There's also a related talk section at Talk:Angelo Mozilo § Email incident...
Click to read more »RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) General comments: Per WP:CSECTION, I would be wary of dividing reception into praise and criticism sections...
Click to read more »issues/verbal spats/allegations under the heading "controversies", disregarding WP:CSECTION and it's long-term notability. Some of the articles created are also sensational...
Click to read more »thus better for user to explain issues in wording than WP:SOAPBOX WP:CSECTIONs by mass copy-paste dumping . -UtoD 05:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC) Diffs of previous...
Click to read more »