User talk: 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.)

[1]

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)