You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things make a bit more sense now after the CU blocks. I have to admit that even though I have experience with the master I didn't see that one coming. Meters (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I have made a couple of edits to the lede, taking on the two rational points in the sock's ranting, and also reorged the last section of the article so that it reads chronologically, which makes sense to me in that location. The article as a whole is still a many-headed mess, but I'd say the lede now tells the story fairly accurately and succintly. Any pruning you wanted to do, though, would probably help, especially in the messy parts of the article below the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unacceptable to go to the page of someone you despise and add 'notability' in the lead for something that you don't like them doing.

Read WP:BLP.

--Nanite (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanite, I have, in fact, read BLP. The BLP in question mostly read as a non-notable resume, with the subject's notable acts - the ones that actually might merit a WP page - left out or buried at the end. I was adding appropriate material to the lead, as already called for in templates placed by others on the article. This has nothing to do with what I "like". Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to apologise for the tone above -- I saw the inserted self-published youtube citation in the lead and figured it was just a drive-by WP:UNDUE attack. However as you say it is also mentioned in the body, so it's arguably notable. Sorry for assuming bad faith! --Nanite (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; your tone above was a bit off, but I did understand that your heart was in the right place, as your subsequent edits to the page showed. It is just funny to me to look back on my edit you quasi-reverted, which I made before the subject was fired from The Rebel. At the time the "White Genocide" video was arguably the most notable thing she had done, but she is now clearly more famous for being fired after Charlotteville (and arguably for live-streaming the alleged vehicular homicide that took place). There was quite the edit war over my use of the (sourced) term "sympathetic", although the recent semi-protection should inhibit any more of that.

Anyway, I did get around to removing her rowing captaincy and undergraduate scholarship from the article, at least. Perhaps ironically, it read more like a CV before she was fired ....

As I say, no worries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got that confused with a fringe site. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to join the discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you think this fringe viewpoint needs to be featured so prominently. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, because it isn't fringe. A very casual search on my part turns up at least half a dozen recent, scholarly sources making this point. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you were working on a draft for Suite Antique. As I've always liked this work, I've decided to write a quick article on it and it's live now. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to look at it or had any things you wanted to add. I'm planning to add a bit more description when I next get time though. Blythwood (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts were entirely unnecessary and imprudent. The term "politician" is an inarguably WP:POV term to describe someone involved with politics, which is exactly why respected politicians that are still alive such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are described as such instead of "stateswoman" and "statesman" respectively. However, as WP:BLPSTYLE does not apply to politicians who are long gone, the term is fine insofar as the term has been used by historians to describe said politician. Basically, the term "statesman" is something that is only used to refer to deceased politicians of significant importance, not for contemporary politicians still living. I hope you will understand this and reconsider your edits.--Nevé–selbert 20:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the Colin Powell talk page; I would also question whether you understand the policies you are citing, since there is nothing in BLPSTYLE counterindicating the use of the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" when reliable sources describe a person's role as such, and there is very good indication NOT to make up a description for a person based on an ideosyncratic point of view, such as referring to people who, in electoral democracies, have never sought electoral office as "politicians" because you read in Harry Truman that statesmen are dead people. I suggest you not magnify your mistakes using automated tools, in future...Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the message at the top of every talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have, and I did again before reverting your revert. We are having a disagreement about the application of that policy, you and I: I am not acting in ignorance of it.Newimpartial (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's help you with your reading comprehension:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references [emphasis mine] are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material.

Please note that adding reliable sources [emphasis mine] is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source [emphasis original], you may remove this tag [emphasis mine].

This is not even slightly difficult. So don't edit war over things you're wrong about. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton You might wanna back off the hounding with this. BLPPROD specifically states To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag. There were sources originally (reliability is definitely debatable) and have been throughout every revision, therefor BLPPROD doesn't apply in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, as it was my fault, as the script penetrated my Wikipedia editing. I've reverted myself and have fixed the problem. I am notifying The Gnome of this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm just giving you this notice as I've seen that, while the editor you're in a dispute in has received this notice, you yourself have not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor is clearly afoul of 4.1.7 of the final decision. Do you really think that "chromosome supremacist" puts me afoul of 4.1.8? I have since explain that what I literally meant was more "chromosome reductionist" but I was trying to be clever. I can absolutely strikethrough if you are offended. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I figured I'd talk to you first before risking creating a new trash fire on the American Renaissance Talk Page. Thus, I'm here to ask you, what makes you think that Am Ren should be labeled "White Supremacist" instead of "White Nationalist"?

Personally, my reasoning for having it labeled as "White Nationalist" instead of "White Supremacist" is as follows (I admit, copied right from my own user page): When writing or editing articles on political figures, I am very picky (and somewhat strange, I admit) in what sources I'll cite. This is because the vast majority of reputable sources, whether they be big mainstream publications, or smaller publications, are still over saturated by their bias. Thus, I've found it best to cite directly from the political figures themselves when defining their political views. After all, who can better assess what a person's views and beliefs are than the person themselves? Outside forces can interpret and judge something all they want. But none can ever really know if their assessments are true unless directly confirmed or rejected by the thing being judged.

I don't know what your political views are. Nor do I know if they influence you when labeling it as "white supremacist". But hopefully we can be civil and come to a mutual agreement here. And not have to create more drama on the talk page if necessary.

Cheers, Da secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)da_secret_agentDa secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Da secret agent. As you might have guessed, I have been busy off-wiki.

Basically, my answer is that the reliable sources regard "White nationalist" as a euphemism for "White supremacist", AFAICT, so WP should do likewise. And WP does not privilege what sources say about themselves over what reliable sources say about them; quite the opposite.

Also, the only way to get the kind of terminology changed as you want for this article is to produce a new consensus, either on the article page alone or in a wider RfC or similar process. There really is no short cut. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my error and doing so calmly. That was a mistake on my part and deserves a WP:TROUT. Please accept my sincere apologies.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to how discussions of "transracial" people are used in discussion of transgender rights, you're completely right. I think it's important though to keep hammering home the irrelevance of that comparison to the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter how Wikipedia handles "transracial" people when we have explicit style guide instructions for how to handle transgendered people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling User:Chetsford a "clueless editor" who "believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are 'designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego' [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion."

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "clueless editor" comment was unnecessary, and would be happy to strike it on each occasion if you would prefer. The remainder of my comment, however, seems to me to be perfectly germane for each occasion I included it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe best. Chetsford? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re this edit please give Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice a read and consider its advice. That edit very likely has changed the character of the ANI discussion from a topic ban limited in both time and scope to the possibility of a long term block or, should you continue to make attacks, an indefinite community ban. I think that would be a shame. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I forget. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]

Also NB [11]Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this and also this. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Newimpartial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be interpeted as a misleading username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I know you've been here for a while, but I just wanted to let you know that your username could be interpreted as one violating username policy as a misleading username. No risk of UAA from me, just letting you know others might not be so generous. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any username with "new" in it could be seen as misleading after ten years, but I don't think that should raise any questions of policy compliance so, no, I don't think it is an"misleading username" in the sense of the policy Newimpartial (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... there's no violation here. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Newimpartial, I have just closed your request because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the edit you reported was not a violation. Userwoman is topic banned from "gender issues" and, while Kavanaugh is currently embroiled in what could be described as a "gender-related controversy" under the GamerGate decision, the article itself is not about gender issues and the edit in question is not about that either. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salvio. I appreciate the close.

My own interpretation of that polling is, perhaps needless to say, somewhat different, based on my own reading on the topic. However, I value the work of administrators in adjudicating what must be a very unruly body of sanctions and requests for action. You're doing an important (and thankless) job. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said on her talk page, her edit skirted close to the line, although it did not cross it. Probably her topic ban was not formulated in the most accurate way in the first place, since, under the GamerGate sanctions, people can also be topic banned from "people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy", but we have to enforce the topic ban as it has been written

Hello, I'm wondering specifically how my comment violated the NOTFORUM rule. I provided a brief comment in an ongoing thread, directly on-point, with a specific editing suggestion, backed up with a source. What more do I need to do, exactly, to have my comments NOT deleted? It seems to me that I am simply not allowed to participate, as editors are deleting every single one of my comments, even when I follow what they say. I see comments all over these talk pages that are forum-esque discussion without sources (for example, I saw a very long rant on the trans woman talk page, about 5 paragraphs, that was all just POV without a single source cited; I deleted it, and an editor reverted it, but did not revert my comment, which was also very brief, specifically about a point of editing, with a source). Why am I being singled out? And again, what exactly do I need to do to not have my comments deleted? Thank you very much. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a magic formula for relevant comments, but here are some pointers:

DONT use the Talk page to object to the premise of a sourced article, EVEN IF you have one or two sources yourself. If you want to propose changes to an article in that situation, propose specific changes on the basis of BALANCE instead.

DO use Talk pages to propose specific changes to the article in draft form, not to debate the article's underlying assumptions (which is perhaps the main kind of NOTFORUM violation I run into).

DONT append new comments to old topics that are several months stale, ESPECIALLY to launch into new tangents on those topics. It is better to add new sections in this situation.

DO review the Talk page and its archives to see whether issues like yours have been raised before; in your particular case (people who think that science has produced one definitive definition of "biological sex" which should then also be used in place of, or to define, gender) that position has been discussed to death, on article Talk pages and in community discussions (NPOV noticeboard) and has not met with much support; it is essentially regarded as a FRINGE position. In particular,

DONT make an argument about an article's content that is based in a personal conviction where many other editors have already made similar arguments based on the same personal conviction, or at least recognize in your framing of your intervention that you are raising one more time a point that has previously been made - the onus for quality sources is especially important in this situation.

I really do hope this helps! Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to me. It's much appreciated, even though we disagree on the topic at issue. I take your points, but still wonder about the appropriateness of simply deleting comments like mine outright, rather than either ignoring them or responding to them on the talk page with something like what you just wrote. Obviously it makes sense to be strict about actual pages, since that's what people are reading, the finished product. But talk pages are for, well, talking, and while I don't think it should be a total free-for-all, I don't really see why the guidelines shouldn't be pretty liberally applied, since there isn't a limit on real estate and few people (compared to Wikipedia readership) looks at them anyway. It really seems like the general guidelines cited as the basis for deleting them can easily be weaponized by editors with status in the community to censor comments they disagree with--not actually based on the egregiousness of the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but based on a strong dislike of the view expressed. This is demonstrated by the existence of comments like the one I cited--if it were really just about the guidelines, that rant would have been deleted. The fact that my deletion of it was reverted, on the grounds that my motivation of 'making a point' was improper, is just astounding. It is of course true that I wanted to see whether this would happen, but it's also true that the comment was plainly in violation of NOTAFORUM--so regardless of my motivation, shouldn't it be deleted? Isn't it making a point to me to revert it? I've been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I always had a good opinion of it, but this experience of seeing what actually happens behind the scenes, at least on controversial topics, has left me really doubting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a truly reliable 'neutral' source (if such a thing is even possible). Of course I recognize that you don't represent Wikipedia as a whole, but since you seem to be a regular editor, I don't know of anyone better to express this to than you. I'm new here on the editing side, but it really would not occur to me to simply delete a comment on a talk page outright just because I strongly disagree with the view expressed, unless it was egregiously in violation of the rules. To do so just smacks of censorship and political revenge, and most of all, pettiness. Do you get where I'm coming from? --45.48.238.252 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really. I mean, editors do not delete comments on Talk pages that they disagree with - that is quite strictly frowned upon - but they do delete comments that are not useful, including POINTey edits and NOTFORUM violations. Article talk pages are in fact not intended to be a free-for-all, and they work best when the discussion is quite tightly tied to specific proposals to amend the article.

And BTW, your tit for tat deletion of what you called a "rant" is an absolutely textbook example of POINTey behaviour, so it was procedurally correct to revert your deletion even if the content you deleted was a NOTFORUM violation. But in fact, looking back on the intervention you deleted, I don't think it is such a violation. It is long and rambly and argumentative, and it doesn't give its sources, but it is eminently source-able (without relying on FRINGE figures) and offers a clear logical structure that advances a particular discussion. This is as opposed to your original Trans-woman Talk comment, for example, which used a stale discussion, COATRACK-sryle, to talk about something that was bothering you without offering any particular contribution to the article.

I would also point out that editors watching the articles on gender identities tend (understandably) to become irritated when people that know little or nothing about the field of gender identity arrive to edit these articles or their talk pages, just as I imagine that editors that watch biology or physics articles would be annoyed when people who know little about their subject matter arrive to edit them, or arrive on Talk to clumsily re-open topics that have been done to death in the recent past. So if you want to make a constructive contribution, don't regard Talk pages as "free-for-all" and try to come up with specific, sourced, non-FRINGE proposals that would improve the content of articles, and be prepared to discuss these proposals in a non-confrontational way, preferably with some humility. And if you care too much about a particular topic to observe the expectations of the WP environment, move to a topic you care less about and contribute there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just want to address one more thing. I'm still mystified by the procedural correctness of reverting that edit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a NOTAFORUM violation that I'd deleted - wouldn't reverting it, based solely on my improper motive, be an example of the reverting editor simply making a point (to me) as well? It seems very weird that a comment violating NOTAFORUM policy (again, assuming this for the sake of argument) would be allowed to stand just to privately punish an editor for his motive in deleting it. Isn't this just making the community suffer, or lowering the quality of the talk page, to sanction an individual editor? I would think that a sanction directed solely at the editor (me), while still deleting the NOTAFORUM comment simply because it's in violation of the guidelines, would make more sense. Is my understanding of this correct, that a comment in violation of the rules can be immunized against deletion if an editor has deleted it because of some improper motive? Thanks. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT, as it describes this situation almost exactly. And while you're at it, read WP:COATRACK and try to think laterally about how it might apply to talk pages (since that discussion is framed for articles).

Wikipedia is governed largely by procedural rules - deleting or restoring a page against a consensus ruling is always wrong, even if that ruling was itself incorrect. Exceeding a revert limit is always wrong (except for COPYVIO or BLP violations) even if the article version an editor reverts to is manifestly better than the one reverted from. Without procedure, there would be chaos and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you could contribute usefully to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my clarification of "Hebrew Bible", citing "unsourced POV". I'm afraid I don't follow, as my edit is less of a Point of View change, and more of recognising the theological differences between and making the article more theologically neutral instead of the previous Christian-centric terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer you to the opening paragraph of this well-written article: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merger of the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh articles was discussed extensively before consensus was reached. Please read those discussions and start a new Talk page discussion before essaying the change again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have read The Misunderstood Jew, so I am quite familiar with Levine's argument. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I briefly skimmed over that discussion earlier and I've just had a full-read of it now, and I'm still in support of renaming the page. It looks as though no real consensus was reached to me, not to mention that very few actual references were included in this discussion in relation to WP:COMMONNAME; every reference that I've ever seen to the Tanakh has referenced exactly that, the "Tanakh" (or variations) not the "Hebrew Bible". I've expanded on this under my note here - I'd appreciate your thoughts over there :) 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent revert on the Carl Benjamin article is a 3RR violation. You might want to revert your revert so as not to run afoul of WP rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, LedRush, but my first revert and my fourth revert were nearly 48 hours apart. The relevant period for 3RR, as I understand it, is 24 hours. Please advise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve edited on an article this contentious and I thought the rule was more strict than it was. I’m sorry I took up your time.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for you to chime in: Talk:Andrew_Scheer#Definition of Henry Morgentaler Shemtovca (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm waiting for a consensus to develop. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not that "one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities" it was that you can only do it if you call some one by a gender descriptor that is substantively different from the gender identity you have asked to be used. Hence why I asked how are guys descriptors different from Fae's. Fae's choice (as far as I can tell) in gender neutral, if Guys ones are also gender neutral he is not misgenderimng them, as they are still being referred to as gender neutral. he is (as I said more then once) being rude and inconsiderate, but that is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what I referred to as a "sophomoric analytical philosophy argument". In lay terms, you are allowing three values for gender: masculine, feminine, and "gender neutral", and you are saying that no values in the latter category are "substantively different" from one another. This argument is simply bollocks and, followed to its logical conclusion, would posit that editors using "it" for other editors who prefer "they" are not misgendering the latter.

In real life, people whose gender identity is "genderqueer" hold a different gender identity than those whose identity is "neuter", just as those whose identity is "genderfluid" have a different gender identity from those who identify as "nonbinary" or "third gender". If you impose a linear, three-value scale on other people's gender identities you are misgendering them, which is why the contemporary turn has been to allow people to choose their own pronouns rather than dragging, say, zie out of the rhetorical attic as a "gender neutral" third person singular. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if it was clear which of those "they" referred to you might have a point. The problem is it is not clear, in fact it is not even (as far as I know) yet really recognized as even a gender pronoun, and when it is used it is a gender neutral, I.E. not referring to a specific gender.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are having a terminological misunderstanding with respect to "misgender". From a grammatical standpoint, we might understand English as having three genders, in which case using "they" for "it" or "zie" is not "misgendering". But the current ethics around pronoun choice is not about grammatical gender - if you were to refer as a trans woman as "he", nobody would be offended on the assumption that you made a grammatical mistake. The point is social msigendering - refusal to accept a person's gender identity. And substituting one non-masculine, non-feminine pronoun for a person's chosen one is every bit as much an act of social misgendering as substituting "he" for "she". Gender identities are simply not indifferent and interchangeable in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we are having a policy one. We are not here to enforce any social polices from off wiki, we are here (well at ANI) to enforce only Wikipedias polices.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA includes gender identity in the list of attributes that Wikipedians are not to attack each other over, just as it is protected in human rights law where I live. In all of the discussions I have seen on Wikipedia since the large MOS:GENDERID RfC, respect for the gender identity of editors has been understood to be covered by CIVIL and other related policies and norms. Treating other editors with respect is a WP principle, not a "social policy from off-site", and respect for gender identity is an inherent aspect of 21st-century respect. If we can see this clearly for content policies, I don't see why it is occasionally difficult for contributors to see it for conduct policies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was this an attack on their gender ID? Unless it was deliberating mocking the fact they have asked to be regarded as gender...well what gender? It may be the case, or it may not be, it is down to you to show it was used mockingly (rather then just childishly). Maybe it cannot be clearly seen, because it is not really there (well was not meant to be applied in this way) to (paraphrase?) quote another users if you think this should be in policy make the suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is obvious that, if an editor refuses to use another editor's preferred pronouns because the latter editor has asked for certain pronouns to be used, as is Guy's account of his own actions[12] then this is a clear violation of CIVIL, NPA and possibly HARASS. "Childishness of intent" is not really a defense for such behavior - we are all responsible for what we actually do, not simply for what we intend. And I do not find Guy's retrenchment and BATTLEGROUNDiness on this matter at all reassuring.

I do agree that, after the dust has settled from this and from SMcCandlish's previous contretemps, it might be best to further clarify that gender ID is not an allowable pretext to mess with other editors, any more than using the noun "bitch" or casting antisemitic aspersions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of use do use a rather formal register of English in many discussions here, most especially at noticeboards. If you can't tell that Guy Macon was using one (note, for example, the almost total lack of contractions), then nothing I can say will be very instructive for you, since I lack any magical ability to increase your observational acuity. It was not a non sequitur, and you were not in a position to try to police him for this imaginary fault.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was commenting, not policing.

Second, while contractions are a personal choice, the Chicago Manual is clearly not intending for its recommendations about "formal" register to be applied in the context of wiki talk pages; its recommendations about formal usage are simply not relevant, regardless of individual picadillos.

Third, the matter under discussion was whether there are contemporary authorities (not op-eds or curmudgeons) that hold that the singular "they" is incorrect grammar or usage. There simply aren't, and the CMOS preference re: formal usage is not a relevant exception.

Finally, as much as I respect people's willingness to defend the rights of others to say things that one would not, oneself, say, I think Floq's close was correct and your own defense of Macron's choices - at odds as it was with his own self-explanation - was ill-advised if, from a certain perspective, valiant. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was interesting [[13]]. Checkuser blocked. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove comments simply because you don't agree with them. This was an improper removal. The comment contained no slurs or personal attacks, was not made by an SPA, and is focused on the state of the Wikipedia article rather than the subject itself. It doesn't violate any talk page guidelines. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree, User:Bilorv. I actually reread the article and guidelines before reverting the comment, and the comment did not in any way relate to the article I read. I was reverting for non-compliance, not agreement or disagreement - please AGF for my stated edit summary, at least.

Specifically concerning the talk page guidelines, the comment did not follow - in fact, it ran directly counter to - the key bullets in WP:TALK#USE, q.v.:

Be positive

Stay objective

Deal with facts

Share material

Discuss edits

I will not re-revert this, but I have spent a fair amount of time on Trans-related pages, and the wasted time, energy, and likely trolling and brigading that will follow any discussion consequent to the post in question will be your responsibility, not mine. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this edit by him.[14]. WP:NONAZIS applied. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you reinserted the text about a brief and inconsequential offshoot of MSNBC. You cited wp:NOTTEMPORARY, but that refers to notability, i.e. whether there should be a Wikipedia article about a subject. The applicable guideline for content within an article is WP:WEIGHT. The MSNBC2 product was one of countless initiatives that were tried and rejected when they did not meet expectations. Any business has loads of those. It is of no enduring significance to the topic of the article nor has it had a significant impact on present-day MSNBC. As such, it's UNDUE and should be removed. Please consider and undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you thoughtfully considered why I cited NOTTEMPORARY. Notability is not temporary and, indeed, MSNBC2 has its own article. As a reader and knowledge practictioner, I really prefer when these notable topics (especially past failures) are integrated into and linked from the parent articles. Excessive presentism in determining what is DUE is a bane. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of your recent edits has been started at WP:AN#User:Newimpartial. You are invited to comment there. Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy about how the original names of trans people are handled. It does not – as you seem to believe – state that those names should be censored completely from the article if the person was not notable under their birth name. The policy says that those names are not included in the lede under those circumstances. Removing their original name altogether from the article makes it look as if the subject was given the name they later chose at birth, by their parents, which is untrue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a basis for this assertion in policy or RfC (aside from NOTCENSORED, which has been amply contextualized against no-harm principles in the many RfCs on the subject)? Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any basis for yours? MOS:GENDERID says that when they were notable we should, but doesn't say (as you seem to believe) that when they were not that we shouldn't. In fact, the very next sentence if official hands-off on the subject: "MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names". Furthermore, WP:DEADNAME clarifies that the guideline about notability is specifically about the lede, not the entirety of the article.

An article about a trans person that does not acknowledge anywhere in any way that they were given a different name at birth, and lived with it for however long they did, is presenting a misleading picture of their life. Someone reading this new version of Candis Cayne, for example, might get the impression that she was named Candis by her parents, and infer that this is why she identifies as female. Knowing that she was instead given a boy's name is important to understanding her choice to transition, and its importance to her life story. Wikipedia's first duty is to our readers, to inform them and help them understand the subjects they're reading about. Telling them that is a woman who lived with the name Brendan for her entire childhood and adolescence serves that purpose. An Orwellian article that suggests that she has never had any name but Candis does not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been discussed at length in the repeated RfCs that gave rise to MOS:GGENDERID, and the consensus is most definitely not "birth names are not censored". The principal of not doing harm to living people has been specifically recognized in this context, and the harm that can result from provision of dead names has been recognized. The argument you are making, that non-notable deadnames are nevertheless needed to inform WP readers, has been acknowledged and set aside. So do I have to do the necessary searches to point you to those RfCs, or are you able to do it yourself? Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random RfCs are not conclusive, and MOS:GENDERID is just a style guide. I would love to see a policy that addressed this, so we wouldn't have to deal with this kind round-and-round nonsense every time another drive-by editor gets people wound up about it one way or the other. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about "random RfCs"; I am talking about widely-participated discussions on the issue of deadnaming on WP in general. And this is primarily a matter of how articles are written, so it seems to me that the MOS was precisely the place to document the main findings of those discussions. OTOH, there have been some issues raised about deadnaming and pronoun choice outside the MOS context, such as CIVILity issues, so I wouldn't object to a wider policy as well, to complement the MOS guidance about deadnames and pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had a better feeling for which of the "proud member of" were inside quotations. :( Thank you for the catch.Naraht (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors on that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now you appear to be chasing my edits... and reverting "textual errors" that don't exist? There were no textual edits made in Olmecs, what on earth are you talking about? I *fixed* textual errors and you *reverted* the textual errors. What are you doing? Ogress 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are under the impression that ritually deposited at the shrine at shrine El Manatí is somehow not an error? Or that Nile, Indus, and Yellow river valleys is an improvement on Nile, Indus, and Yellow River valleys. And AFAICT, one of the main reasons 'contribs' links exist is so when someone has made an edit against policy or common sense, other editors can check their work elsewhere to see whether they have done the same - as, indeed, you had. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You felt that you should roll back a large edit instead of just telling me there's an error? It feels hostile. I do make mistakes, I won't lie. Just tell me so I can fix them instead of rolling back all the work, I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you hit ROLLBACK, now do I, and it's frustrating. Now I can fix that problem. I'm American and being forced to move tomorrow during a pandemic and I'll be the first to admit I'm liable to make errors, but mashing "NO" isn't helpful on someone who is legitimately trying to edit an article rather than being a troll. You can just tell someone they made a mistake (assuming you don't want to correct it, which is 100% valid). It's not good faith, I've been an editor forever and I have bad days like everyone else. Ogress 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, you need to be more careful. I still see no advantage in your changes to the Anthropocene article, and in Olmecs I see a lot of inexplicable overlinking of dates and "stylistic" changes that don't result in clear improvements to the text, and then I see edit summaries like "grammar". I am aware that there are different approaches to editing, but my approach is that every change to an article in main space should reflect WP's consensus on the article's topic and should represent a clear improvement, rather than just an alternative or one person's stylistic preference (and also that the area of improvement should be clearly indicated in the edit summary). What I saw in those two edits (not talking about your edits in general) did not meet one or the other of those criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Newimpartial. Thanks for your comment at Talk:LGBT ideology#Proposed new title: LGBT ideology in Poland. Would you mind tweaking the style (referring to the bottom-half one, here, in the "poll" part) to make its contextual relationship with the rest of that discussion clear? What I mean, is:

• if it's intended as a reply to my 00:17 21 Aug comment, then prefix it by *:;
• if it's a new comment at the same level as mine and the 16:37, 20 Aug. post, then prefix it with * '''Comment''' or similar
• if it's kind of a general point of discussion about the proposed new title that conceivably could generate some back-and-forth, and it's more of a discussion-opener than a "poll"-type brief response, in that case, precede it by ===Discussion=== or an H3 subsection header of your choice.

All of these are just suggestions, because I have to admit I couldn't tell how you meant that comment, but it's up to you what, if anything, you wish to do there. (If no one else has responded yet, you don't have to follow WP:REDACT; you can alter it as desired; it's yours.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is fixed now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not follow me around to articles you have never edited before in subject areas you do not edit just to contradict me, as you did here. Continued behavior like this will result in me seeking a one-way WP:IBAN for you towards me. I have plenty of evidence of your problematic behavior towards me, e.g. here. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing behaviour to me that I have not in fact performed. I have been watching the Black Book of Communism discussion for some time, and joined it to comment on Puedo's comment, not to yours (although I recognize I indented it as a response to yours since you had replied before I did and I believe continuing an indent chain is generally less confusing than creating parallel subthreads).

Are you also going to accuse me of HOUNDING here, where my vote came after yours but I (1) agreed with you and (2) have been following the discussion since well before you added your contribution?

As far as your "evidence" is concerned, that didn't get you anywhere last time you were at AfD and I don't see why anything would have changed since. The fact is that our editing interests overlap on LGBT issues and certain other Culture wars topics, and you do not OWN any of those articles just because I haven't edited one of them before. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in that move discussion right after me is in fact further evidence you follow me around, even if not technically hounding in itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, you are simply wrong about that. I started following that article because I searched the topic on google, then followed the article - at that point I hadn't even looked at the Talk page or nor did I know about the move discussion. Then later I read the Move discussion but wasn't sure how to make my !Vote effective/relevant. Then I read the ANI discussions on the topic, and then - only then - I saw your !Vote (not from your contributions but from my watch list), saw that it might be effective to make a similar !vote but with a different rationale, and so I did. There wasn't even a hint of HOUNDING on my part with respect to that page, not at all. The fact is that the total impact of a "one way iBan" with respect to that page and the Black Book is that, to observe a potential iBan, I would have had to put one fewer colons in front of my Black Book comment (since the comment itself wasn't directed at you).

My sense is that you might be better off taking my Talk page comments at face value rather than assuming that they are somehow about you. They aren't. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely you are not arguing that Braune is a veritable "Cultural Marxist"?

Veritable? The word you wanted was "card-carrying"!  ;-^ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(You are correct that strictly speaking, I violated the rules. I'm probably doing so again here. I should have been more meticulous in my edit. But my suggestion for an improvement to the article was obviously implicit in my complaint.)

GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That had better been a mistake. I'm allowed to go to an admin's talk page about it. Not everything needs to go to WP:Requests for page protection. Funnily enough, I was in the process of reverting myself because I realized that Girth may not get to it on time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here it was a mistake, and you have my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you read the first paragraph of WP:NORG as it completely contradicts the WP:NSCHOOL section, also there is consensus for this change at the RFC for the change to WP:CORPDEPTH, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a CORPDEPTH RfC. Care to point me in the right direction? Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its on section 5 of the archive page here where the close says it does not apply to schools. There is also continued discussion on the following archive page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the big NORG rewrite of 2018. I don't see anything there that would suggest that schools that meet NORG would not be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says this notion started in the 17th and not 19th century, from what I can tell. Is there an issue I'm missing?Mcc1789 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "pseudo-scientific". Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Contrary to your edit summary, the announcement of Page's transition as a transgender male is widely reported. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the citations of the WP article and much additional coverage, and none of it used the terms "male" or "transgender male". Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot very specifically did not specify binary or non-binary transgender, this is why different articles are making it up as they go along. For the best accuracy, sticking with only identity terms he has specifically used is the most respectful. -- spazure (contribs) 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that principle, but on Wikipedia ABOUTSELF claims do not trump reliably sourced claims. We have no reason to think NBC or CNN are making "making up" the nonbinary identity - which AFAICT comes from the GLAAD press release that I assume Elliot saw before it went out. If we find out that he does not identify as nonbinary, then we clarify the article, but so far no RS (even an ABOUTSELF one) has said this. Newimpartial (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. He also retweeted GLAAD's article, which is good enough for me. Common sense says he could have corrected right then, if it were wrong. -- spazure (contribs) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your corpses comment just made me laugh my ass off, NGL. After the day I've had, it was a much needed moment of levity. -- spazure (contribs) 08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting referenced quotes, please take a look at the discussion page. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONUS concerning the addition of contested material, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY about additions to the lede. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start the edit wars, the edit war was started because of the word "somewhat", which I corrected. The quote does not need approval, as there is nothing controversial about it, it simply states a fact not picking any sides.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are misreading the article history, but anyway the place for that discussion is the article talk page. Also, if you've read WP:EW you know that "they started it!" isn't a policy-compliant justification for edit warring. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking at an older version of the page. My mistake. I've self-reverted my comment. Thank you for being good about it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if this is weird I'm not too sure on what wikipedia policy is on these sorts of messages as I've not used the site in ages - just wanted to thank you for all of the work you've been doing on the Elliot Page article! Some of the blatant and wilful misunderstandings of trans people on that talk page and how they understand themselves and want to be viewed by the world makes for grim reading, so I appreciated seeing your name continuously pop up as someone who was calling that out and giving trans people's identities the respect they deserve. Thanks! -- Yrissea (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And there is no reason not to leave encouraging messages. :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticing you reverting my edits at Intersex can you please go into the talk page and explain more in detail why you removed the survey I added.CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of that source has already been reverted by other editors, so the ONUS is on you to reach consensus for inclusion on the article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that Leej12255 did not have a talk page and has never been welcomed. I have done so now. I'm not sufficiently exercised by the topic to pursue the issue but its absence does seem surprising for someone you say has been editing since 2009. It certainly came across as a wp:please don't bite the newbies but I'll take your word for it.

I still don't see it as a wp:NOTFORUM violation but it certainly does read like an unfocused blog post (no bets being taken that it won't appear verbatim on his blog). Even though the talk page has a {{Round in circles}} tag, perhaps it would be friendly to point out the RFC to him since archive searches are only as good as the words chosen for the search. Your time, your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming him, and if he turns out to be HERE, I will try to encourage a more constructive approach. My tolerance for people who regard Jordan Peterson as a productive colleague is perhaps thinner than it ought to be online, where "nobody knows you're a dog". Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. As it happens, I did so just before I received your message, but redundancy is helpful at times. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BRD & WP:EDITCONCENSUS, please refrain from removing the birth name from the Billy Tipton article without first reaching consensus at Talk:Billy Tipton. There is already a discussion there about this very issue. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't invoke BRD (or CONSENSUS) as support for your edit war to maintain a BOLD addition to an article. WP:ONUS specifies that the burden is placed on those adding contested material to obtain consensus before doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS does not trump WP:EDITCONSENSUS; both are English Wikipedia Policies. I would argue in fact that EDITCONSENSUS is at the heart of the Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility pillar.

WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages. It is true that it is neither a policy or a guideline, & there are alternatives. It does seem to me that changes around the birth name do require consensus.

Since the birth name has been part of the article since its creation on 2003-01-15, I think that makes a strong case for EDITCONSENSUS rather than your claim of ONUS, which dates from today, 2021-01-28.

As noted there is an ongoing discussion. Peaceray (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is nothing in EDITCONSENSUS that conflicts with the provision in ONUS that contested material be removed until consensus is reached to include it. This provision therefore applies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Such an interpretation would allow the removal of substantial amount of existing material from an article because one to a few bold editors choose to contest it. In fact, ONUS is heavily weighted towards consensus. Even a bold ONUS does not trump previous consensus. ONUS speaks to inclusion, which by definition refers to newer material. No, there is nothing in ONUS that implies that it overrides consensus. Peaceray (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a previous consensus for inclusion of the DEADNAME at Billy Tipton? I haven't seen one. Silence is not consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has used consensus decades before Wikipedia came to be, I suspect that you do not have a complete understanding about what constitutes consensus. Please read the Consensus decision-making article to gain some insight.

You state Silence is not consensus. On the contrary, in the Quaker & other traditions, silence does produce consensus.

Since the EDITCONSENSUS has included the birth name since the creation of the article, the onus is on you to produce reasons for excluding it. For that, I will turn the question on its head: Can you point to a previous consensus for exclusion of the birth name in any article about a historical transgendered person? Peaceray (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are the one who is misconstruing what is meant by consensus on Wikipedia - although it does not require unanimity, it is an active, verbalized consensus only that is policy-relevant. And in the absence of a prior consensus based on discussion, ONUS applies and contested material is to be excluded unless consensus is formed to include it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you & I have very different interpretations of consensus on Wikipedia & ONUS. I believe that anything that is put into the article within policy & guidelines & has met EDITCONSENSUS requires consensus to remove. No ONUS required. If I understand you correctly, you believe anything in an article is fair game for removal & requires ONUS to keep it in. Both of us are experienced Wikipedians, with you having registered a few years before me & with me having considerably more edits than you. Both of us are familiar with policies & guidelines, albeit with opposing interpretations. I think that continued discussion here is likely to prove unfruitful. Therefore, it is probably best to leave the discussion here & take it to article or WikiProject talk pages where others can offer their input. Peaceray (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is as may be, but the second sentence of WP:EDITCONSENSUS reads, Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus (emphasis added). For edits that are disputed - and in this case, disputed by multiple editors - the provision from WP:ONUS applies, specifying that contentious material be removed until consensus is reached. This doesn't seem to me like a noticeboard-worthy or complex case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with that. Contentious information is a different ball game than merely information people want to remove. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to cooperate with you on one, as a sign of no hard feelings. Your choice of which? Or I can choose if you prefer. --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose anything that isn't related to Dungeons & Dragons :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I went to WP:RPG, saw they have a list of requested articles, and am going to do an initial source search for each, and put the results at User:GRuban/RPG cooperation. You can help, or just wait for me to gather the info, and we can pick one. So far, I have almost certainly found enough reliable sources for Cthulhu for President, but it's only tangentially going to be an article about the roleplaying game. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see no problem reaching out to authors so long as you don't get to the point of COI. And I support the line-based approach, grouping information about a few books together, compared to a narrow single book-based approach. So in the case of GURPS:STEAMPUNK there would be at least, what?, four printed volumes plus additional e-publications? Mind you, 2000-01 was close to a nadir of independent, RS RPG reviews, but I will see what I can find. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy to chip in at the margins of Cthulhu for President, since I found it quite amusing back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related: User_talk:BOZ#Review_sources? I don't suppose you have access to the relevant issue of Alarms and Excursions?

Sadly, no. And as I say, my access to non-SJG sources for that period is quite poor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One user who might have it is Guinness323? BOZ (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent mail to Guinness323. William Stoddard wrote back, and is interested in helping, but doesn't seem to have any print sources other than what is on the web. I started to gather those into User talk:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk - I'm guessing it's all right to use the user page you earlier created for this purpose? --GRuban (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that is perfect. I have made a couple of (unsigned) comments in reply, but feel free to use that space however you like in this process. Treat it as though it were a Draft page, if you like, or move the content elsewhere once content there is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of sources, and can create an interesting GURPS Steampunk article but I'm worried that it won't meet Wikipedia:Notability. We've got one Origins Award, but other than that it's mostly primary sources, and a bunch of self-published blogs. https://www.rpg-collecting.com/gurps/ says it won 3 awards, but that was news to Bill Stoddard, so is likely in error. I also got in touch with Phil Masters, who also didn't know any published reviews (though he was able to release an image for our article about him, so not a total loss). It may well be deleted at WP:AFD. If that doesn't bother you, we can start writing it anyway, and just take our chances. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: There's a chance! I found this site: https://annarchive.com/ which seems to have full scans of many, many old gaming magazines! We won't be able to link to it, as I doubt they have the actual rights to host them, but we can read them. The https://annarchive.com/dragon.html Dragon index page seems to be broken, but the links exist, for example https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg126.pdf. I don't think it's searchable, so it'll have to be searched the old fashioned way, by looking roughly around the time the thing was released and lots of clicking and reading. Pinging BOZ, who makes more articles about old games in a week than most people do in a lifetime, so this site might be most useful to him. --GRuban (talk)

Thanks for the ping! :) Yep, that is definitely an excellent resource which I have used over and over again, that and the many more scans on archive.org.  :) BOZ (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu for President

However, I've started Draft:Cthulhu for President. That has sources like The Guardian and L'Obs, so should survive AFD. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead with Cthulhu for President. I was disappointed not to find any GURPS Steampunk references in Designers & Dragons Vol. 2, and I would also rather not go without a second unimpeachable RS besides the award, so I'll keep looking. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went on a roll and put in everything I could think of. Please improve how you can. I'll also send an email to Chaosium and/or Cthulhu For America to see if they would release an image of one of their posters or stickers for the main article image, or if they have any suggested revisions. (Honestly, 75% chance they won't even write back - but that's not 100%, and it would be nice if they do!) When you're happy, and when we're done waiting for Chaosium, we can inflict it on an unexpecting main space! Mwuahahahah.... --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosium (Michael O'Brien (game designer) in fact!) wrote back; not going to release any bumper sticker image. But did ask for correction of the Cthulhu rights (they believe Cthulhu the character is public domain, but the status of the Mythos in general is confusing; I'm just going to remove that rights text from the draft), and confirmed that Chaosium has nothing to do with either cthulhuforamerica.com or cthulhu.org (that was before his time, but not as far as he could figure out). --16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Now "Samir Al'Azrad" (of CthulhuForAmerica.com) wrote back! (I think I know his real name, but if he wants to be Samir Al'Azrad, so mote it be.) He confirmed he's not connected with Chaosium, but pointed out that Cthulhu for President predated the Chaosium accessories bundle, by pointing to this image of Steven King wearing a Cthulhu for President t-shirt in 1983: https://www.tor.com/2018/08/10/forbidden-planet-40th-birthday-mark-hamill-neil-gaiman-stephen-king-pics/ (about halfway down the page). Unfortunately I don't think we can cite that as a source. He also confirmed that they didn't get much press for the 2020 campaign. He did write an associated book Your Stars are Wrong in 2018, but it didn't get any real reviews. However! He agreed to release two Cthulhu political images! See the bottom of https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/

• It would be good if we could find a source for Cthulhu for President before the Chaosium accessories bundle
• Do we want to add more political slogans? "Give fear a chance"; “Equality through insanity”; “Legalize human sacrifice”; “Keep climate changing”; "I want you to get a head and consume it for nourishment.” "Answer the call"; "Are you ready for a real change?" "Make R'lyeh great again" - I think there are others we can find out there if we look at the archived web sites we write about.
• We should pick an image for the main article image; I think I like the left hand one on https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/, but the other one isn't terrible. Or we could make one, after all, there should be plenty of Richard Nixon federal government images in the public domain, and the Cthulhu character is public domain (not immediately obvious, but Chaosium says it is, and they should know), so we can grab the head from one and paste it on the the other, and make something like https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24418022951030606/... but that would take work. Which would you prefer?
  • When we do, we could remove the current Cthulhu sloshing through R'lyeh image, or keep it, what do you think?

I'll wait for your feedback, but other than that, I think we're ready to go live! --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to consult User:Sciencefish as I believe he has a connection to Chaosium. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to give a couple of quick, knee-jerk responses, I prefer the existing left-hand image of over a newly created one, but I'm fine to have multiple images. Also, I do favor the inclusion of multiple slogans; my favorites include "Give fear a chance" and "Keep climate changing", though I have a soft spot for "Are you ready for a real change?" as well.

I was looking for some pre-Chaosium connection between Cthulhu for President and Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: the latter is pretty clearly the older of the two, but I haven't found any RS documenting a relationship, or even any good anecdotes. Perhaps others could take a look? Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, we don't have a Campus Crusade for Cthulhu article. Maybe we can make one later; though that's even farther from role-playing games. I'd be very happy if you were to add in a section of cited (and funny!) campaign slogans to Draft:Cthulhu for President, that would make it a real collaboration. I'll put up the image. I tried to find an appropriate article infobox for it, but couldn't - you'd think there'd be one for a perennial candidate, but there isn't. Even Vermin Supreme actually has something like a real office! There is Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign, but it doesn't have a space for a candidate image, just a logo, which we don't have. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll push it live for now, but if you can add a slogans section, it'll be great! --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the RS for slogans on the weekend and was not inspired, but I will take another look if nobody else shows up to do better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help with a WP:DYK blurb? I think this article is thoroughly DYK worthy, especially with the image, but the blurb is troubling me. I was thinking of Did you know "... that cosmic horror Cthulhu has run for President of the United States in every election since 1996?" but there isn't a specific source that says that. The Wall Street Journal says the campaign has gone on for multiple election cycles, and we have a source for every election cycle since the Chaosium campaign materials in 1996, but not a single source that says "every Presidential election". Do you think that's all right, or do you have a better idea? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't actually see this last post, so this isn't timely. I think "every election" is fine. I'm afraid I have had other things on my mind this month, so I haven't been able to help with the new article, but I'm glad to see you got it off the ground. Fun! Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not dead, which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons, even a third party candidate can be elected. Seems to have passed DYK review. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow!!!!! --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#April_1_stats: The totals are in, and Cthulhu for President, submitted by User:GRuban, was the big winner with 24,992 views. The complete totals can be seen at April 2021 DYKSTATS. Cbl62 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Woo! --GRuban (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk

OK, I think I'm basically played out, have put in all I can immediately think of. I'll email Stoddard and Masters, have them take a look at it, see if they have any comments or suggestions. If I had your email address I'd add it, so they could copy you directly, but I don't, so at best will be able to forward you their response via Wikipedia mail form. Also you wanted to add something about Castle Falkenstein and/or GURPS Castle Falkenstein? I'm still only 50% sure it would pass WP:AFD - it does have lots of references, but the respectable ones are few and short, while the longer and more detailed ones are not that reliable. Maybe it just won't get nominated - I don't think I've annoyed anyone ... recently ... By the way, I have noticed, and appreciated, both you and User:BOZ regularly sending me thank-you messages as I hack away at it, and admit they have been regular incentives to keep working! No, I can't guarantee that would work for GURPS WW2, I might just be role-playing exhausted for a short bit. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK cool, if you like, I will move the page to article space either later today or tomorrow. :) BOZ (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you could hold off until I leave another message here, I'd appreciate it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also wait for Masters and Stoddard to respond, last time I wrote they responded in a few days. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your work, GRuban. I think I have one or two sources to add outside of the GURPS:Castle Falkenstein material, and then I'll have some editing I want to do as well - nothing against what you've done: I just have an inchoate mental model of how I like to see these articles written, and I'd like to see that reflected before it is moved to article space, if possible. And then we can ask BOZ to move it. :)

On Notability, I may well be wrong, but my sense is that the most vulnerable articles are the ones that seem poorly sourced - where they use a lot of non-independent sources or use the "real" sources badly - rather than ones where there are potential issues of SIGCOV within a source that is a valid, independent RS. In other words, RS (such as independent notices of awards) that back up a claim to notability based on NBOOK will tend to overcome people's desire to wikilawyer how many sentences are required to meet SIGCOV.

Now I've lost more battles than I'd like on AfD (formerly to deletion, recently more often to redirection), but that's what I feel that I've learned. So I'm not that worried about this one, compared to most of the list on my project page - some of the company pages, in particular, are highly vulnerable as well as being terribly confusing articles in their own right. Another thing I've learned but only once put into practice (Marcus Rowland (author)) is that well-written articles usually survive AfD. I just hate to reward AfDsters by fixing the problems they see, but at a time like now where deletion isn't very active, there would be time to do some preventative work. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! A real collaboration was the goal all along. Please hack away ruthlessly, at worst it will all be in the edit history, we can always argue about any issues after we see how it looks. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I'm going to for today (User:BOZ). I've added the Falkenstein bits, realigned the Difference Engine material so that the main book's publication moves towards the top of the article and the licensed material is kept together; this also keeps the sausage-making "inside RPG" anecdotes in one (licenses) section, which I think will suit most readers. I revised the lede to strengthen the claim to significance and reflect the scope of the article.

I still have a couple sources for actual GURPS Steampunk I want to work in on another day; I am also really hoping that somebody other than me knows how to bring in cover images, at least for the main book and the four others I've inserted templates for. Is that possible? Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One note on page numbers, you might want to see template:rp. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BOZ. So the current status is: I've proposed on the article's talk page that we should use GURPS Book templates in the 4e section, but I'm waiting to hear back from you two before I go ahead with that. Also, I still have a couple of sources to add and some tweaking to do to the main GURPS Steampunk entry; I suppose that could be done in article space, but if GRuban is waiting to hear from the authors then I'd rather make changes while the article is still in draft. Overall, it looks pretty good to me for a draft article - almost Origins Award worthy. :)

But will anyone be able to track down the five cover images? (GURPS Steampunk, SteamTech, Screampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and Castle Falkenstein: Ottoman Empire? Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, this is a real collaboration! Thank you both! I can find cover images, I didn't think of them at first. I'm worried they're going to be a bit much for the smaller works that don't have that much text for them, maybe we just want steampunk and falkenstein? Anyway, I can put them in and we can see how they look. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather include the five covers, and make the first one big and the rest small. We can do that, can't we? The SteamTech cover isn't much, as I recall, but I like the Steampunk and the Ottoman Empire ones. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the files, but, technically, we're not allowed to use fair use images in user space. (WP:NFCCP#9). I can add them when we go to main space. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me what they're called, maybe I could preview them without saving them to the draft in any diffs? I'd just like to see what it looks like at different sizes on different screens before trying to convince you two to include them. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-E9tA0R70c9on-X9MHM1jZWoBHUv7_KjLVMZTMceK1o/edit?usp=sharing --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I've done a full sample version here using "dummy" pictures of Basic Set covers. (I think that's allowed, and if not then just revert and look at the old diff.) I chose the image I did because the 1e cover is 279x356, and the 3e cover is 150x199, and I wanted to test the difference in sizes but I don't know how to resize within the template.

So my take is that this version looks good on desktop (and desktop mode on my phone), and OK in mobile mode on my phone (the ability to open and close sections is a saving grace). The difference in image sizes helps emphasize the main GURPS Steampunk book.

On the other hand, I don't like the G:F:OE cover or the Screampunk cover as much as I remember, while actually I like the SteamTech cover more than I remember. So maybe a compromise would be to include the Steampunk, Castle Falkenstein, and SteamTech covers - one per section - and keep boxes without covers for Ottoman Empire and Screampunk. How would you feel about that?

Either way, I feel like I need to add a bit of text to the SteamTech and Screampunk entries, but I was planning to drop sources on the main Steampunk section anyway so I should be able to do it then. Thanks again for getting the ball rolling on this! Perhaps the Hellboy Sourcebook and Rollplaying Game can be next! :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The version with all the images looks good to me. I think there's an image_size= parameter in Template:Infobox RPG that you can play with, try |image_size=300px, |image_size=150px, they should do something. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks for the vote of confidence. I still have a day or so while you wait on Masters and Stoddard? You know the Hellboy game is his also, yes? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not. Have read the comic and seen the movie, but don't think I've ever played any GURPS, though did a fair number of rounds of Melee and Wizard in my day. Maybe one day. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masters, I mean, not Stoddard. The Hellboy and Discworld games are his masterworks, really. And I don't know anyone who plays GURPS any more, but I did have a good run back in the day. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and Newimpartial: Masters wrote back, had a few suggested tweaks that I made, Stoddard didn't write back, but it's been a number of days. I think we can push it live and add cover images. Any suggestions for DYK blurb? --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good by me then, I'm going to go ahead and publish it. :) BOZ (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I've finished my first pass of edits in article space. Thanks, both of you! Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/GURPS Steampunk --GRuban (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GRuban, apart from the articles I've mentioned before (or added to the box myself), one I might also be motivated to help with is Countdown (Delta Green). Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion here. Surely you know better than to do this. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mangoe. @Newimpartial: What was your reason for reverting my vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am so sorry. I have no idea how that happened. You have my sincere apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These things can happen. Apology accepted. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

	LGBTQ+ Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to explain things at Talk:Irreversible Damage; I think you're doing a better job than I am GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I am doing a better job, but I am doing a different job. Sometimes that helps. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple cricketer AfDs kept recently even though they fail WP:GNG and I feel like I'm losing my mind - per the WP:SNG discussion, am I under the correct impression that WP:NSPORTS requires the GNG to be met? SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are losing your mind :), but the 2017 RfC established that the NSPORTS SNGs for each sport are only presumptive of GNG Notability - that is, the GNG must be shown to be met as well. The language currently in NSPORTS is pretty clear on this also. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a very new editor and I’ve been reading a lot of talk pages to get the hang of policy, guidelines, mores, best practices, and the general editing culture here. You and I seem to have a lot of the same academic interests and professional expertise (and probably know some of the same real-world people!). Paying attention to how you edit and how you interact with others has been invaluable to me. Your work keeping Critical Theory- and philosophy-related articles accessible, accurate, and (what’s maybe of most importance for this project) free of simpleminded reductionist conspiratorial bullshit has been amazing. So thank you. I hope to one day be able to contribute at even one-tenth your level. Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Thanksforhelping (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. One thing about this place that I have learned the hard way, and with difficulty, is to avoid personalizing disputes. I don't entirely manage this even now, but the low points arising from on-wiki drama in the past were very low. My advice (do what I say, not what I do) would be to try to catch yourself before righteous anger starts to cloud your judgement. ;) I suspect that you are doing fine, so far. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You worked a minor miracle on Ken Cliffe; do you see anything more that can help build up David O. Miller? BOZ (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything for that one, sorry. I do hope to add to Draft:Dean Shomshak, however. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Draft:Richard Halliwell (game designer) who just died? I am looking for a reliable source for his death, but have not seen one yet. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ambitious project that I've barely started and it's already huge, but if you spot anything that stands out as potentially salvageable at User:BOZ/Games deletions, just let me know and I will draft it. :) BOZ (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BOZ. I appreciate the work you've put into this already, and the taxonomy of the deleted pages is a real value-add, I think. You don't need to draft a dX RPG page because I have that one on the go already; if I see any others that I'd like help relaunching, I'll let you know. Guardians of Order and Tri-stat dX have been my "current project" for a while now, but I just haven't found much time for wiki recently, I hope that will change - I actually like to add to the stock of wiki knowedge more than defending what's already there, in spite of all appearance to the contrary. :P Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of the Retronyms. It is especially not needed in a short description which should be concise. I have seen you add tabletop to a few recently. Is there some consensus I am unaware of? —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there has been a formal RfC or project-based discussion, but the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games. Since the consensus isn't formally documented that I know of, it would not be inappropriate for you to launch an RfC or similar, but there is quite clearly a de facto consensus at present. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR: You appear to be the most common source of the tabletop retronym based on the short description changes I see. Many of the wikidata imports I have done recently did not have the 'tabletop'. I have no problem with your adding it. I just find it hard to call what I see consensus. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed added the term in question to short descriptions - particularly, but not exclusively, in cases where you overrode the wikidata. However, I am seldom the editor who added the term to the lede (which populates the wikidata in the first place, AFAIK). My statement that the term "tabletop" has been used fairly consistently and unontroversially in WP articles for a decade or more - including in lede sentences and short descriptions - to exclude LARP and computer games is beyond dispute, really, but WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, and once again feel free to launch an RfC or similar if you believe that it has. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been learning from you following me and correcting. I will be updating my internal algorithm soon. It is I who will change. Soon I expect you won't have to "fix" my incomplete short descriptions. I am nearly through all the unrated/prioritized articles.

BTW: I do see a difference between the lede and the short description but that is a topic for another day.

Happy editing to you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, on Newhoo, aka the Open Directory Project, I waged a war not to have RPGs shunted into the "Tabletop" Roleplaying ghetto. "We dice players came first!", I cried. "Let the electronic Johnny-come-latelies have the Video Game subcategories, leave the main Roleplaying Game category to us!" Alas, we've been way, way outnumbered since. The battle is lost. The sub-category is ours. Let us swig a tall mug of mead together, and sing sad elven songs. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to re-edit is the same as reverting a revert. you should have opened a conversation on the talk page. at this point i expect you to revert your own edit and do that. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spione:_Story_Now_in_Cold_War_Berlin&curid=44480720&diff=1032296066&oldid=1031348416&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Philoserf. WP:BRD is a best practice, but it isn't a requirement. I responded to the (valid) reason for your revert - the contrast with the lede - by fixing the lede, and then re-instituting the shortdesc. In terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you will see that there are many shortdescs out in the wild that include the author's name, and for indie or auteur RPGs this is equally valid. If you disagree; fine, disagree, in whatever forum you think appropriate, just don't expect me to self-revert when I haven't done anything against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. I see you are establishing a pattern across a few short descriptions. I will keep that in mind. I hadn't seen that pattern often in my travels. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As a point of reference, when I started editing on WP, there were many, many lede sentences of RPG articles that included publisher information but not author information, even in cases where both were equally verifiable (that is, setting aside publishers like White Wolf and Dream Pod 9 who tended to obscure the author credits by listing a long list of contributors equally).

It is simply wrong to credit publishers rather than authors/designers, in cases where clear author credits exist, and is especially egregious with non-notable publishers and auteur/indie designers. Therefore I have gradually been improving those ledes, but haven't ever gone systematically through them.

So this doesn't mean that I think all games should have author credit in the shortdesc, but for indie/auteur games this is in fact the defining characteristic. I did insert some small number of these before, but as you have cleaned up more RPG articles (which I appreciate) I have gone ahead and added authors to shortdescs where they are clearly significant, as well as (I'm sure you've noticed) adding genre to games where this characteristic is not subject to dispute and defines the game.

I hope this helps clarify my thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup as I processed all the unrated/unprioritized articles in WP:WikiProject Role-playing games. That should be most of the ones that needed attention. My next pass will be over all articles in priority/rating order from the top. Should be fewer this pass. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are his exact words FFS :-) Shall I put it in quotes? Tewdar (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His 1994 retrospective paper - which I checked before editing - attributes "gender role" to 1955 and "gender identity" to 1966. Please stop being exasperated with me when I am demonstrably right. :P Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the 1955 paper? Tewdar (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look for it; I was content with his statement in 1994. Was he wrong about the term "gender identity"? Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is the 1955 paper for the distinction. Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a quote, nor any other evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation. Quote. You are being silly, and you are wrong. Tewdar (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Often sentences work better than single words and name calling. Also, perhaps if Money in 1994 credited himself with the introduction of "gender role" in 1955 but attributed "gender identity" to the Hopkins clinic, it is because he did not in fact introduce the term "gender identity" in 1955? Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your inclusion of the term to be appropriate, Money would have to have (1) introduced the term in his 1955 article and (2) have meant gender identity to mean what we now mean by the term. The second of these is demonstrably false, so I don't really care about the first. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's one you can access (1985): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926238508406072

Tewdar (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sending me a 1985 citation? Nobody is disputing that Money referred to "gender roles and gender identity" in roughly their contemporary sense in 1985. Did you misread what he said in '85 as a paraphrase of his '55 paper? Because that isn't what he is saying. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I admit it. I was wrong. My hair stood up when I saw that "Newimpartial" had shown up to the article and my adrenaline took over. Fearing universal undos of all my hard work, I made a mistake. Oops.

Also,"is distinct" cannot possibly be justified now. According to the article, it may not be. Tewdar (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologise for the lack of indentation, I am editing on a phone. Tewdar (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fearing universal undos of all my hard work..."

Hmm. I see that this fear was entirely rational. Tewdar (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't do any blanket reverting whatsoever. I reverted your error, and an UNDUE addition (from a poor source, I might add) and your removal of "is distinct". So there was no reason for you to text back so emotionally.

On the one hand, yes, adding material to the body should eventually determine the tone of the lede, so I agree that adding good material to the body is the way to go. On the other hand, the current version of the body does not at all reflect the current balance of high-quality sources on the sex and gender distinction - the minority view, that the distinction is in some way or other problematic, is massively overrepresented. I would like to fix that by adding high-quality sources explaining and interpreting the distinction, but that will take time, so I'd appreciate your holding off on further drama with the lead and giving me a chance to do that.

By the way, I removed your silliest comments from my personal Talk page in the interests of civility, but I'd advise you to show more restraint in future. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An entry on "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is WP:UNDUE? This is a lie. Tewdar (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, "high-quality sources" are the ones you like. Tewdar (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is one-half step better than a WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's self published? Philosophia? Or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Tewdar (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or something else? Tewdar (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the Stanford Encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The Stanford Encyclopedia citation can be removed, leaving the Philosophia reference, which cites the Stanford Encyclopedia. But now it fails WP:DUE, apparently, because you have decided that 99% of the article must be about how the distinction is totally unproblematic. Tewdar (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my view at all. Judith Butler's work problematizing the distinction, for example, is self-evidently DUE. But Butler is a competent philosopher and does not rely on user-generated academic content when defining terms. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Hopefully I have added something to the article over the last couple of days that is useful and won't be removed. Bye. Tewdar (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to distinguish in your own mind between improving articles and changing their POV. Please note that I went to the trouble of not rolling back your edits wholesale; rather I took a more surgical approach (which is more work) to respect the fact that some of your edits actually did improve the article. This edit, for example, added good content to the article with an appropriate source, so I didn't want to mess with it. Simply put, I am not taking any of this nearly as personally as you think I am, or as you demonstrably are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me with shitty messages on my talk page. Just leave me alone, I won't ever edit any gender-related pages again, I swear, I've learned my lesson... Tewdar (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard templates. I couldn't tell whether or not you were aware of 3RR, so I placed that template. I didn't see any evidence that you were aware of the Gender and Sexuality discretionary sanctions, so I also placed that template. Arbcom doesn't authorize shitty messages; they created a system of administrative enforcement to limit problematic behaviour in areas where feelings tend to run high. I wasn't threatening you: I was making sure you were informed before you could get yourself in trouble.

I think you could contribute meaningfully in this area and would encourage you to come back once you are somewhat less in your feelz. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the Sex and gender distinction, please don't handwave that "sources exist" to demonstrate your point without actually providing them. It is a violation of Wikipedia norms and tends to undermine civility. Stick to what you are actually prepared to give sources for. So if you want to say, "people often use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life" please offer sources to support that; don't just claim "nobody in my social circle knows the difference between sex and gender". I once had to produce a list of dozens of CBC references to show that it really does use "assigned sex" in its routine coverage, but I did so when Crossroads insisted. My advice is not to put yourself in that situation, by leading with the evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself, with source, already supports the claim that "people often use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life". It says "In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably". Today I will try and collect evidence for these terms being conflated, reversed, and misused, if you really think it necessary. And, what's a social circle? Sounds fun! Tewdar (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Sky Compendium is now available on the article talk page for your perusal. There are probably thousands of other sources, that say exactly the same thing - "gender" and "sex" are terms that are often used interchangeably. Tewdar (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't actually disputing that some people use sex and gender indiscriminately in everyday life, though. That was what is known in the biz as an example. The thing you have actually been asserting on that Talk page, without giving relevant evidence, is that reliable sources (other than your handy minority of dissident philosophers) dispute the existence of the distinction. Your "blue sky" list offers no sightings of that, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as I said a while ago now on said Talk page You would need to find actual, non-esoteric sources that don't make the distinction at all, or insist that sex and gender are the same thing, and I haven't seen any such sources. So far, what you have produced are sources saying the equivalent of "some people don't understand the speed of light". Well, duh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever do you mean? And, did you just agree with me about something? :-O

Think I'll go and lie down... Tewdar (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your second question is, yes. The answer to your first question is that, in my experience, we have a number of quasi-single-purpose editors in this domain who have various axes to grind about chromosomal and/or anatomical and/or "biological" or evolutionary conceptions of sex. Moving the text of any article - no matter what its focus - away from some such owner's favored emphasis is likely to be, well, harder than it should be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biological definition of sex has only minimal relevance to that article. It needs to be reduced, and replaced with what is actually intended. I am delighted to have found something we agree on. Tewdar (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no one "biological definition of sex", in my view, but otherwise we indeed agree on this one thing. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most biologists think that gamete size is the essence of biological sex. What I'm saying is, for the purposes of this article, it's not very important. Tewdar (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[16] [17] [18] Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Newimpartial! I'm assuming that this comment was intended to say something along the lines of "there is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to a term as a transphobic dog whistle". If so, you might want to tweak it to make that meaning clear. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right; fixed. I'd guess I catch almost 90% of those before posting. :P. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, adding here because it's semi-relevant and I don't want to swamp your talk page in new sections. When this discussion is finally over, would you be interested or able to help me open a discussion at the relevant location as I'm not sure where is the right place to do it, so that we don't need to repeat this sort of endless circular conversation again? As I said in the diff, it seems like this is maybe something that should be resolved with policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, Sideswipe9th, just as an example (and I recognise this wasn't your work), this section is an example of what I regard as a premature filing. Evidently I have objected to Talk page interventions by the editor in question, and I sympathize with the frustration of the filer with that editor. However, it seems to me that AE deals best with either clear infractions of bright-line rules or very clear (and easily documented) patterns of disruptive behaviour; I don't think the editor in question registered highly enough on either scale. (It might also be best to file when the infringing editor is tending towards more disruption, rather than less...just a thought.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I know the folks at ANI said to open it at AE, but it does seem premature. Hopefully though something good comes of this if that user does follow through on their word to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was especially premature at AMI, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the filer, this is interesting food for thought. I don't have much experience at all with AE, and it might have been a good idea to look into it more before posting there. Still, I stand by my decision to take the issue to a noticeboard in the first place, because repeated attempts to intervene in some other way were ineffective and the editor's conduct did not seem to have changed. While I agree that it seems like the editor in question hasn't been disruptive in a way that those at AE consider actionable, the editor has now stated at that venue that I pledge a high standard of conduct where I will stick to facts and logic and not sarcastic quips and the like. Hopefully that'll be the end of things – my goal isn't to trigger a block or restriction of that editor, it's to create a constructive and collaborative editing environment – and if it isn't the end of the issue, surely it'll help and not hinder any future filing that becomes necessary? (And as an aside, I like to be pinged when I'm being discussed, especially when it's feedback like this that might help me improve. Not upset that it didn't happen here, just figure it's worth mentioning.) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you linked the wrong diff in your recent comment on the LGB Alliance talk page. The first diff specifically. The conversation that the bot archived there was from last month. Did you perhaps mean this diff? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Thx; fixed. That was a weird one. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: your email query, the answer to your question is essentially, no. When an editor manages to color between the lines enough of the time, there isn't any policy-compliant way to remove them from a subject matter area. That will only happen when an editor starts to color outside the lines, and it is best to wait for a track record of this to develop rather than launching an AN action over the least infraction. Also, WP:AE is typically the least noisy venue for such discussions, though it can only be used when the problems are found mostly within a DS topic. Makes sense? Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an announcement to the lurkers that there have been repeated attempts to hack this account in the last few minutes. I suspect a sock farmer at work. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait someone is trying to hack you?CycoMa (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Dozens of attempts, from I know not how many devices. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is the CatCafe sock that keeps doing this - they seem motivated enough. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this whan you posted it, but it looks like both Jytdog and I had similar experiences in regard to earlier CatCafe socks. We also both had fake Twitter accounts created in our names, so you may want to keep your eye out for that. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. I really don't get why it's still open, given the serious flaws in how it's been conducted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I know some other editors feel the same. But given that it is now open, and does offer a choice, I think the least disruptive thing to do now is to make sure the lead doesn't shift from A to B, and to confine the discussion to those opening sentences of the lead without digressing into other issues (as much as possible).

I think the next RfC should deal with the issue of "accusations of transphobia", in the body and the (latter part of) the lede, but we all have to get through this one first. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified by bot about the misinformed rfc. I havent read much of the debate, but would the questions below work as the start of an RfC?

How prominent should J.K. Rowling's anti-trans views take in the lead? Namely:

a) Should the first sentence mention them? If so,

i) Should she be called an "anti-trans activist"?

ii) Should it be worded in some other way?

b) If you replied no to (a), should the first paragraph mention them? If so,

i) Where?

c) If no to (b), should the paragraph in the lead mentioning her anti-trans views be expanded?Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 14:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're asking my advice, I would just ask about the lead sentence. So something like:
• "Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues" (Or "issues of gender identity") "and if so, how should they be included?"
  • Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence.
  • Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., referring to "her transphobic tweets" or "her anti-transgender activism".
  • Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "her statements that have widely been considered transphobic".
• I am not saying that all my verbiage needs to be included, but this is the RfC structure that I think would be appropriate to resolve the issues under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Fair, i like the more concise questions. Will make one now.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me at the section of MOS:DEADNAME that you mention in Special:Permalink/1057096374 that enshrines censoring the full birth name even in the case that the abridged birth name is notable. I fail to find it.

Further, my understanding is that censoring the birth name is supposed to protect the person from discrimination. This argument does not hold water for the case of the full birth name, if a shortened birth name is already included.

If this censorship is indeed policy, I *would* like to change it, like you suggest. But I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia community process. Could you point me where to start? Do I just add a section to the "Manual of Style" / "What Wikipedia is not" talk pages and hope for the best, or is there some more formal approach? Dufaer (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe carefully the examples given in MOS:DEADNAME - one is an example where the birth name is deemed to be the same as the notable name, while the other (Elliot Page, as it happens), is an example where it is not. In the latter case, the birth name is not given. The language of the policy - A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it - resulted from two widely participated RfCs and the subsequent implementation discussion; to change it would require a clearly-formulated WP:RFC that receives similarly broad participation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" - I don't understand the problem... Tewdar (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying that the notable previous name was "Bradley Edward Manning" and not just "Bradley Manning"? Tewdar (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, are you literally not able to read *both* examples at DEADNAME? They differ - they do not offer the reasoning for the difference (which I sketched above), but they quite clearly differ.

And yes, I think it is safe to say that "Bradley Edward Manning" is found in more reliable, independent, secondary sources than a single Argentine local newspaper, so it does in fact meet Notability standards although it may be less common than "Bradley" or "Brad". Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, Manning's deadname was frequently the full three. Maybe it's because of her involvement in the army and then the court system? Firefangledfeathers 22:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Christ on a bike, is that a lot of stuff! Thank you!

Dufaer (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the space of a couple of hours, you have accused me of foruming, sock-puppetry, pov-pushing, original research, and incompetence, all for one talk page thread. I'm happy to explore your objections to my line of reasoning, but please stop fishing for ad-hominems. Sennalen (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussions I have already linked for you on Talk, you will understand why I find the repetition of these arguments tiresome and unproductive. I do think any argument becomes FORUM sometime before the tenth time it is made, and your quote that I cited definitely represented a FRINGE POV (that "Cultural Marxism, the object of the conspiracy theory, cannot be distinguished easily from Marxist theories of culture"). Arguments for that POV have always, and still do, rely either on non-reliable sources or on tendentious and selective readings of reliable sources. Dealing with the WP:SEALIONs, when they periodically return to these beaches, is tedious at best. If you haven't edited these articles before then that isn't your fault, but it also isn't any less true. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the discussions in more detail. It does not appear that the discussion reached any resolution. Instead, by your efforts your interlocutor Swood100 got a topic ban. There was maybe enough bludgeoning of the process by him to warrant that, but I don't think you acquitted yourself well either. Swood100 pointed out, like I have done, that Jamin was being used to say things in the article that were nearly opposite of what was actually in the source. There is no conduct by other users that can absolve that content problem. If you think the situation is fine, you need to come to the article talk page to discuss content rather than conduct. It's fine if you don't have a desire to do that or the stamina; Wikipedia is not compulsory. Just don't approach it with an attitude of ownership either in that case. Sennalen (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, I have already added to the discussion on Talk and observe that you seem to have missed at least one key point of the previous discussions (Braune). I agree with you if you are suggesting that a source other than Jamin should be used to characterize the relationship between Marxist cultural analysis and the object of the conspiracy theory. However, your apparent desire to rely on Jamin and then to construe him as saying that the two are related - in some way other than distortion and caricature - is a bad reading of Jamin, a bad reading of Marxist cultural analysis, and beneath the dignity of WP in general. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to accuse me of violating content guidelines without specifying any particular clauses violated or diffs where violation took place. If it proves necessary, I will provide diffs of your edits and the particular clauses they violate at ANI.

I have asked you to justify your positions× on the article talk page. Take the time you need to collate this information. I will not respond further for a few days. If the only response continues to be aspersions and direct refusals to justify your position, I will make no further attempts to elicit justifications from you one-on-one. Sennalen (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this recent edit I made, in particular, is quite specific about the phrases within this proposal that violate WP:OR/SYNTH, and how they do so. I also believe that said Talk contribution, and those that preceded it, have provided quite adequate, policy-based reasoning; your requirement that I justify my positions beyond what I have already done seems like a classic WP:SEALION strategy. Also note my response (also included in the diff provided above) to your accusation of WP:ASPERSIONS - making note of SEALION behaviour is not an ASPERSION, but the quote I linked in the diff is quite clearly ASPERSION-casting on your part. If you would like clarification at AN or AE, I am sure you would receive the message that your behaviour at Marxist cultural analysis represents the same kind of disruption that Swood100 was previously making at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this comment, primarily.

IP, you are attracted to those to whom you are attracted. As long as they are adult and human, I don't care what subset they are. Please do me the same courtesy. I am attracted to some AMAB people and some AFAB people; I am attracted to many people who identify as queer but a few who don't identify as queer. I am attracted to some nonbinary people, some trans people, and some cis people; some men and some women. I am pansexual, but the reality of my attraction is much more fundamental to me than that label, and "queer" is still the sexual identity that fits me most powerfully.

In any event, the categories "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" don't work for me, and two years ago I vented about it when others were insisting on those labels - not for themselves, essentially, but as a way of "winning" arguments against queer-identified people. I am not venting now, and don't feel as threatened as I might one have when editors insist on using two (or three) boxes to define sexuality, as part of some Talk page dispute. When they do that, it is still nonsense to me, but that nonsense doesn't bother me the way it used to.

You are right about one thing: I was wrong to give even the impression that my opinion about how other people choose to identify should be relevant to their lives or lived experience. I don't like "homosexual", I feel that it the label/identity has done more harm than good in general, not just to me, and I am most certainly not attracted to anyone who identifies as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" (but why would anyone care about that). But I would no longer waste my breath trying to make an argument relating to anyone else's identity, unless they were creating a zero-sum situation in which their strategy to make spaces safer for themselves were performed at the expense of making spaces less safe for me and those I love. And I hope I would set out the limits of my argument more clearly even then.

I have not waged war against homosexuality itself, on WP or off, and that is a ridiculous and slanderous charge. You cannot assume that people who accept the mainstream LGBTQ position that gender identity is real, that nonbinary and trans rights matter, that trans and nonbinary youth face challenges as serious as those facing lesbian and gay youth - and that in fact these populations overlap - in other words, people who take "queer" positions against the hard, seemingly antiquated, ontology that "biological sex" and "homosexuality" are the only realities worth talking about - you can't reasonably construe this fairly well-established position in justice-seeking communities as "a war against homosexuality itself".

Also, you have misconstrued completely the context of that statement of mine that you keep misquoting and distorting. I was responding to Pyxis' disparagement of queer theory and mainstream LGBT trans-acceptance and she in turn was defending the late Flyer22, who was arguing that "trans women who identify as lesbians" was a less POV phrase than "trans lesbians". I don't know what you thought was at stake in that discussion, but it was Pyxis who decided to base an argument on dictionaries and common sense against "queer theory" and actual reliable sources, and it was me who overreacted. But your conclusion that you want all of us wiped off the face of the earth is unsubstantiated nonsense, and a deep violation of WP:CIVIL for which you only escape the logical consequences by this absurd hit-and-run anonymous editing. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments aren't to me, but you did point them out to me in another comment elsewhere, and the IP hasn't yet chosen to respond, so I guess I'll comment a bit. Yes, there are some things in there that I do agree with. I'm a "live and let live" individualist libertarian, so your right to live your own life and be attracted to whoever you're attracted to, without regard to whether any of it makes sense to me or anybody else, is paramount. I have no business butting into it. By the same token you have no business butting into anybody else's life or attractions, so if somebody else calls themself "homosexual" (or "gay" or "lesbian" or any other label) and has their own set of attractions (which might map to biological sex) you shouldn't demand they change, and hopefully that is in fact your position. There are other activists who do demand such things as lesbians accepting transwomen as partners, and your commentary including things like wanting "homosexual" identity to die out give some impression of putting you on the same side as them, so it's understandable that some will object. I actually have "no dog in that fight" myself, not being either gay, lesbian, trans, nonbinary, or a woman, so "gay rights" or "women's rights" or "trans rights" are not things that directly affect me. I can, however, see how people on multiple sides do feel there are conflicts in the rights being asserted by various groups, and that it is not helpful to insist that only one side matters and the rest are bigots. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that the IP editor who made those comments is a WP:LOUTSOCK of a short list of only two or three editors. The purpose of which is patently obvious, as it's allowing another editor to use those comments as a thought-terminating cliché to dismiss any and all you have to say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:D What follows is my much longer version of the conspiracy theorists just picked Adorno et al and tried to pin a bunch of crap on them. this gave me a good chuckle Mvbaron (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. :) Some editors seem to think that the conspiracy theorists performed a deep dive of reading in Western Marxism, applied some kind of critical Straussian hermeneutic magic and figured out what Adorno was really up to. There is no evidence that anything remotely similar actually occurred - "engagement" my sweet ass. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha that's an amazing picture. I'm imagining a bunch of alt righters in post-structuralist garb meeting weekly for "Capital" reading groups, trying to decipher the dialectic of enlightenment and hotly discussing Verdinglichung in Lukacz. :D Mvbaron (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that their refusal to wear appropriate eyewear would have been fatal to that project. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is specifically about "the ‘gender-critical’ movement". The current main article on that movement is Feminist views on transgender topics where it has its own section and where gender-critical redirects. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't legitimately use the existence of a redirect as a justification to expand the scope of the target article. Feminist views on transgender topics may or may not be the most appropriate redirect target for "gender critical" (gender critical what?), but that doesn't make content that isn't about feminism relevant for an article on feminism. Maybe try building an appropriate redirect target elsewhere, such as Anti-transgender prejudice and discrimination. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not just the redirect but a whole section. This is part of the broader problem that I've addressed several times, i.e. that we don't currently have an article that is primarily about what is referred to as "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" in the quote. AFAIK, the term gender-critical always refers to the topic of the section where the term redirects. I'm not aware of any non-feminism-related use of the term. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda, the source you added to the article (and which I reverted) makes no reference to feminism. You and I have previously disagreed about such figures as Graham Linehan and J. K. Rowling, who are not feminists but have also been referred to as "gender critical". Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote specifically addresses "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" and the article in question is currently the article that is supposed to cover "the ‘gender-critical’ movement". There is no other article here on that movement, and gender-critical redirects there. As I said, I'm not aware of the term gender-critical referring to anything else than the movement covered in the section. Which exact term the source uses is not the issue, the issue is whether the source discusses the topic covered in the section and known by various names (even the heading includes two alternative names). I've also said many times that I believe the topic should primarily be covered in a different article, but currently that is not the case here (if it were, gender-critical would/should redirect there). I have no recollection of disagreeing with you over "such figures as Graham Linehan and J. K. Rowling". Until now I've never in all my life uttered the name Linehan and I don't really care about him and until I read about him on Wikipedia recently didn't even know who he was, and as I remember I just agreed in principle with another editor on a talk page that Rowling should somehow be mentioned in a lengthy article on TERF ideology, and that it would be odd if such an article didn't mention her at all. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You replied here to the comment I made about Linehan and Rowling; whether you disagree with me about them (or about placing them in the same category) or not, you should be aware of them after reading the comment to which you replied.

As far as your not being aware of the term gender-critical referring to anything else than the movement covered in the section, the locus of our apparent disagreement is that I believe the sources support me in distinguishing "gender critical feminism" as a specific and fairly clearly delineated topic, one which does not include non-feminists. You apparently regard the "gender critical movement" as something amorphous that includes feminists and non-feminists alike. And my point is that, if this latter thing exists according to RS, the place to document it is not in an article that is clearly limited to feminism, regardless of whether not another article addressing that broader (non-feminist or indifferent to feminism) topic currently exists or where any redirects currently point. I am not sure how I can express myself any more clearly about this.

I would also point out that I did not intend the draft article on gender-critical feminism to be a COATRACK on "TERF ideology" - I do not regard it as helpful ever to caricature one's opponents as "ideologists", and I do not believe that the highest-quality critical sources on gender-critical feminism treat it as an "ideology". Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about Linehan in that discussion. The comment you are referring to was in response to an earlier comment of mine where I also didn't mention Linehan. I never voiced any opinion on Linehan at all in the discussion and didn't mention him in my reply because I didn't regard him as particularly relevant; he seems more of an "anti-woke troll" than a feminist to me, and I don't believe that he should be mentioned in the draft article. No, I don't regard the "gender critical movement" as "something amorphous that includes feminists and non-feminists alike". Like many others, I view the "gender-critical movement" or "gender-critical feminism" as the same as "trans-exclusionary radical feminism", a movement and ideology that evidently views itself as feminist and uses feminist language to justify trans exclusion, and that has its ideological origins in (a branch of) radical feminism (although new recruits to this now largely Internet-based movement that is primarily concerned with trans exclusion often don't have an established background in radical feminism, or even any kind of feminism). Not all people involved in anti-transgender politics are TERFs, obviously; right-wing Christians for example have their own ideological reasons. I view TERF as a particular phenomenon, a particular branch of self-identified "feminism" and a particular form of transphobia that uses what has been referred to as "a particular 'TERF logic'" to justify their anti-transgender politics, where the "protection of women" against "men" (i.e. trans women) and based on the ideas of radical feminists like Janice Raymond and others is front and centre.

I used "TERF ideology" here on this talk page as informal shorthand for "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" which takes an awful amount of time just to type; incidentally the term "TERF ideology" is used in a number of scholarly sources, including the edited volume published by The Sociological Review last year (one of the key works in this field), e.g. here[19]. Nevertheless, I've never used that term in an article, only in a talk page context to avoid unnecessary typing. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry (and somewhat frustrated) that you seem unable to accept that figures like Graham Linehan, J. K. Rowling, and renegade psychaiatrist David Bell (and for that matter other "trans critical professionals") are not notably part of a movement and ideology that evidently views itself as feminist and uses feminist language to justify trans exclusion, and that has its ideological origins in (a branch of) radical feminism. That claim has not been established by any RS that I know of - you yourself concede that participants in this now largely Internet-based movement ... primarily concerned with trans exclusion often don't have an established background in radical feminism, or even any kind of feminism, so why should their activity be WP:COATRACKed into articles on feminism? This makes no sense to me - David Bell, for example, has no relationship to feminism at all, as far as I can discern, but his role in the UK's "gender critical movement" looms rather large. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you bring up this Linehan figure, a person I've never shown any interest in or even mentioned, and after I specifically said above that I don't regard him as even relevant to the topic of trans-exclusionary radical feminism and that I don't regard him as a feminist at all. I have no idea of who David Bell is, nor have I said anywhere that I think he has anything to do with trans-exclusionary radical feminism. I've also not said anywhere that all "trans critical" people are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, on the contrary I specifically said that I (like most others) view TERF as a specific phenomenon, both in the context of feminism and the broader transphobic field. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you think that references to the "gender critical movement" really mean gender critical feminism, rather than those described as "gender critical" figures in general, such as Bell and Linehan? Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any sources that use the term gender-critical for anything else than the topic covered in the section where the term gender-critical redirects. Gender-critical is not the same as anti-transgender, or what you called "trans-critical". Gender-critical is, as far as I'm aware, a specific term used by the movement that is more often referred to as trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs. Gender-critical or TERF is not the same as transphobic, anti-trans or even anti-gender, it's more of a subset or an overlapping or related concept.

It doesn't really matter whether participants in the trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement were involved with radical feminism before they became TERFs, what matters is whether they are involved now (or at some point) with trans-exclusionary radical feminism (that now prefers to call itself "gender-critical") as a specific phenomenon (in the same way that you can become an adherent of a fundamentalist Christian belief system without being any other kind of Christian, or even a Jew, first). And again: Not all transphobes or anti-transgender people are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and I've never said they were. I've pointed out specifically that I don't view Linehan as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (aka "gender-critical") or any kind of feminist, for example. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a reliable source discussing David Bell as a "gender critical" figure. Fundamentally, I just disagree that those labelled "TERF" by others are necessarily feminists - I agree that "gender critical" or TERF is a subset of "anti-trans" activists, but I don't see sources insisting that all those reliably sourced as "gender critical" are also sourced to be "feminist", and since the label "TERF" is applied externally to feminists and non-feminists alike, I find its ambiguity unhelpful. Sources referring to trans-exclusionary radical feminism ... as a specific phenomenon are sometimes referring to feminists, and sometimes not, and when they are using TERF in that more amorphous sense (and even more so when they reference the "gender critical movement" rather than "gender critical feminism"), I do not believe it is anything but a COATRACK to discuss this material in articles concerning "feminism". The genealogy of the term "TERF" out of radical feminism simply does not turn everyone influenced by radical feminist exclusionary thinking into a radical feminist, and in come cases (Bell, Linehan, and many others) I see no feminist influence whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't know anything about Bell, so whether he is "gender-critical" is something I can't speak to. I certainly don't regard all anti-trans people as part of a gender-critical or TERF movement, that would depend on whether their thinking regarding trans people and women's rights is primarily based on the ideas articulated by Raymond and later trans-exclusionary radical feminists. (Also: Sometimes a source may be plain wrong, or perhaps more relevant here, use a term in a non-standard way; for Wikipedia's purposes the term gender-critical may be seen as predominantly referring to the topic covered in the section where the term redirects, even if some people who aren't really gender-critical feminists may occasionally have been referred to as gender-critical, which doesn't automatically mean that they are relevant to an article on the gender-critical [feminist] movement). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to read the links I provide for you (e.g. David Bell), I don't see a reason to continue.

Also, I don't understand why you would interpret sources such as the one used for this edit as referring to groups primarily based on the ideas articulated by Raymond and later trans-exclusionary radical feminists. That seems like an unmerited assumption, given the context. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 29

The source specifically discusses "the ‘gender-critical’ movement" and from the context it's pretty clear that the movement that is meant is the one covered in the only article (with a section) on a gender-critical movement here on Wikipedia. I've had a look at the article mentioning Bell and others, and it may perhaps use gender-critical in a somewhat non-standard or loose way. Even if anti-trans people who aren't really TERFs (aka "gender-critical feminists", "gender-criticals", often just "GCs") may occasionally also be called gender-critical by some sources, they don't constitute an organised gender-critical movement in the same way that the movement that is discussed in the section where gender-critical redirects. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about the source you introduced, that from the context it's pretty clear that the movement that is meant is the one covered in Feminist views on transgender topics, while the article I cited may perhaps use gender-critical in a somewhat non-standard or loose way is not, as far as I can tell, based in any differences between the sources themselves but only the assumptions you bring to them. As far as I can tell, the organized gender-critical movement you described is simply no longer located within feminism (if it ever was). It certainly includes self-avowed feminists, like Kathleen Stock and WoLF, but also non-feminists like Bell and Linehan and groups that are at most partly feminist (but entirely "gender critical") like the LGB Alliance. I simply do not see the point in taking the whole movement and inserting reactions to it (that do not address feminists in particular) into Wikipedia's articles about feminism. There must be a better place for this sourced content - the argument that "these positions used to be feminist" doesn't make any more sense than inserting intersectional (non-Marxist) content into articles about Western Marxism because the origins of intersectionality theory are (arguably) in socialist feminism. That just isn't the way Wikipedia works; WP:COATRACK exists for a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I've voiced my opinion that another article for this movement/material should exist many times, after I became aware that some editors insisted that the currently existing TERF article should have an oddly narrow focus on just the terminology with no discussion or analysis of the actual movement or ideology. Instead the TERF article points to Feminist views on transgender topics for that kind of discussion. It's not important to me to insist that gender-critical or TERF ideology is "feminism", I view it as a specific phenomenon, one that may have historical roots in radical feminism, but that is now distinct and mainly concerned with anti-trans politics, albeit from a particular perspective with a particular logic/justifications/language. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have suggested at least one place it could go - it just shouldn't be a feminism topic. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks to me, some editors have agreed on a de facto fixed "solution" where the article TERF covers the term only while the section "Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism" in Feminist views on transgender topics covers the related views/ideology/movement/anything else than terminology, with the article/section pointing to each other, and gender-critical and related terms redirecting to the section. It doesn't seem like an ideal situation at all, but it looks difficult to change that without consensus, and past efforts haven't been particularly successful.

What I'm looking for is primarily the article that covers TERF/gender-criticals as a movement, i.e. the movement that is described in the report by the Council of Europe as "the ‘gender-critical’ movement, which wrongly portrays trans rights as posing a particular threat to cisgender women and girls, [and that] has played a significant role in this process" of "extensive and often virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTI people for several years". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And basically what I'm saying is that that article shouldn't be TERF (the article about the term) nor should it be any article about feminism, because feminism isn't more than an occasional co-indicator with that movement (as I believe the LGB Alliance, which is tangential to feminism, illustrates clearly). Perhaps the term "Trans critical" will catch on and provide a clear COMMONNAME for that movement eventually. In the mean time, there is some scholarship tying it together with the anti-gender movement as a parallel anti-trans phenomenon, so it might be necessary to start within something more generic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sennalen/sandbox/Marxism&action=history --124.170.170.79 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now related topics are being edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gy%C3%B6rgy_Luk%C3%A1cs&action=history --115.64.191.199 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you make a personal attack again, I'm going to take you up to the admin noticeboard and try and get you blocked. I plan to check your contributions, to determine if you have a history of this. For your information, the reference on Ian Marsh (writer) stated p.48 only. scope_creep^Talk 01:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, do whatever you like, but maybe watch your own WP:ASPERSIONS (and amateur psychoanalysis of other editors) before you start throwing stones on dramaboards. I trust that you will not be reverting my revised comment - in fact, you presumably know already that the best practice is not to revert the comments of other editors because you feel personally attacked by them, and also not to redact your own comments after others have replied to them - even when your own comments contain an unsubstantiated personal attack (which is what an admin who doesn't care about quality references indisputably is). Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, User:scope_creep, this is quite clearly an AGF fail and a personal attack. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stating an opinion is not a personal attack. I checked those reference based on what was in the article. That reference is only for page 28. Nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 10:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to trying to spin it up to something it not, is disingenuous, which is not a comment about a reference: it is a personal attack and AGF fail. I repeat: don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! :) I hope you are doing well. I have some tabletop designer bios that I am trying to get (re)published as articles; if you have the time would you like to try your hand at one or two? BOZ (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If interested, Draft:Don Bassingthwaite has had some work done on it already, and Draft:Charles Alexander Moffat, Draft:Claude J. Pelletier, Draft:Julie Ann Dawson may have some potential. Some game designers worth working on would be Draft:Bruce Harlick, Draft:Chris S. Sims (game designer), Draft:Dean Shomshak, Draft:Ken Whitman, Draft:Scott Bennie, Draft:Scott Fitzgerald Gray. If you can do anything on even one or two of those, that would be awesome. :) There are a bunch more, but these stood out to me the most. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:. I think your advice here may be beneficial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just in case you're wondering why there's been a slight uptake in activity at Linehan's page, he was on a talk show last night on BBC One, and clips from it have been trending on UK social medial all day. I'd add this to the talk page, but it's kinda FORUMy information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newimpartial. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Chambers".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just in case you weren't aware, you're right at the 3RR limit at Women's Declaration International. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive edits count as one revert, so I think I'm good, thanks. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial's got it right. It's mentioned at WP:3RR: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. " Sideswipe9th, for what it's worth, I get my reversion count wrong about 40% of the time. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until my one EW block years ago, I got it wrong 100% of the time, FWIW. :)

Even last year I got it wrong some of the time, because I couldn't internalize that if you remove the same word in two different edits, the second one is a revert even if the proposed replacement text is completely different. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That'll teach me! Thanks for the clarification you two! If only that policy could be clearer ey? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For real. Revert math is the second hardest kind of math, after toilet paper math of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for both of you @Firefangledfeathers:, the 3RR limit, how is that counted when two people make the same revert at the same time? Both 0xF8E8 and I made made the same revert, at more or less the same time. They hit the submit button first. Have I now done two reverts in the article? Or only one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: if I were you, I'd self-rv the meaningless change with an edit summary indicating that 0x beat you to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... why don't they just use their user account? Even I can work out who they are, and I've not even been here that long! They aren't even attempting to disguise their style! 😂  Tewdar  15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls be trolling. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty doubtful that they are arguing in good faith. In fact, I think they are on some sort of post-"retirement" trollfest tour. Have you thought they might be connected to a previously used account too? (don't tell me who!)  Tewdar  15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, but I make a point of having no opinion concerning how many trolls are out there and how many accounts or addresses each of them is using. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you must have a very good hunch who it is, right? Or, you must have Zen-meditation capabilities to block out external stimuli that I would pay good money for...  Tewdar  16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these can be true at the same time. :p Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🧘  Tewdar  17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you must know who it is, because you had their user page a subpage from their sandbox on their userpage on your watchlist even after they retired, right? 🧐  Tewdar  19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you are most certainly not known for, is reticence. So this lack of comment most certainly raises the alarm for me... pretty sure that user account is not their first, either...  Tewdar  19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a good checkuser, wouldn't I? Except nobody would be crazy enough to give Tewdar the toolz (I hope!)  Tewdar  19:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You thank me for that edit? What about the others? 😂  Tewdar  18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I was expressing my appreciation for the edit summary. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summaries are often more popular than the actual edits...  Tewdar  18:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3 § Transgender and transsexual categories. I wasn't sure if you were aware of this discussion or not, and thought you might be interested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed much of the off-wiki canvassing and harassment associated with that discussion. Are you better-informed? Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one editor, now banned, who tried to organise a number of "big name" transmedicalists to get involved because of "gender ideology" or some such. That Twitter thread is linked in a comment by Funcrunch, and amusingly tried to get Buck Angel to intervene.

That same editor whose Twitter thread is linked also wrote a couple of blogs on their websites harassing Roxy Saunders and TheTranarchist. I think the later one is still linked in the discussion somewhere.

Still reading through it all though. But I didn't see your name in the ping list, nor in the contributions so I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter canvassing is the worst canvassing. Sigh. I was vaguely aware of the thread - which struck me as mostly trolling - and my opinion about it has not really changed. I try to stay away from category discussions as much as I possibly can. :) Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll try to remember that for next time! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, being aware of a discussion doesn't compel me to participate in it, so I don't mind being notified. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, true! I'll still save it for particularly important/active ones though, don't want to endlessly spam you with notification...

Or do I? Muhahahahaha :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For the tireless work on J.K. Rowling to get a difficult section just as it should be. Well done! I'm extremely impressed. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources about Marxist cultural analysis - in its various forms and schools - don't refer to either "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". The ones that do, usually refer to "cultural Marxism".

? Tewdar 

Most sources on one or another school of Marxist cultural analysis dont use either phrase, and of the minority that use one ot the other, most use the common noun. Prove me wrong. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I perhaps misunderstood. "Most people don't use either form, but the ones that do, use the small-c form", yes? I believe I misread what you were saying. Sorry.  Tewdar  17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't my most elegant writing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also re I'm not sure what you mean by refer to both the conspiracy theory and the school of thought interchangeably - do you mean within a single source? Because I haven't seen that. - Jamin (2018) does exactly this, does he not? With a big C, too! 😁  Tewdar  17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of Jamin - which I expect you have read before, both on the CT talk page and at User Talk:Swood1000 - is that his writing distinguishes quite clearly when he is referring to the CT and when he is discussing actually existing Marxism. Yes, he uses the proper noun for both - he is the first academic I noticed to have retrojected that usage into Marxist scholarship - but then again, he is Belgian. Anyway, he certainly doesn't refer to both interchangeably. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • he is Belgian - lol - well, at least he isn't French, or "Cultural Marxism" would be simultaneously theft, freedom, and impossible. On a similar note, I observe a certain British former colony nationality bias on that page. Perhaps you need a more European outlook, like the UK... oh no, wait...  Tewdar  18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tewdar/sandbox/page3 - the goal is basically to merge origins and development into a single section, then trim out some of the excessive detail. Obviously it will need approval from a certified non-Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory theorist, so I suppose you should take a look once it takes shape a bit better. 😁👍👌 oh shit no, not that last one, isn't it racist or something oh nooo...  Tewdar  15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a heads-up regarding the user on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy I noticed you have engaged with them and I believe I should warn you their behavior is highly suspicious. The account is at least 2 years old and aside from a single edit from back then, their activity seems to be limited to that particular talk page. I was told that this is a potential telltale sign of sockpuppet activity. If that's the case it should be looked into. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not aware of any ROGD SPAs, but perhaps one of the lurkers can think of something. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have any sources handy, there are a number of deletion discussions going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts! Also on the RPG side, Doug Kovacs was moved to drafts after AFD, Smuggler's Guide to the Rim was proposed for merging, I moved David Ladyman to draft space after it was redirected, and also SkyRealms Publishing was PRODded at this version and then redirected. BOZ (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more today, SSDC, Inc.. BOZ (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit you reverted was the restoration to the stable version of the article. Please engage on talk if you want to support edits that are against consensus. The only difference is that recently someone did add some gendered pronouns to the early life section, and we have consensus to avoid gendered pronouns. So, that could be reverted further back. As I told the other user, Johnson/Michaels used both names throughout life, and never transitioned. So those conventions don't apply to this article. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I misread/misremembered the page history. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NI, please respect BRD and NOCON. When new content is added then reverted it may be correct to restore as you did here [20] but once that was challenged a second time then the only correct action is to go to the talk page to build consensus. I've started the discussion there. Please self revert and join the discussion. Springee (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have joined the discussion. What part of WP:BRD do you think supports your call for me to self-revert?

Also, if you believe there to be be one inescapably correct action to be taken at this point, I'm not sure you've internalized the spirit of the WP:5P. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD talks about the consensus building cycle. A bold edit was made then reverted (by editors other than either of us). Since the change was reverted the correct next step is to start a discussion. You didn't do that, rather you restored a second time. Once that second restoration was challenged then it was clear discuss should be the next step in the process. Also NOCON says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " We now have two editors for and two against. That seems like a clear nocon situation. Thus we should not restore the change until consensus is clear. Springee (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot's edit summary was irrelevant and dismissive, and there was no attempt to discuss on Talk at that point.

I am well aware of what WP:NOCON says; the problem to which I was referring has resulted from STONEWALLING and OWN - primarily directed at this article, even more so than Woman - for years. WP:IAR exists for a reason, and WP:BRD exists, strictly speaking, to draw out article owners and get them to talk, so that new consensus can be reached. This is precisely what I am trying to do, and a self-revert on my part would contribute to the opposite of that goal. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have made very few (no?) edits to the article the STONEWALL and OWN arguments lack foundation. NOCON is clear that the material shouldn't be in absent a consensus and currently no consensus exists. Absent any changes in consensus will you self revert? Springee (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attempting to characterize your editing on Female; please don't react to statements I have not made.

As far as self-reverting - as previously stated, I will not be doing so per WP:BRD and WP:IAR; I want this discussion to move forwards, not backwards. I am leaning in to try to break the logjam. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this is why I hate asterisk indenting. If it's the correct indent level, why is it causing rendering issues on that reply? The 20:44 comment by The void century has a similar issue, because of the {{od}} directly above it.

Something something, abolish bulleted indents on talk pages unless it's a list in a comment, rabble rabble, I hate messy indenting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S, are you sure it's the right indent level? It seems to be the wrong one unless it's a reply to CollectiveSolidarity's comment, in which case it's the right level but in the wrong place? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all indents work like this:

A

• B
  • C
    • D
  • E

where D replies to C and C and E both reply to B. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense. Though as can be seen in the screenshot the page is rendering weird. The issue appeared in this edit where you changed the indent type of mine and CollectiveSolidarity's replies. Seems as though you missed two extra asterisks off 23:07 reply judging by the number of colons that were replaced.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your observation is correct and this is the necessary fix.

I also believe that mixed indents break page accessibility, which is why I try to fix them when I see them (though evidently at times I fail). Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost the correct fix, though you only needed to add one asterisk to your reply at 23:09 and not two.

My fix would have been to turn them all into colon indents, as those have less breakages than asterisk indents, especially when it comes to mixed indent levels and outdents. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the community does not support switching the bullet indent on an original reply to a colon indent, so once one is used we are stuck with it as we reply. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current guidance is over at Help:Talk pages#Indentation and MOS:INDENTMIX. Seems that *, :, and *: are all acceptable, as is doing crazy stuff like *:::*:. And indentmix does call out using *:: as acceptable for suppressing the bullet on a reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mixing indents is definitely de-rigour at AFDs (random example). As long as the !vote is at an asterisk indent, replies to it can suppress the colon tree without issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about "best practice" vs. "acceptable practice" at INDENTMIX. I do not believe those are the same level of OK.

For AfD, though, I concede the convention. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The crazy example I pulled out came from Help:Talk pages#Indentation, and INDENTMIX is a redirect for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which one would assume would cover best practice. If there is another discussion or discussions on this I'd certainly be interested in reading em! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took "best practice" and "acceptable practice" right from MOS:INDENTMIX. I never look at Help, because I don't trust the content. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, seeing that now! Why do I keep reading complex pages at 2/3/4am? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're UKvian? (I didn't know whether British might be offensive. :) Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, whether or not I find British offensive depends on which passport I'm using when travelling internationally. I'd be more inclined to blame it on a sleep disorder, but poking fun at my province's constitutional complexity does rival that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm getting very frustrated with the responses in the AfD, but it's hard not to respond. I've been on Wikipedia wayyyyyy too much for over a week now. Should I just call it quits and let it play out? How do you manage your emotions and stress level during these types of debates? The void century (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your second question, clearly, is not very easily. But they don't get so very heightened for me because I take a long view, and I don't doubt that over time, Wikipedia will move towards the sources as the sources continue to reflect the reality I've described at the AfD and the article Talk page. I would encourage others also to take a long view, and my sense is that it is usually short-term "inspiration" that initiates the back-and-forth - quite unexpected by the article creator or RfC writer - that makes editing in the GENSEX WP:ACDS area especially challenging.

I am not the right editor to counsel anyone to disengage, but I do try to monitor myself to validate that I actually have something new to say each time I reply. My longish response to CycloMa today, for example, came from me realizing that I had a different (perhaps better?) explanation of why people thought the article was a POVFORK when it so obviously (to me) isn't. When I find myself tempted mostly to repeat myself in a discussion, I do try (!) to stop.

Mostly I would say: be aware that this is a known minefield for editors, try not to take things personally, and take care of yourself whenever you know a way to do that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shibboleth.? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that was a mental glitch for Shillelagh. Should I fix it? Newimpartial (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This revert of the removal by Obermallen seems bad my friend. Quora isn't a reliable source as it's user generated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I thanked them for reinstating the removal. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Are you still compiling a list of unreliability of The Times when it comes to trans reporting? The put out an article yesterday (article, archive) that is pure speculation, based on a press release from a recently rebranded law firm which has a history of such speculative cases, and a very poor reputation. Just thought you might want to add it to the list, if you're still compiling it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "compiling" is a strong word, but I am still trying to keep up, so the heads up is appreciated. I have no doubt that eventually this will have to go to RSN, but not precipitously. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recenty a user (falsely) accused me of trying to change our guidelines in order to win a dispute. Eventually, I'm sure I'll be in ANI/AE with this user so I was curious what the backstory is regarding your comment here [21]? If I may ask, what dispute was going on? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Newimpartial. Thank you. Sennalen (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That went well :). Newimpartial (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I've noticed that you often revert first, discuss later. In at least one recent discussion I think you said something to the effect that it was justified because you were correct. I can understand that POV. I certainly felt that way quite often. Still, adopting a personal policy of following NOCON etc is a good idea. It helps keep things civil etc. Also, on a different topic, you might add an aware template to the top of your talk page. It's certainly not a requirement but it keeps editor from adding a bunch of awareness templates to your talk page each year. :D Happy editing (even if we don't always agree) Springee (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD does not, as far as I know, carry the expectation that the reverting party need be the one who opens the discussion. Happy editing. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [22], I think you were right on the reverts in general, but there was also a lot of useful copyediting that had happened there. No great thoughts, but it might be worth going back and looking at. I'll try to get to it if you don't. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the copyediting seemed to be dedicated to erasing perfectly policy-backed uses of the singular they; if there was anything else done in those edits, I would certainly be open to that, but I didn't see it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Newimpartial; I haven't forgotten your comment from yesterday. I'm still not done reading the Gramam Linehan talk page archives, and I want my response to be thorough. I'd like to ask you a few "active listening"-type questions before I actually reply, to make sure I'm correctly understanding your position. May I do so here, to avoid cluttering up the BLP talk page any further? DFlhb (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would welcome that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've finally gone through the archives & diffs. FWIW, I agreed with many of your edits & arguments there (including your proposal to name the section "Campaign against trans issues", that seems much better than the current; if you propose it again I'll back you on that). And frankly that the page should have been extended-protected for years. So here goes:

I do see attempts to present his views & justifications in detail (for example, this diff). Is this the kind of thing you feel option 3 would address? Or is your support for option 3 more in line with the stuff in the lead, i.e. inclusion of his denials that he's engaging in anti-trans activism? My goal here is to try to see the benefits of option 3 through your eyes. Cheers

DFlhb (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am sufficiently frustrated by this hilarious but tone-deaf comment that I do not regard you as an editor with whom it is possible to collaborate. Cheers. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Newimpartial. Thank you. RAN1 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Apparently arguing with someone who is very likely at this point to get topic banned from the topic area in question, at minimum, is a reason for someone to get reported to Arbcom? Really dumb and a waste of time. Silverseren^C 22:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newimpartial, thank you for your detailed examination of "The Economist" record of commentary on gender issues at RSN. Just to let you know you've inadvertently cited the same source twice under the question about "the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education". It's after the phrase much less any incursion of "trans ideology". Cambial — foliar❧ 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you’re used to arguing about contentious topics, but you must endeavour to assume good faith. All the best, Socksage (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

That's fair. I have been careful not to revert your changes that were clear improvements - which is most of them. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you like to use the outdent connector when needed (so do I), such as in these edits at Talk:Gender. But here's a tip: the default version takes a wild guess at how many tab stops are involved, but usually, as in those edits, gets it wrong, which is why when you look at section § Lead definition sources they are "hanging" and not connecting. If you use param 1 it will connect perfectly, and the good news is that you don't have to calculate what to put in param 1, you just pick up the colons from the last comment before yours, and use that. So, taking the first example above, if you augment the {{od}} by copying the colons into the param, thus:

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|[M]ost of the sources this article actually cites.}} ... {{lipspan|max len=147}}. /sig/

{{Od|::::::::::::::::::}}Well, let's try an exercise, ...

then you get this:

all lined up perfectly. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :)

Hey. I've noticed a couple of your edits have been fixing glitches, typically the removal of <nowiki>...</nowiki> blocks that seem to have been inserted into your replies. Are you per chance using the reply tool in Visual mode? Have you tried using it in Source mode? When in Source mode you get an added preview pane below the textbox showing what the rendered output will look like, and I've never noticed it screw up in the same way that the Visual mode does. Just a thought for something to try. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I will give that a try. I didn't actually notice the switch. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring at LGB Alliance. If you continue, I will request a topic ban be enforced against you at WP:ANI. Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing: it is not a personal blog for you to publish your (biased) views.Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe I am trying to publish my (biased) views, as opposed to preserving long-time article content pending consensus to remove it? It sounds as though you are failing at WP:AGF, in this instance.

Also note that the heading to which you reverted does not appear to include the stable content now making up the first paragraph of the section, as several editors have observed on the article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring. There is also evidence of WP:OWN, ignoring our policies and guidelines on sources and engaging in personal attacks. I repeat, if you continue I will raise the issues at WP:ANI.Graham Beards (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you use "biased" here when the change is over whether a heading should include Gay and Lesbian rights because part of the following section is a comment on the general subject of that and same sex marriage. But apparently this very normal conflict over whether that should be reflected in the section title or not is "biased" to you. Says a lot more about your own biases than Newimpartial's, I think. Silverseren^C 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

…that you revert my edits for the sake of it. I’m also fed up with the snide comments you make. You can be a better editor than this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have ever reverted an edit with which I did not have a policy-based objection, (1) I believe you are mistaken and (2) that sounds like a pretty serious WP:AGF fail. But can you be a better editor than this? I don't have an evidence-based answer to that one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, the current contentious topics system has only been in place for a few weeks, and your Talk page didn't show any signs of awareness of the previous ACDS system outside of wrestling. If you wish to appear Aware of the new system, I'd suggest using the relevant template. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found this edit of yours quite puzzling, since I had made a comment clarifying the policy issue two years ago on the article's Talk page, and it is still quite prominent there. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: I'd just like to add that CT alerts must by policy be delivered with one of the templates. It cannot be delivered by editor text, and is one of the handful of templates at are explicitly exempt from the don't template the regulars essay and those who follow it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czello: May I suggest that you copy and paste the hopefully exhausive list of CT topics at the top of my user talk page? I haven't been bothered by these two busybodies for months, thanks to this (at least, they haven't posted any templates...)!  Tewdar  19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hadn't posted any templates under the new system until today. Partly because a major point of the new system was that less templating should take place, and partly because the whole system became less template-dependent (at most, an admin gives one additional warning before applying sanctions, in certain circumstances). But I was motivated to learn how to do it, today, by encountering an experienced editor who appeared to be acting in ignorance of CTOP considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems harsh to me. I mean, how would you feel if ANI were to permaban you for behaviour that is rather more provocative than my "happy editing" post - the latter, after all, not being directed not at you but at a third party commenting on your page? Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If yourself, the Australian IP, and anyone else want to gather up a bunch of diffs, take aim, and fire, go right ahead. I can't even be bothered to defend myself, and you can be pretty certain nobody's going to speak in Tewdar's defence. So, this is probably your best opportunity to get rid of me. Strike while the iron's hot, I say.  Tewdar  12:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Tewdar, that isn't among my wikigoals. At Sennalen's ANI, for example, I have been gently trying to steer you away from self-immolation. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you noticed, you're unbanned again again now. Please excuse my volatility, which seems to be even worse than usual at the moment. Should be back to normal 😜 soon.  Tewdar  13:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's fine. I mostly wanted to avoid the situation where I'm banned, forget that I'm banned, then have to ask leniency for violating the ban. :p But do try to take care of yourself... Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you that if you happen to ever be on the banned list again and forget, unless you post the kind of vile insults that the Australian IP came out with, the worst you're going to get from me is "didn't I ban you?". You can keep this diff as a get out of jail free card. And thanks for the concern. 😊  Tewdar  13:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you think my "thank" interactions are odd, I use that function a bit in the way of a Facebook "like" or a Google + "+1", as an all purpose - I see that and send good vibes - kind of nonverbal reaction. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All my interactions with you are odd. Your use of the thank button is probably the least odd. 😁  Tewdar  15:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you Sennalen and the Australian IP are definitely not the same person. If I win, you alphabetize the references here. What would you like if you win? 😂  Tewdar  09:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be taking that bet lol. Newimpartial (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't take that long to sort them 😂. Anyway, discounting the possibility that you were kidding, what makes you think that the IP and Sennalen are the same person? This seems unlikely to me, to say the least.  Tewdar  10:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were better at detecting patterns in prose, I suspect I could fond some underlying similarities. As it is, the feeling is inchoate. Newimpartial (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think GOODSOCK took BADSOCK to ANI? (or is it the other way round?) I can see no evidence that these two are the same person. None. If I were you I wouldn't take that bet either. I don't think they are even on the same continent.  Tewdar  10:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They need not be on the same continent to be the same "person". ;) Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you need to stop reading those books. It's just two random people on the internet with different opinions. Okay, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, what do you think is going on here? Sennalen gives proposals (I know, you don't like a lot of them) in a fairly measured and reasonable fashion, meanwhile on another continent Sennalen's IP co-conspirator pretends to be an unstable jerk who pretty much agrees with the Frankfurt Agreement of 2014 on almost everything, in a sinister plot to make everyone who agrees with IP look like unreasonable grouches (like they need IP's assistance for that 😂)?

Am I anywhere near? What does the plan look like from your side of the looking glass?  Tewdar  11:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the situation globally, I think one hand takes the other hand to ANI more often than editors are inclined to think or suspect. I have always distrusted the way this particular IP prances around reacting to what Sennalen is doing, as if the real intent were a resultant of the two sets of comments rather than being expressed by one or the other. Hegelian, I suppose, though I am probably just wrong in my suspicions. Newimpartial (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might take myself to ANI due to my conduct in that discussion. Would you do me the honour of presenting the case for the prosecution? Don't worry about the defence team, I've got a drawer full of 'em. Though I suspect certain stylistic characteristics might give me away. 😂  Tewdar  12:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is a bleddy good job you did not accept my bet - someone seems to have already alphabetized that bibliography without me noticing...  Tewdar  13:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin - clearly you were right and I was wrong about my ANI risk profile. My apologies. I haven't messed up that badly in a long time, and it is hard to get any traction while falling down-slope. I will have to be less argumentative in future, no matter how things turn out.

Most of the pile-on is predictable, but I do find the personal attacks and unfounded ASPERSIONS difficult, especially from Kolya. Oh, well. 01:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Colin, the level of irony involved in you misgengendering me in a comment in which you argue that I am wrong to experience psychological harm when interacting with you and you claim - incorrectly and without evidence - that I have accused you of actively trying to harm me - I mean, that is next level irony, right there. I don't think you are actively trying, no, but I do think you are maintaining your view of the world by refusing to take my subjectivity seriously and that you seem indifferent to the harm you may cause through your writing. You have reinscribed what you feel to be true, regardless of whether it bears any resemblance to who I am or what I have actually done or said. And that hurts. Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you should have taken up that offer of mentorship from me 😂. There's some basic maintenance work needs doing on a few of my articles if your range of topics should become more, um, restricted any time soon. Come morning. Start early, Newimpartial-san...  Tewdar  08:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ixtal, why are you seeking to have my participation restricted in an ANI filing about a possible topic ban in GENSEX? I am willing to have a BLUDGEON restriction enacted, but my comments in that filing have generally pointed out misleading statements by other editors (e.g., the suggestion that I re-added the SPS after multiple editors objected) or explained my intentions concerning future editing, which is rather germane to deciding what is or isn't needed to prevent future disruption. Why would you try to curtail that form of participation? If you would feel it preferable, I could restrict my comments to the section entitled "Reply by Newimpartial", but I don't see how the process would be improved if I were unable to answer editors' questions or respond to additional proposals. Newimpartial (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're replying to an excessive number of editors seeking sanctions against you. That is bludgeoning. I disagree with you on the nature of your comments. I am trying to curtail what I see as participation that reduces the community's ability to properly discuss your editing behavior (see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be_preventative). I personally believe compiling replies made in the same frequency as you have so far in their own section would just lead editors to ignore them. If you cannot see how the process would be improved by reducing your participation, I do not believe I can help you on this matter. Editors may still ask questions on your talk page and you may still respond to additional proposals in your talk page if community consensus backs a temporary PBAN. For guidance on how to do this, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked which while not written for that particular situation has good tips on expected behavior in such a scenario. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Ixtal, and have reduced my participation even without a community requirement to do so. It seems to me that a ban from the page is an unnecessarily heavy-handed instrument to do that.

Also, since you asked about my iBan: it was converted from one way to two way after my iBan partner's behaviour preceding the iBan was pointed out to the relevant admin (not by me[23]), and it ended when my iBan partner essentially went rogue, which was followed by additional transphobic attacks after they were sanctioned. It is not clear to me why you think this episode would make me more likely to be a problematic editor in future... Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		I don't do Wiki-feuds, and I would hate to be misjudged about the ANI discussions being motivated by disagreements over something trivial (or worse, ideological) last week. Perhaps we've butted heads in the past 24 hours, so I'm offering a beer to either smooth things over or at least improve your day. (Or help us both forget.) — Czello 14:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well with you. I had no idea at all what a mess the ANI would turn into, and find it very regrettable. Apparently there are a lot of underlying issues I was not aware of, right? As you know, we never interacted before and I (perhaps naively) thought it would just be a short ANI discussion about the bludgeoning, nothing else. And for the record, while I did find the bludgeoning a bit problematic, I certainly never doubted your motives or good intentions. Also, I'm sorry to see some users continue to use the wrong pronouns for you in the discussion, I neither understand nor condone that. Regardless of how the ANI discussion goes, I hope you continue to contribute here. All the best Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only envy the kind of naïvete that would lead an editor to expect any less of a mess wkth an ANI filing of that kind.

It was all largely predictable, and aside from personal attacks from one editor, the most regrettable element from my standpoint was the actions of Ixtal and Red-tailed hawk to read my iBan into the record and for The Wordsmith even to use it as grounds for an indef TBAN. I know this is typical of ANI, but given the actual sequence of events around the ban, and how it shaped my experience of enwiki, it just feels all wrong. For all my attempts at sang-froid, this AN filing (made before the iBan was made two-way, and after months of failing to get the attention of an individual admin on the file) was the shit-scariest thing I've had to do on-wiki. My whole interaction with that editor was scarring from before the ban until after it was over, and while I wasn't without fault either, holding those questionable admin judgements against me long after their direct result had been corrected and after the other party drove themselves off-wiki (through no action of mine) - well, it just seems like a way to hit the nonbinary person right where the scars are.

I could have done without that, but as I say, the rest of ANI is going pretty much exactly as someone who has lost their naïvete would expect. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it seems that at least one editor is now preparing to remove an "opponent". Good times. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Jeppiz, you now have a editor citing your reasoning in favour of applying an indefinite topic ban to me, which doesn't really fit the logic of your filing.[24] At this point we can pretty much guarantee that, whatever the formal resolution of your filing or that regarding TheTranarchist, the overall effect will be an emboldening of editors who are intolerant on Gender identity issues (as already happened in the wake of Athaenara's comments) and resultant POV editing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with TheTranarchist, never interacted with the user and cannot speak to that discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that. And it isn't a very similar set of issues, really. But community discussions (and comments within them) can have an impact beyond the specified topic of the discussion or the intentions of the filer. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by you - you will have known - is untrue: I am not accusing them [DeCausa] of having anti-trans views, either, but the argument made by a minority in that ANI that the desire for a community ban for Athaenara on the part of trans editors was "a witch hunt" or "mob-like" - essentially that we were being irrational for feeling vulnerable to that kind of UNCIVIL speech on-wiki - had a lasting effect on me and I suspect on other trans and nonbinary editors. There was an exceptionally large number of editors supporting that ban across all spectrums and opinions of Wikipedia. Rarely does a proposal attract such widespread support both in terms of numbers and in terms of different types of editor. Amongst that large number I didn't see any commonality of type of editor - it was extremely diverse (as best one can tell). As you well know that was the "mob". It would have been a very small proportion/number amongst that overwhelming opinion that would have been trans. Misrepresenting what I said as saying there was a "mob" of trans editors calling for Athaenara's ban is just a fucking lie. That sub-thread was closed before I could reply - if I see you do it again, you'll be straight back at ANI. I won't read your reply and don't post on my talk page. DeCausa (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to read this reply, of course, but I don't see evidence for your claim here that It would have been a very small proportion/number amongst that overwhelming opinion that would have been trans. I accept that you were not referring specifically to us, the trans community, as a "mob", but we were most definitely included in the "mob" to whom you referred. I may not have expressed myself clearly, but it seems clear that you still do not understand the effect of the large number of comments like yours on trans and nonbinary editors. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the ANI thread, some editors have expressed curiousity about what I intend to change about my approach to editing, beyond simply not making BLP errors (as I did at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) and BLUDGEONing (as I did notably in the ensuing RSN discussion). So before Crossroads gives the ANI filing a whole new series of plotlines, I will take the time to answer that question more reflectively.

Looking both back over time and outward to the concerns of other editors, the things about my Wikipedia editing that I see the need to change are about argumentative behaviour. They include the following:

1. Not only do I tend to make too many replies in discussions, I often give in to a desire to refute all arguments conflicting with the conclusion I have reached about a topic. This tendency to refute is typically unhelpful and leads to the pattern of BLUDGEON-ey threads where I respond to multiple other views. I need to stop doing that. My Talk participation should emphasize a single presentation of my view at reasonable length, not "argumentation".
2. On occasion, when I hold a minority view (as in my view on anarchist presses, or my view that NSPORT should reference NBASIC rather than GNG as a baseline), I continue to argue in favour of that minority view when I ought to stop. The few times my onwiki behaviour has actually led to actual disruption seem from this, IMO, and while I have shut each one down post facto, what is required is that I simply stop arguing for small minority positions.
3. Sometimes I allow myself to engage in an interaction with another editor, rather than about the topic . There have been a number of examples of this presented at ANI, and I expect others to be presented soon. Here I am counting instances when I allow myself to be baited by another editor, instances where I have provoked (some would say "Trolled") another editor, and even light byplay I have sometimes used in discussions onwiki. Some of this may have been harmless at the time, but it is clear to me now that in conjunction with my other argumentative tendencies, it is not enough for me simply to colour between the lines. I need to WP:FOC in a deeper sense, by asking myself, is this comment likely to improve the encyclopaedia, or is it just something Newimpartial feels the need to say - and if the latter, I need to let the urge go no matter how juste the mot.

I'm not pretending this is a comprehensive list - I'm sure there are more - but these are three key aspects of my approach to wiki participation that, when I achieve them, should relieve the frictions that have brought me to ANI and that in particular have engendered some of the more emphatic statements of frustration and hurt that have accompanied some !votes. I am sorry that I have acted this way.

Since I have previously made specific adjustments to related behaviours, in various facets of life, as part of my own story, I am hopeful that with effort I can change these problem behaviours here too. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giving an Account of Oneself is never easy, is it?  Tewdar  17:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is especially difficult to sift through what the "objective" issues are, according to a wide range of attentive witnesses, versus things casual observers say because they've been told to or things highly invested interlocutors say in pursuit of their own (conscious or unconscious unconscious) objectives. But I think I'm a good part of the way there, pending the next deluge. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, when Crossroads shows up tomorrow with his Chronicle of the Historic Crimes of Newimpartial: Being a True and Accurate Account of... 😂  Tewdar  17:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, his literary agent? :p

Actually, we should have a side bet on whether it is over or under 10,000 characters. I expect receipts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the character count include spaces?  Tewdar  17:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect so. It includes markup language... Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, are you actually suggesting that someone might be motivated to edit Wikipedia by something other than the need to occupy otherwise unfocused time and attention? I am shocked and appalled. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]