A Note of Caution. Since you have asserted at Talk:Pauley Perrette, "I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia," please be aware it may be problematic to directly contact the subject of a WP:BLP off-wiki, identifying yourself as a Wikipedia editor and requesting information to supplement an on-wiki discussion in which you are involved. Even if the BLP subject responds wholeheartedly, such public communications (potentially read by, among others, the 738K followers of Pauley Perrette's Twitter account) may also be seen as an attempt to influence a Wikipedia community debate by recruiting new or existing users to support your point of view. Be aware that the Wikipedia guideline WP:STEALTH discourages stealth canvassing—i.e., contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions. NedFausa (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Actually, I am contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this. They didn't understand what was going on. So, I explained things, how we (Wikipedia) works. Secondary sources and all that. Folks did seem to understand, but they are still hurt. They feel like this is "asexual eraser" and I understand where they are coming from. A clearly understood meaning ("ace"), used in the Asexuality page and referenced, Ms. Perrette follows 11 other asexuality pages on Twitter, I mean, what else could she be referencing? But why are we asking?

Someone brought up a good point, if she said If someone came out saying “Gays, it is me” in a tweet and then changed their bio to say “Gay.” as well, would you not allow their page to be edited to say they “came out as homosexual” until “it gets reported” despite it coming from the person themself in two separate places?. I think not. Wikipedia would be done in the eyes of the media and everyone. That celeb would sic their followers on Wikipedia. It would be over. So why must Ms. Perrette have to jump through hoops for coming out as Asexual? By extension, why must I not quell, what is that very same upset on Twitter, because I'm being "STEALTH"?

Point of fact, I mentioned in my tweet, who I was on Wikipedia, so I outed my own Wikipedia account on Twitter, there was no stealth there. Plus, one person from that group had already joined the conversation prior to my explaining the goings on of Wikipedia. So, I didn't encourage that person to come here. I also showed people where the discussion was. I didn't say "come here and share your voice", no. I shared the link. BIG difference. Mole hill, meet Mountain, because that's what you are trying to make and it ain't working.

Back to the bigger point. Why is no one taking Ms. Perrette following the 11 asexuality pages on Twitter seriously? Why are we having to wait for an "unambiguous reference"? Would we do the same for a gay person? A lesbian person? A trans person? Is Wikipedia suffering from a little aphobia? Maybe we are being different to one group of people when we wouldn't to another? I think we need to look at ourselves, a good hard look. Because we wouldn't do this to anyone in the LGBT community, but why the IAQ part? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I urge you to be cautious. As for a "lesbian person", please consider the case of Jodie Foster. Literally years of discussion took place on the talk page of her article and repeated attempts to call her a lesbian were reverted because the quality of the sourcing was poor. So the answer is, yes, unambiguous self-identification is required to say that a person is gay or lesbian or transgender or Jewish or Presbyterian or Buddhist or atheist. Or asexual. This is not negotiable and so do not add that content back without a better reference.

The fact that she follows asexual Twitter accounts is evidence of nothing. I follow several transgender people on social media and I am not transgender. Concluding that she is asexual because of who she follows is original research and completely unacceptable.

If a reporter for a reliable source asks her to clarify and she unambiguously self-identifies as asexual, then the matter can be revisited at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: That's surprising and we failed there too. I would like to know where WP:TWITTER comes into play? That is an extension of WP:V. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Aces, it is actually me" is most definitely not an unambiguous self-identification. Even if we accept that she is probably using "Aces" as a synonym for asexual people, she has not said "I am an ace". You have repeatedly pointed out that she follows asexual Twitter accounts. Perhaps she is addressing those people to reassure them that she is an actual follower of those Twitter accounts and that it isn't a fake PP account. There are several of them on Twitter. The sentence is vague, ambiguous and cryptic. It is insufficient for the content you wish to add. I intend to enforce BLP policy in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: But, as we can prove, just by looking at the account, it's a verified account. Notice the blue and white checkmark. So, it's not a fake. Plus, we use the term "ace" in our own article on Asexuality. So, I am not seeing how this is a problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Please stay on track here, Neutralhomer. I have never challenged the validity of the tweet. I have never contested that asexual is one of the many definitions of the word "ace" (although that word also means "close friend" and that usage is much older). So please do not waste my time with strawman arguments. The problem is the vague, ambiguous and cryptic nature of the tweet. There is no way that tweet can be read as an unambiguous declaration that she is asexual, and it is therefore inadequate as a reference for that claim on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting your time, sorry you think I am. I'm trying to have a discussion. I believe saying that it's not unambiguous is challanging the validity of the tweet. To me, we are saying she isn't saying what she is saying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all snowballed. Now it's happening at Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle, if you're interested. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of canvassing there, Adam9007. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please... I just thought he might be interested in it, seeing as it's closely related to the kerfuffle he's involved in (note that I haven't asked him to say or do anything; I just pointed it out to him). Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you point it out to any of the other participants (i.e. ones not supporting your viewpoint?) 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of them are already aware (is there anyone who hasn't edited those pages or the BLP noticeboard discussion)? Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good enough? Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

165.120.15.119, I was offline and I made it known I would be, so I thank Adam9007 for letting me know about this. It's not canvassing, it's just a heads up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:25 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Here is the link. NedFausa (talk) 06:02, 24 January 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Template:Z33 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I would like to be clear on this, am I being told not to edit the Pauley Perrette, Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle pages (along with their respective talk pages) and the discussions currently going on on various pages under threat of sanctions? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

• Re: Cullen328, Ritchie333, Masem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

Pinging like this doesn't work; it has to be on a new, signed, comment. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they could just be added in. I learned something today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they can't. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that warning is saying you cannot edit those pages, just that simply, because this is the BLP topic area, there are discretionary sanctions that can be imposed by any admin who feels your editors run against the results and motions set by Arbcom in the linked case. (but I don't know for sure if that's Guerillero's effect). --Masem (t) 02:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are being asked to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground or a fight. Failing to do that will result in your ejection from the parts of Wikipedia where you are displaying that behavior. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Neutralhomer, I do not know why you pinged me. I told you that I had already said everything I intended to say about Pauley Perette, at least until significant new information emerges. I am not the type of editor who enjoys repeating myself over and over and over again. Your repetitive remarks have not changed my mind, and my previous remarks stand. So please ping me if there is something new and substantive to discuss, but until then, I am done with this. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]