Hello, Bashfan34! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 17:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thank. I think we are on the same page and you reverted me by mistake if I am not mistaken. :)

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we're on the same page. It's all good. I did most of the revamping of the page today. Feel free to revert any of my writing you disagree with though if you look it over again. Bashfan34 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you scrambled your password yet? I saw your concerns and I'd like to talk about it with you privately. — Python Drink (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone questioning the news generally. On the subject of incel, the article is full of mistruths. I don't know know if you saw my comments before they were removed. The article starts with Alek Minassian in the lede and the criticism incels have received. Although the article later acknowledges the judge found out much (I don't think there was ever any evidence of any of it being true) of his motivation was a lie, it should not have such importance in the lede without mention of the fact that it was found out to be have been a lie. The contributors mention how it is adhering to those who self-identify or form part of a community or ideology, yet mentions many killers not in that way connected with incel ideology, such as George Sodini. All they have with Sodini is that he hated women and killed out of revenge. They have not a single shred of evidence he was ever part of that community or anything 'incel'. Chris Harper-Mercer they desperately try to connect up with that ideology as him being 'involuntarily celibate' and indeed he does even mention he was sexless in his manifesto and how he celebrated Elliot Rodger, as he done a bunch of other killers and the majority thrust of his motive according to various pieces of evidence (him telling his Luciferian friend he was molested as a child by Christians, him posting to his friend video showing the beheading of two 12 year old Christian girls, him initially selecting out people based on religion for killing and him talking about ascending the demonic hierachy in his manifesto) was his anti-Christianity. There is no mention that he ever self identified with the 'incel' movement or community, just that he was sexless and celebrated one of many mass shooters of a variety of backgrounds. Even claims he said he was a 'virgin, involuntary so' merely classes him as an 'involuntary celibate' not the definition in the article lede (a member of an online subculture).

Nicholas Cruz may have praised Elliot Rodgers (as he probably did other killers) but there is no evidence he called himself an 'incel' or follower of the ideologies. I don't believe it ever surface at trial as a motive in the attack. He was rejected by his girlfriend, but you know what: so is almost everyone who has ever had a girlfriend at some point in their lives. I prefer the label 'chronic unrequited love' to 'involuntary celibate' because it cuts more clearly to the actual issue and the fact that not all of them are known to be celibates. The article says Scott Beierle was a 'follower of incel ideologies for some time'. It cites a report on terrorism which says the same thing, but this report staggeringly cites as it's unambiguous source an ambiguous news article by Buzzfeed which said he 'appeared' to be going by his attitude and saying he was like (hot topic of the day) Elliot Rodger as an adolescent (20+ years prior). He never mentioned he was part of the community or ideology for ANY span of time or even if he was celibate (he was said to never have had visitors by his housemate, but he came home late at night frequently; all he said was that "if I can't find one decent female to live with, I will find many indecent females to die with", he doesn't mention that he was a virgin or sexless just that he was uncontent with what he was getting (if anything, but we don't base things like this on assumptions)). It mentions Stephen Paddock, who was married at one point and in a long marriage-like relationship at the time of the shooting, and there was no evidence he was ever part of the community or ideology besides an ambiguous amount of people who may have praised him that they do not source. Tobias Rathjen the article admits experts say his motive was not incel ideologically driven, and there is no evidence he was ever part of that community or ideology, or even formed part of the basis of his act, just sexless. It mentions Cole Carini, who plotted an attack. I have found no evidence he was ever part of the community or ideology, and in fact the police reports say he had a serious girlfriend for a number of years. They even mention a security guard who stomped on a homeless person who they say was an 'incel'. This officer NEVER self-identified as an incel, never even called himself involuntary celibate as far as I can tell but did say he was sexless for 4 years. The prosecution took this and said he appeared to be 'involuntary celibate'. Wikipedia has that written up like he self-identified or was found to be an 'incel': a member of an online subculture. In terms of successful killers who have killed 2 or more people, only Elliot Rodgers, George Sodini and Scott Beierle where motivated by similar ideology from the years 2009-2022, and as mentioned Sodini had no connections whatsoever while the closest connection with Scott Beierle was when he specified he was like Elliot Rodger as an adolescent. There has been shown to have been only 2 such killers who used the forums: Elliot Rodgers and Jake Davison from the period 2014-2022, and there is no evidence Jake Davison killed out of incel ideology, including no posts ever praising any mass killer or talking about any kind of bloody retribution. According to my research, there are about 100 such mass killers expected over a 5 year period (I believe I even excluded gang-related).

If you would like to discuss this privately, please let me know how. The fact that recently there was a stalker (Jacob Yerkes) who was branded an incel (he never praised any 'incel', he was never shown connected with the incel community, he never was shown to have used any incel lingo, people just assumed it because he was a stalker and said women have rape fantasies) by the press without ANY evidence actually presented to support it shows how the media has been using this community as a scapegoat with some kind of agenda. It appears Wikipedia has happily joined this agenda. 193.119.44.239 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]