Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vulva; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunan, your recent reverting at Vulva and your posts on talk seemed a little aggressive. I'm leaving you a DS alert to remind you that the topic is under discretionary sanctions as a "gender-related dispute or controversy". I should add that I'm doing this as an editor, not as an admin, because I see that I commented on that talk page last year about the issue under discussion. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 6 March 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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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

I have been reverting some of your latest removals of sourced content. You seem to have a massive misunderstanding about WP:MEDRS. It only applies to medical subjects. The origins of ethnic groups are not medical subjects and being blond is not a diagnosis. Also if a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal is cited, it is, ipso facto, not original research. Please refrain from deleting sourced content based on spurious reasons. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, just to be clear, WP:MEDRS does apply to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. Of course, a news report on a celebrity having cancer isn't and doesn't need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. WP:Biomedical information advises editors on what falls under "biomedical information." WP:MEDRS aside, topics about genetics shouldn't be relying heavily on primary sources; this is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So editors shouldn't be relying on single study material. And if reporting on a single study, it's best that this is only done if there is very little research on the topic and/or if the study is reported on in secondary and tertiary sources.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flyer, it's relieving to know that we've got such a vigilant group of overseers around here. Perhaps the WP:SCIRS page needs a iittle more visibility with regards to the human genetics section. I'd like it if there was a way to put banners on every ethnic/trait/medical related articles advising users about the WP:MEDRS note at WP:SCIRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Biomedical information is quite specific about its scope, listing neatly the subjects intended. The only thing vaguely applicable in the case of blonde (where you claim MEDRS is applicable), is the bit about a ‘genetic study’. The sections deleted applied to prevalence of blond hair in Scandinavians, appearance of the gene for blond hair in mesolithic hunter-gatherers, which are, by no stretch of the imagination, is a medical subject and no genetic study is needed to determine whether or not someone is blond. No cure, ever, has been proposed to “blondism”, au contraire, much effort is spent on becoming blond.

The section in WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources, it does warn to take care not to interpret the results and attribute the claim. If it did, and that standard were applied rigorously, we would not have an article on Fast Radio Burst.

The subject is a grave one, though, and needs to be clear, since in the blond-article alone, nearly 10k was deleted, while applying the standard proposed here quite unevenly. If you disagree, I propose we bring this to WP:RS/N to get some extra opinions on the matter. Kleuske (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, going by your WP:Indentation, I can't tell if you were replying to me, Hunan201p, or to the both of us. But again, I just wanted it to be clear, including to anyone who saw the matter in the Blond edit history, that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. As for "WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources"? No, but it emphasizes the fact that academic articles (and academic material in general) should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. In general, as you know, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources, but this is especially the case for academic topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the first time and I know we prefer secondary and tertiary sources, whenever possible. What I am disputing is that the appearance of a certain gene is Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, origins of ethnic groups and having blond hairs are biomedical matters, that is, they do not appear in the quite explicit listing of topics in the biomedical information article that defines the scope of MEDRS. I also dispute that appropriate usage of a primary source is a reason to delete parts of an article, claiming OR. It is not OR, though secondary sources are preferable. I am not sure how I should have indented here, but went by ‘if the shoe fits, buy shoelaces’. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in WP:SCIRS. There is often controversy surrounding things like phenotypes, which often relates to ethnonationalism or racism. The WP:MEDRS standard is enforced to prevent low quality references from being used to potentially present incorrect information about people or ancient events, as previously existed on the blond article (and definitely still exists there). Obviously any genetic study is biomedical in scope. What's your obsession with blond hair, Kleuske? - Hunan201p (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about this edit summary, you had better start a investigation and be informed otherwise. Also the WP:HOUND accusation and the term “abuser” can easily be construed as personal attacks. Just FYI, I have been patient, do not push it. Kleuske (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of being LightFromABrightStar, just noted that you reverted something a known troll and sockmaster posted. You have obsessively reverted several of my edits across a wide variety of articles, often without explanation. That's the definition of hounding and if you keep it up, you are going to catch a bann.

Please be advised that I am not the least bit bothered by your attempts to threaten me and that you won't be getting me off this site no matter how hard you try (many others have tried very persistently with far greater concerns and failed). - Hunan201p (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vulva; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Crossroads Tasase5 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]