Tú y yo no siempre hemos estado de acuerdo en las cosas, pero quería decirte que me impresionó tu publicación sobre el caso ArbCom. Fue mesurada, bien redactada y respetuosa con ambas partes, incluso cuando no estabas de acuerdo con sus acciones. Realmente respeto eso. ♠ PMC ♠ (discusión) 22:56 1 jul 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por trabajar enOmar Khadr
Ahora las cosas tienen un poco más de sentido después de los bloques CU. Debo admitir que, aunque tengo experiencia con el master, no vi venir esto. Meters ( discusión ) 05:41 22 jul 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entiendo lo que quieres decir. He hecho un par de modificaciones al encabezado, tomando en cuenta los dos puntos racionales de la diatriba del calcetín, y también reorganicé la última sección del artículo para que se lea cronológicamente, lo que tiene sentido para mí en ese lugar. El artículo en su conjunto sigue siendo un caos de muchas cabezas, pero yo diría que el encabezado ahora cuenta la historia con bastante precisión y concisión. Sin embargo, cualquier recorte que quisieras hacer probablemente ayudaría, especialmente en las partes desordenadas del artículo debajo del encabezado. Newimpartial (discusión) 05:46 22 jul 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Advertencia de BLP:Fe dorada
Es completamente inaceptable ir a la página de alguien a quien desprecias y agregar "notable" en el encabezado por algo que no te gusta que haga.
Nanite, de hecho he leído BLP. El BLP en cuestión se lee principalmente como un currículum no destacable, con los actos notables del sujeto -los que realmente podrían merecer una página en WP- excluidos o enterrados al final. Estaba agregando material apropiado al encabezado, como ya se pedía en las plantillas colocadas por otros en el artículo. Esto no tiene nada que ver con lo que a mí me "gusta". Newimpartial (discusión) 11:59 18 ago 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, solo quiero disculparme por el tono anterior. Vi la cita de YouTube autopublicada insertada en el encabezado y pensé que era solo un ataque WP:UNDUE al pasar . Sin embargo, como dices, también se menciona en el cuerpo, por lo que es discutible que sea notable. ¡Perdón por asumir mala fe ! -- Nanite ( discusión ) 23:34, 22 de agosto de 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
No te preocupes, tu tono anterior no era muy acertado, pero entendí que tenías buenas intenciones, como lo demostraron tus ediciones posteriores a la página. Me resulta divertido recordar la edición que casi revertiste, que hice antes de que despidieran a la protagonista de The Rebel. En ese momento, el video "White Genocide" era posiblemente lo más notable que había hecho, pero ahora es claramente más famosa por haber sido despedida después de Charlotteville (y posiblemente por transmitir en vivo el supuesto homicidio vehicular que tuvo lugar). Hubo una gran guerra de ediciones sobre mi uso del término (con fuentes) "simpático", aunque la reciente semiprotección debería inhibir más eso.
De todos modos, al menos logré quitar del artículo su capitanía de remo y su beca universitaria. Quizá irónicamente, parecía más un CV antes de que la despidieran...
Como digo, no hay problema. Newimpartial (discusión) 03:37 23 ago 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Judíos americanos
No dudes en unirte a la discusión en la página de discusión del artículo para explicar por qué crees que este punto de vista marginal debe ser presentado de manera tan destacada. — MShabazz Talk / Stalk 21:23, 30 de agosto de 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
La respuesta es que no es algo marginal. Una búsqueda muy superficial por mi parte arroja al menos media docena de fuentes académicas recientes que plantean este punto. Newimpartial (discusión) 21:39 30 ago 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suite Antigua
Hola, veo que estabas trabajando en un borrador para Suite Antique . Como siempre me ha gustado este trabajo, decidí escribir un artículo rápido sobre él y ya está publicado. Pensé en avisarte en caso de que quisieras echarle un vistazo o tuvieras algo que quisieras agregar. Sin embargo, planeo agregar un poco más de descripción la próxima vez que tenga tiempo. Blythwood ( discusión ) 04:17 13 septiembre 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estadistas
Tus comentarios fueron completamente innecesarios e imprudentes. El término "político" es un término indiscutiblemente de WP:POV para describir a alguien involucrado en la política, que es exactamente la razón por la que políticos respetados que aún están vivos, como Angela Merkel y Barack Obama, son descritos como tales en lugar de "estadista" y "estadista", respectivamente. Sin embargo, como WP:BLPSTYLE no se aplica a políticos que ya no están, el término está bien en la medida en que ha sido utilizado por historiadores para describir a dicho político. Básicamente, el término "estadista" es algo que solo se utiliza para referirse a políticos fallecidos de importancia significativa, no a políticos contemporáneos que aún viven. Espero que entiendas esto y reconsideres tus ediciones. -- Nevé – selbert 20:38, 16 de septiembre de 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
He respondido en la página de discusión de Colin Powell; también me gustaría preguntar si entiendes las políticas que estás citando, ya que no hay nada en BLPSTYLE que contraindique el uso del término "estadista" o "estadista" cuando fuentes confiables describen el rol de una persona como tal, y hay muy buenas indicaciones para NO inventar una descripción de una persona basada en un punto de vista ideosincrásico, como referirse a personas que, en democracias electorales, nunca han buscado un cargo electoral como "políticos" porque leíste en Harry Truman que los estadistas son personas muertas. Te sugiero que no magnifiques tus errores usando herramientas automatizadas en el futuro... Newimpartial (discusión) 22:29 16 sep 2017 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, lo he hecho, y lo volví a hacer antes de revertir tu reversión. Estamos teniendo un desacuerdo sobre la aplicación de esa política, tú y yo: no actúo por ignorancia de ella. Newimpartial (discusión) 07:00 14 ene 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mónica ValentinelliPRODUCCIÓN BLP
Te ayudamos con tu comprensión lectora:
Este artículo trata sobre una persona viva y parece no tener referencias. Todas las biografías de personas vivas deben tener al menos una fuente que respalde al menos una afirmación sobre la persona en el artículo. Si no se encuentran referencias confiables [énfasis mío] y no se agregan dentro de un período de gracia de siete días, este artículo puede eliminarse. Esta es una política importante para ayudar a prevenir la retención de material incorrecto.
Tenga en cuenta que agregar fuentes confiables [énfasis mío] es todo lo que se necesita para evitar la eliminación programada de este artículo. Para obtener ayuda sobre cómo insertar referencias, consulte Referencias para principiantes o pregunte en el servicio de asistencia. Una vez que el artículo tenga al menos una fuente confiable [énfasis original], puede eliminar esta etiqueta [énfasis mío].
Esto no es ni un poco difícil. Así que no edites la guerra por cosas en las que te equivocas. -- Calton | Discusión 00:38, 5 de febrero de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Calton Quizás quieras dejar de insistir con esto. BLPPROD establece específicamente que para colocar una etiqueta BLPPROD, el proceso requiere que el artículo no contenga fuentes de ningún tipo (como referencias, enlaces externos, etc.) que respalden ninguna afirmación hecha sobre la persona en la biografía. Ten en cuenta que este es un criterio diferente al que se utiliza para las fuentes agregadas después de la colocación de la etiqueta. Originalmente había fuentes (la confiabilidad es definitivamente discutible) y las ha habido a lo largo de cada revisión, por lo tanto, BLPPROD no se aplica en este caso. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 de febrero de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
RE: El Renacimiento estadounidense y el término "nacionalista blanco" frente a "supremacista blanco"
Saludos, pensé que hablaría contigo primero antes de arriesgarme a crear un nuevo escándalo en la página de discusión de American Renaissance. Por lo tanto, estoy aquí para preguntarte: ¿qué te hace pensar que Am Ren debería ser etiquetado como "supremacista blanco" en lugar de "nacionalista blanco"?
Personalmente, mi razonamiento para etiquetarlo como "nacionalista blanco" en lugar de "supremacista blanco" es el siguiente (lo admito, copiado directamente de mi propia página de usuario): cuando escribo o edito artículos sobre figuras políticas, soy muy exigente (y un tanto extraño, lo admito) con las fuentes que cito. Esto se debe a que la gran mayoría de las fuentes confiables, ya sean grandes publicaciones convencionales o publicaciones más pequeñas, todavía están sobresaturadas por su sesgo. Por lo tanto, he descubierto que es mejor citar directamente a las propias figuras políticas al definir sus opiniones políticas. Después de todo, ¿quién puede evaluar mejor cuáles son las opiniones y creencias de una persona que la propia persona? Las fuerzas externas pueden interpretar y juzgar algo todo lo que quieran. Pero nadie puede saber realmente si sus evaluaciones son verdaderas a menos que lo que se está juzgando las confirme o rechace directamente.
No sé cuáles son tus opiniones políticas, ni tampoco sé si influyen en ti a la hora de etiquetarlo como "supremacista blanco". Pero espero que podamos ser civilizados y llegar a un acuerdo mutuo en este punto, y no tener que crear más drama en la página de discusión si es necesario.
Hola, agente secreto. Como habrás adivinado, he estado ocupado fuera de la wiki.
Básicamente, mi respuesta es que las fuentes confiables consideran que "nacionalista blanco" es un eufemismo de "supremacista blanco", según tengo entendido, por lo que WP debería hacer lo mismo. Y WP no privilegia lo que las fuentes dicen sobre sí mismas por sobre lo que las fuentes confiables dicen sobre ellas; todo lo contrario.
Además, la única forma de lograr que se modifique la terminología que desea para este artículo es generar un nuevo consenso, ya sea en la página del artículo únicamente o en una convocatoria de propuestas más amplia o un proceso similar. En realidad, no hay atajos. Newimpartial (discusión) 19:05 22 jun 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiero decir... tienes razón...
En cuanto a cómo se utilizan las discusiones sobre personas "transraciales" en el debate sobre los derechos de las personas transgénero, tienes toda la razón. Sin embargo, creo que es importante seguir insistiendo en la irrelevancia de esa comparación para el tema en cuestión. En realidad, no importa cómo Wikipedia trate a las personas "transraciales" cuando tenemos instrucciones explícitas en la guía de estilo sobre cómo tratar a las personas transgénero. Simonm223 ( discusión ) 17:56 10 ago 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para recordar
[[1]] [[2]] [[3]]
También NB [4] Newimpartial (discusión) 22:50 22 ago 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y esto y también esto. Newimpartial (discusión) 01:24 20 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Agosto de 2018
Bienvenido a Wikipedia. He notado que tu nombre de usuario, " Newimpartial ", puede no cumplir con la política de nombres de usuario de Wikipedia porque podría interpretarse como un nombre de usuario engañoso. Si crees que tu nombre de usuario no viola nuestra política, deja una nota aquí explicando por qué. Como alternativa, puedes solicitar un cambio de nombre de usuario completando este formulario , o simplemente puedes crear una nueva cuenta para editar. Sé que has estado aquí por un tiempo, pero solo quería informarte que tu nombre de usuario podría interpretarse como uno que viola la política de nombres de usuario como un nombre de usuario engañoso. No hay riesgo de UAA por mi parte, solo te hago saber que otros podrían no ser tan generosos. Kirbanzo ( discusión ) 02:17, 29 de agosto de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, cualquier nombre de usuario que contenga "nuevo" podría ser visto como engañoso después de diez años, pero no creo que eso deba plantear ninguna pregunta sobre el cumplimiento de la política, así que no, no creo que sea un "nombre de usuario engañoso" en el sentido de la política Newimpartial (discusión) 09:59, 29 de agosto de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí... no hay ninguna violación aquí. Primefac ( discusión ) 14:04 29 ago 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Su solicitud de AE
Hola Newimpartial, acabo de cerrar tu solicitud porque el consenso de los administradores no involucrados es que la edición que denunciaste no fue una violación. Userwoman tiene prohibido el tema de "cuestiones de género" y, si bien Kavanaugh está actualmente envuelto en lo que podría describirse como una "controversia relacionada con el género" según la decisión de GamerGate, el artículo en sí no trata sobre cuestiones de género y la edición en cuestión tampoco trata sobre eso. Salvio ¡ Hablemos de eso! 14:00, 5 de octubre de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, Salvio. Aprecio el cierre.
Mi propia interpretación de esa encuesta es, tal vez no sea necesario decirlo, algo diferente, en función de mi propia lectura del tema. Sin embargo, valoro el trabajo de los administradores a la hora de decidir lo que debe ser un conjunto muy rebelde de sanciones y solicitudes de acción. Están haciendo un trabajo importante (e ingrato). Newimpartial (discusión) 14:11 5 oct 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, como dije en su página de discusión, su edición rozó la línea, aunque no la cruzó. Probablemente su prohibición de tema no se formuló de la manera más precisa en primer lugar, ya que, según las sanciones de GamerGate, también se puede prohibir el acceso a temas de personas "asociadas con cualquier disputa o controversia relacionada con el género", pero tenemos que hacer cumplir la prohibición de tema tal como se ha escrito.
Eliminación de comentarios de la página de discusión de hombres trans
Hola, me pregunto específicamente cómo mi comentario violó la regla NOTFORUM. Hice un comentario breve en un hilo en curso, directamente sobre el tema, con una sugerencia de edición específica, respaldada con una fuente. ¿Qué más necesito hacer, exactamente, para que NO eliminen mis comentarios? Me parece que simplemente no se me permite participar, ya que los editores eliminan todos y cada uno de mis comentarios, incluso cuando sigo lo que dicen. Veo comentarios en todas estas páginas de discusión que son discusiones tipo foro sin fuentes (por ejemplo, vi una diatriba muy larga en la página de discusión de mujeres trans, de unos 5 párrafos, que era solo POV sin una sola fuente citada; la eliminé y un editor la revirtió, pero no revirtió mi comentario, que también era muy breve, específicamente sobre un punto de edición, con una fuente). ¿Por qué me están señalando? Y nuevamente, ¿qué exactamente debo hacer para que no eliminen mis comentarios? Muchas gracias. -- 45.48.238.252 ( discusión ) 03:09 9 dic 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, no tengo una fórmula mágica para hacer comentarios relevantes, pero aquí hay algunas sugerencias:
NO use la página de Discusión para objetar la premisa de un artículo citado, AUNQUE tenga una o dos fuentes. Si desea proponer cambios a un artículo en esa situación, proponga cambios específicos sobre la base del EQUILIBRIO.
Utilice las páginas de discusión para proponer cambios específicos al artículo en forma de borrador, no para debatir los supuestos subyacentes del artículo (que es quizás el principal tipo de violación de NOTFORUM con el que me encuentro).
NO agregue comentarios nuevos a temas antiguos que llevan varios meses sin publicarse, ESPECIALMENTE para lanzarse a nuevas tangentes sobre esos temas. Es mejor agregar nuevas secciones en esta situación.
Revise la página de Discusión y sus archivos para ver si se han planteado cuestiones como la suya antes; en su caso particular (personas que piensan que la ciencia ha producido una definición definitiva de "sexo biológico" que luego también debería usarse en lugar de, o para definir, el género), esa posición se ha discutido hasta el cansancio, en las páginas de Discusión de artículos y en discusiones de la comunidad (tablón de anuncios de NPOV) y no ha encontrado mucho apoyo; se la considera esencialmente como una posición MARGINAL. En particular,
NO presente un argumento sobre el contenido de un artículo que esté basado en una convicción personal cuando muchos otros editores ya hayan presentado argumentos similares basados en la misma convicción personal , o al menos reconozca en su forma de formular su intervención que está planteando una vez más un punto que ya se ha planteado anteriormente: la responsabilidad de proporcionar fuentes de calidad es especialmente importante en esta situación.
¡Espero que esto te sirva de ayuda! Newimpartial (discusión) 03:41 9 dic 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por responderme. Lo aprecio mucho, aunque no estemos de acuerdo sobre el tema en cuestión. Entiendo tus puntos, pero aún me pregunto si es apropiado simplemente borrar comentarios como el mío directamente, en lugar de ignorarlos o responderles en la página de discusión con algo como lo que acabas de escribir. Obviamente tiene sentido ser estricto con las páginas reales, ya que eso es lo que la gente lee, el producto terminado. Pero las páginas de discusión son para, bueno, hablar, y aunque no creo que deba ser una libertad total, no veo realmente por qué las pautas no deberían aplicarse con bastante liberalidad, ya que no hay un límite de espacio y pocas personas (en comparación con los lectores de Wikipedia) las miran de todos modos. Realmente parece que las pautas generales citadas como base para borrarlas pueden ser fácilmente utilizadas por editores con estatus en la comunidad para censurar comentarios con los que no están de acuerdo, no en realidad basándose en la atrocidad de la violación de las pautas de Wikipedia, sino en una fuerte aversión por la opinión expresada. Esto se demuestra por la existencia de comentarios como el que he citado: si realmente se tratara sólo de las directrices, ese comentario se habría eliminado. El hecho de que se haya revertido mi eliminación, con el argumento de que mi motivación de "hacer una observación" era impropia, es sencillamente asombroso. Por supuesto, es cierto que quería ver si esto sucedería, pero también es cierto que el comentario violaba claramente el NOTAFORUM, así que, independientemente de mi motivación, ¿no debería eliminarse? ¿No es para mí una señal de que hay que revertirlo? He utilizado Wikipedia desde que tengo memoria y siempre he tenido una buena opinión de ella, pero esta experiencia de ver lo que realmente ocurre detrás de escena, al menos en temas controvertidos, me ha dejado dudando realmente de la legitimidad de Wikipedia como una fuente "neutral" verdaderamente fiable (si es que tal cosa es posible). Por supuesto, reconozco que no representas a Wikipedia en su conjunto, pero como pareces ser un editor habitual, no conozco a nadie mejor que tú para expresarle esto. Soy nuevo aquí en el ámbito de la edición, pero realmente no se me ocurriría simplemente eliminar un comentario en una página de discusión por completo solo porque estoy en total desacuerdo con la opinión expresada, a menos que sea una violación flagrante de las reglas. Hacerlo simplemente huele a censura y venganza política, y sobre todo, a mezquindad. ¿Entiendes a dónde vengo? -- 45.48.238.252 ( discusión ) 04:16, 9 de diciembre de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, no, en realidad no. Quiero decir que los editores no eliminan comentarios en las páginas de discusión con los que no están de acuerdo (eso está absolutamente mal visto), pero sí eliminan los comentarios que no son útiles, incluidas las ediciones de POINTey y las violaciones de NOTFORUM. Las páginas de discusión de artículos, de hecho, no están pensadas para ser un espacio libre para todos, y funcionan mejor cuando la discusión está estrechamente vinculada a propuestas específicas para modificar el artículo.
Y, por cierto, tu eliminación de lo que llamaste una "diatriba" es un ejemplo absolutamente clásico de comportamiento de POINTey, por lo que fue correcto desde el punto de vista procesal revertir tu eliminación incluso si el contenido que eliminaste fue una violación de NOTFORUM . Pero, de hecho, al mirar en retrospectiva la intervención que eliminaste, no creo que sea una violación de ese tipo. Es larga, inconexa y argumentativa, y no da sus fuentes, pero es eminentemente fuenteble (sin depender de las cifras de FRINGE) y ofrece una estructura lógica clara que hace avanzar una discusión en particular. Esto es lo opuesto a tu comentario original de Trans-woman Talk, por ejemplo, que utilizó una discusión rancia, al estilo COATRACK, para hablar sobre algo que te molestaba sin ofrecer ninguna contribución en particular al artículo.
También me gustaría señalar que los editores que ven los artículos sobre identidades de género tienden (comprensiblemente) a irritarse cuando personas que saben poco o nada sobre el campo de la identidad de género llegan a editar estos artículos o sus páginas de discusión, de la misma manera que imagino que los editores que ven artículos de biología o física se molestarían cuando personas que saben poco sobre su tema llegan a editarlos, o llegan a Talk para reabrir torpemente temas que se han tratado hasta el cansancio en el pasado reciente. Así que si quieres hacer una contribución constructiva, no consideres las páginas de Talk como "libertad para todos" e intenta presentar propuestas específicas, fundamentadas y que no sean FRINGE que mejoren el contenido de los artículos, y prepárate para discutir estas propuestas de una manera no confrontativa, preferiblemente con algo de humildad. Y si te importa demasiado un tema en particular como para observar las expectativas del entorno de WP, pasa a un tema que te interese menos y contribuye allí. Newimpartial (discusión) 22:44 9 dic 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, sólo quiero abordar una cosa más. Todavía estoy desconcertado por la corrección procedimental de revertir esa edición. Supongamos, por el bien del argumento, que fue una violación de NOTAFORUM lo que borré. ¿Revertirlo, basándose únicamente en mi motivo indebido, no sería también un ejemplo de que el editor que revierte simplemente está haciendo un comentario (a mí) también? Parece muy extraño que se permita que un comentario que viola la política de NOTAFORUM (de nuevo, asumiendo esto por el bien del argumento) se mantenga solo para castigar en privado a un editor por su motivo al eliminarlo. ¿No es esto simplemente hacer sufrir a la comunidad, o reducir la calidad de la página de discusión, sancionar a un editor individual? Creo que una sanción dirigida únicamente al editor (yo), aunque todavía se elimine el comentario de NOTAFORUM simplemente porque viola las pautas, tendría más sentido. ¿Es correcto lo que entiendo, que un comentario que infringe las reglas puede quedar inmune a la eliminación si un editor lo ha eliminado por algún motivo inapropiado? Gracias. -- 45.48.238.252 ( discusión ) 22:58 9 dic 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lee WP:POINT , ya que describe esta situación casi exactamente. Y mientras lo haces, lee WP:COATRACK e intenta pensar de manera lateral sobre cómo podría aplicarse a las páginas de discusión (ya que esa discusión está enmarcada para los artículos).
Wikipedia se rige en gran medida por reglas de procedimiento: eliminar o restaurar una página en contra de una decisión de consenso siempre está mal, incluso si esa decisión en sí misma es incorrecta. Exceder un límite de reversión siempre está mal (excepto en el caso de violaciones de COPYVIO o BLP), incluso si la versión del artículo a la que un editor vuelve es manifiestamente mejor que la versión de la que se revirtió. Sin un procedimiento, habría caos y cuanto antes lo entiendas, antes podrás contribuir de manera útil a WP. Newimpartial (discusión) 23:13 9 dic 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Re "Biblia hebrea"
Hola. He notado que has revertido mi aclaración de "Biblia hebrea", citando "punto de vista sin fuentes". Me temo que no te entiendo, ya que mi edición es menos un cambio de punto de vista, y más un reconocimiento de las diferencias teológicas entre y hacer que el artículo sea más teológicamente neutral en lugar de la terminología cristiana-céntrica anterior. — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por 220.244.73.64 (discusión) 02:09, 3 de marzo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
También te remito al párrafo inicial de este artículo bien escrito: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/es/herramientas/conceptos-básicos-de-la-biblia/cual-es-la-diferencia-entre-el-antiguo-testamento-el-tanakh-y-la-biblia-hebrea 220.244.73.64 (discusión) 02:11 3 mar 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
La fusión de los artículos de la Biblia hebrea y el Tanaj se debatió extensamente antes de llegar a un consenso. Lea esas discusiones e inicie una nueva discusión en la página de discusión antes de intentar el cambio nuevamente. Newimpartial (discusión) 02:14 3 mar 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, he leído El judío incomprendido , por lo que estoy bastante familiarizado con el argumento de Levine. Newimpartial (discusión) 02:17 3 mar 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, leí brevemente esa discusión antes y ahora la leí en su totalidad, y sigo estando a favor de cambiar el nombre de la página. Me parece que no se llegó a un consenso real, sin mencionar que se incluyeron muy pocas referencias reales en esta discusión en relación con WP:COMMONNAME ; cada referencia que he visto al Tanaj ha hecho referencia exactamente a eso, al "Tanaj" (o variaciones) no a la "Biblia hebrea". He ampliado esto en mi nota aquí - agradecería tus comentarios allí :) 220.244.73.64 (discusión) 02:29, 3 de marzo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Carl Benjamín
Su última reversión del artículo de Carl Benjamin es una violación de la regla 3RR. Tal vez le convenga revertir su reversión para no infringir las reglas de WP.
Por favor corrígeme si me equivoco, LedRush , pero mi primera y mi cuarta reversión ocurrieron con casi 48 horas de diferencia. El período relevante para 3RR, según tengo entendido, es de 24 horas. Por favor, avísame. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:08 15 mar 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tienes toda la razón. Lo siento. Ha pasado mucho tiempo desde que edité un artículo tan polémico y pensé que la regla era más estricta de lo que era. Lamento haberte hecho perder el tiempo. LedRush ( discusión ) 14:33 15 mar 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, pero estoy esperando que se desarrolle un consenso. ;) Newimpartial (discusión) 22:16 2 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
género incorrecto
Mi argumento no era que "uno solo puede calificar erróneamente a las personas con identidades masculinas o femeninas", sino que solo puedes hacerlo si llamas a alguien por un descriptor de género que sea sustancialmente diferente de la identidad de género que has pedido que se use. Por eso pregunté en qué se diferencian los descriptores de los chicos de los de Fae. La elección de Fae (hasta donde puedo decir) es neutral en cuanto al género; si los de los chicos también son neutrales en cuanto al género, no los está calificando erróneamente, ya que se sigue haciendo referencia a ellos como neutrales en cuanto al género. Está (como dije más de una vez) siendo grosero y desconsiderado, pero eso no es lo mismo. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 08:19, 6 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y esto es lo que yo llamo un "argumento filosófico analítico de primer año". En términos sencillos, usted está permitiendo tres valores para el género: masculino, femenino y "neutral en cuanto al género", y está diciendo que ningún valor de esta última categoría es "sustancialmente diferente" entre sí. Este argumento es simplemente una tontería y, llevado hasta su conclusión lógica, postularía que los editores que usan "it" para otros editores que prefieren "they" no están usando mal el género de este último.
En la vida real, las personas cuya identidad de género es "genderqueer" tienen una identidad de género diferente a la de aquellas cuya identidad es "neutra", al igual que aquellas cuya identidad es "genderfluid" tienen una identidad de género diferente a la de aquellas que se identifican como "no binarias" o "tercer género". Si impones una escala lineal de tres valores a las identidades de género de otras personas, las estás asignando un género incorrecto , por lo que el giro contemporáneo ha sido permitir que las personas elijan sus propios pronombres en lugar de sacar, por ejemplo, zie del ático retórico como una tercera persona del singular "neutral en cuanto al género". Newimpartial (discusión) 11:30 6 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y si estaba claro a cuál de esos "ellos" se refería, podrías tener razón. El problema es que no está claro, de hecho, ni siquiera (hasta donde yo sé) se reconoce realmente como un pronombre de género, y cuando se usa es un pronombre de género neutro, es decir, no se refiere a un género específico. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 11:35 6 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tal vez estemos teniendo un malentendido terminológico con respecto a "misgender". Desde un punto de vista gramatical, podríamos entender que el inglés tiene tres géneros, en cuyo caso usar "they" por "it" o "zie" no es "misgendering". Pero la ética actual en torno a la elección de pronombres no tiene que ver con el género gramatical: si te refiereses a una mujer trans como "he", nadie se ofendería si supusiera que cometiste un error gramatical. El punto es el msigendering social : negarse a aceptar la identidad de género de una persona . Y sustituir un pronombre no masculino ni femenino por el elegido por una persona es un acto de misgendering social tanto como sustituir "he" por "she". Las identidades de género simplemente no son indiferentes e intercambiables de esta manera. Newimpartial (discusión) 11:53 6 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, estamos teniendo una política. No estamos aquí para hacer cumplir ninguna política social que no esté en la wiki, estamos aquí (bueno, en ANI) para hacer cumplir únicamente las políticas de Wikipedia. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 12:03, 6 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:NPA incluye la identidad de género en la lista de atributos por los que los wikipedistas no deben atacarse entre sí, tal como está protegida por la ley de derechos humanos donde vivo. En todas las discusiones que he visto en Wikipedia desde la gran convocatoria MOS:GENDERID, se ha entendido que el respeto por la identidad de género de los editores está cubierto por la CIVIL y otras políticas y normas relacionadas. Tratar a otros editores con respeto es un principio de WP, no una "política social desde fuera de la página", y el respeto por la identidad de género es un aspecto inherente del respeto del siglo XXI. Si podemos ver esto claramente para las políticas de contenido, no veo por qué a veces es difícil para los colaboradores verlo también para las políticas de conducta. Newimpartial (discusión) 12:30 6 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Cómo se trató de un ataque a su identidad de género? A menos que se tratara de una burla deliberada del hecho de que pidieron que se los considerara de género... ¿bueno, de qué género? Puede que sea el caso, o puede que no, depende de usted demostrar que se usó de manera burlona (en lugar de simplemente infantil). Tal vez no se pueda ver claramente, porque en realidad no está allí (bueno, no estaba destinado a aplicarse de esta manera) para (¿parafrasear?) citar a otros usuarios si cree que esto debería estar en la política, haga la sugerencia. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 13:15, 6 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para mí es obvio que, si un editor se niega a utilizar los pronombres preferidos de otro editor porque este último ha pedido que se utilicen determinados pronombres , como es el relato de Guy sobre sus propias acciones[5], entonces se trata de una clara violación de las leyes CIVIL, NPA y posiblemente de HARASS. La "infancia en las intenciones" no es realmente una defensa para tal comportamiento: todos somos responsables de lo que realmente hacemos, no simplemente de lo que pretendemos. Y no encuentro en absoluto tranquilizador el atrincheramiento de Guy y su actitud de BATTLEGROUND en este asunto.
Estoy de acuerdo en que, después de que se haya asentado el polvo de este tema y de los contratiempos anteriores de SMcCandlish, tal vez sea mejor aclarar que la identificación de género no es un pretexto aceptable para meterse con otros editores, como tampoco lo es usar el sustantivo "bitch" o lanzar calumnias antisemitas. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:00 6 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Formal"
Muchos de nosotros usamos un registro de inglés bastante formal en muchas discusiones aquí, especialmente en los tablones de anuncios. Si no puedes decir que Guy Macon estaba usando uno (observa, por ejemplo, la casi total falta de contracciones), entonces nada de lo que pueda decir será muy instructivo para ti, ya que carezco de cualquier habilidad mágica para aumentar tu agudeza de observación. No fue un non sequitur , y no estabas en posición de intentar vigilarlo por esta falla imaginaria. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:50, 7 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
En primer lugar, estaba comentando, no vigilando.
En segundo lugar, si bien las contracciones son una elección personal, el Manual de Chicago claramente no pretende que sus recomendaciones sobre el registro "formal" se apliquen en el contexto de las páginas de discusión wiki; sus recomendaciones sobre el uso formal simplemente no son relevantes, independientemente de los picadillos individuales.
En tercer lugar, la cuestión que se discutía era si existen autoridades contemporáneas (no editoriales ni cascarrabias) que sostengan que el uso del singular "ellos" es incorrecto en la gramática o en el uso. Sencillamente no las hay, y la preferencia de CMOS en cuanto al uso formal no es una excepción relevante.
Por último, aunque respeto la voluntad de la gente de defender el derecho de los demás a decir cosas que uno mismo no diría, creo que la conclusión de Floq fue correcta y que su propia defensa de las decisiones de Macron -en desacuerdo como estaba con su propia explicación- fue desaconsejable si, desde cierta perspectiva, fue valiente. Newimpartial (discusión) 03:19 7 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Interesante
Esto fue interesante [[6]]. Checkuser bloqueado. Hell in a Bucket ( discusión ) 14:44 8 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fefil14
Encontré esta edición suya. [7]. WP:NONAZIS aplicada. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
MSNBC
Hola. Veo que reintrodujiste el texto sobre una breve e intrascendente rama de MSNBC. Citaste wp:NOTTEMPORARY , pero eso se refiere a notabilidad , es decir, si debería haber un artículo de Wikipedia sobre un tema. La pauta aplicable para el contenido dentro de un artículo es WP:WEIGHT . El producto MSNBC2 fue una de las innumerables iniciativas que se probaron y rechazaron cuando no cumplieron con las expectativas. Cualquier empresa tiene un montón de ellas. No tiene una importancia duradera para el tema del artículo ni ha tenido un impacto significativo en la MSNBC actual. Como tal, es INADECUADO y debe eliminarse. Considere y deshaga su reinserción. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 23 de diciembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy seguro de que hayas considerado detenidamente por qué cité NOTTEMPORARY. La notoriedad no es temporal y, de hecho, MSNBC2 tiene su propio artículo. Como lector y practicante del conocimiento, realmente prefiero cuando estos temas notables (especialmente los fracasos pasados) se integran y se vinculan desde los artículos principales. El presentismo excesivo a la hora de determinar qué es DEBIDO es una pesadilla. Newimpartial (discusión) 22:44 23 dic 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:ANdiscusión
Se ha iniciado una discusión sobre tus ediciones recientes en WP:AN#User:Newimpartial . Te invitamos a comentar allí. Fram ( discusión ) 09:52 30 ene 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias por avisarme! Newimpartial (discusión) 12:35 30 ene 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Malentendido de la política
Parece que no entiendes la política de Wikipedia sobre cómo se manejan los nombres originales de las personas trans. No dice –como pareces creer– que esos nombres deban ser censurados por completo del artículo si la persona no era conocida por su nombre de nacimiento. La política dice que esos nombres no se incluyen en el encabezado en esas circunstancias. Eliminar por completo su nombre original del artículo hace que parezca que el sujeto recibió el nombre que eligió más tarde al nacer, de sus padres , lo cual no es cierto. - Jason A. Quest ( discusión ) 15:05, 24 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Tiene una base para esta afirmación en una política o en una convocatoria de comentarios (aparte de NOTCENSORED, que ha sido ampliamente contextualizada en contra de los principios de no hacer daño en las numerosas convocatorias de comentarios sobre el tema)? Newimpartial (discusión) 17:17 24 feb 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Tienes alguna base para la tuya? MOS:GENDERID dice que cuando eran notables deberíamos mencionarlos , pero no dice (como pareces creer) que cuando no lo eran no deberíamos mencionarlos . De hecho, la siguiente oración es una declaración oficial de no intervención sobre el tema: "MoS no especifica cuándo y cómo mencionar nombres anteriores". Además, WP:DEADNAME aclara que la directriz sobre notabilidad se refiere específicamente al lede , no a la totalidad del artículo.
Un artículo sobre una persona trans que no reconoce en ningún lado que recibió un nombre diferente al nacer y vivió con él durante el tiempo que lo hizo, presenta una imagen engañosa de su vida. Alguien que lea esta nueva versión de Candis Cayne , por ejemplo, podría tener la impresión de que sus padres la llamaron Candis y deducir que esa es la razón por la que se identifica como mujer. Saber que, en cambio, recibió un nombre de niño es importante para comprender su elección de transición y su importancia para la historia de su vida. El primer deber de Wikipedia es con nuestros lectores, informarles y ayudarlos a comprender los temas sobre los que están leyendo. Decirles que es una mujer que vivió con el nombre de Brendan durante toda su infancia y adolescencia cumple ese propósito. Un artículo orwelliano que sugiere que ella nunca ha tenido un nombre, pero Candis no. - Jason A. Quest ( discusión ) 19:46, 24 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estas cuestiones se han debatido extensamente en las repetidas RfC que dieron origen a MOS:GGENDERID, y el consenso definitivamente no es que "los nombres de nacimiento no están censurados". El principio de no hacer daño a las personas vivas se ha reconocido específicamente en este contexto, y se ha reconocido el daño que puede resultar de la provisión de nombres muertos. El argumento que estás planteando, de que los nombres muertos no notables son necesarios de todos modos para informar a los lectores de WP, se ha reconocido y dejado de lado. Entonces, ¿tengo que hacer las búsquedas necesarias para indicarte esas RfC, o puedes hacerlo tú mismo? Newimpartial (discusión) 23:23, 24 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las solicitudes de comentarios aleatorias no son concluyentes y MOS:GENDERID es solo una guía de estilo. Me encantaría ver una política que abordara este tema, para que no tuviéramos que lidiar con este tipo de tonterías cada vez que otro editor improvisado hace que la gente se enoje de una forma u otra. - Jason A. Quest ( discusión ) 23:53, 24 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy hablando de "RfC aleatorios"; estoy hablando de discusiones ampliamente participativas sobre el tema de los nombres muertos en WP en general. Y esto es principalmente una cuestión de cómo se escriben los artículos, por lo que me parece que el MOS fue precisamente el lugar para documentar los principales hallazgos de esas discusiones. Por otra parte, se han planteado algunos problemas sobre los nombres muertos y la elección de pronombres fuera del contexto del MOS, como problemas de CIVILIDAD, por lo que no me opondría a una política más amplia también, para complementar la guía del MOS sobre los nombres muertos y los pronombres. Newimpartial (discusión) 00:21 25 feb 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento.
Pensé que tenía una mejor idea de cuáles de los "miembros orgullosos de" estaban entre comillas. :( Gracias por la captura. Naraht ( discusión ) 20:46 5 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aviso de discusión en el tablón de anuncios de resolución de disputas
Este mensaje se envía para informarle de una discusión en WP:BLP/Noticeboard sobre WP:NPOV . Las disputas de contenido pueden retrasar el desarrollo de artículos y dificultar la edición para los editores. No está obligado a participar, pero está invitado y se le anima a ayudar a que esta disputa llegue a una resolución. El hilo se llama " La broma de violación de Carl Benjamin ". La discusión trata sobre el tema Carl Benjamin . Únase a nosotros para ayudar a formar un consenso. ¡Gracias! --Amaroq64 ( discusión ) 09:59, 23 de abril de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aviso importante reTeoría de la conspiración sobre el genocidio blanco
Este es un mensaje estándar para notificar a los contribuyentes sobre una resolución administrativa vigente. No implica que haya problemas con sus contribuciones hasta la fecha.
Para obtener más información, consulte la guía sobre sanciones discrecionales y la decisión del Comité de Arbitraje aquí . Si tiene alguna pregunta o duda sobre qué ediciones son adecuadas, puede comentarlas conmigo o con cualquier otro editor.
(No estoy señalando a nadie en particular. Estoy notificando a cualquiera de los últimos tres editores en esa página de discusión si no han sido notificados durante el año pasado). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:05, 16 de junio de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Persiguiendo mis ediciones
Ok, ahora parece que estás persiguiendo mis ediciones... y revirtiendo "errores textuales" que no existen. No se hicieron ediciones textuales en Olmecs , ¿de qué diablos estás hablando? Yo *arreglé* errores textuales y tú *revertiste* los errores textuales. ¿Qué estás haciendo? Ogress 18:19, 17 de julio de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Tienes la impresión de que el depósito ritual en el santuario de El Manatí no es de alguna manera un error? ¿O que los valles de los ríos Nilo , Indo y Amarillo son una mejora con respecto a los valles de los ríos Nilo , Indo y Amarillo ? Y, por lo que sé, una de las principales razones por las que existen los enlaces de "contribuciones" es para que, cuando alguien haya realizado una edición en contra de la política o del sentido común, otros editores puedan comprobar su trabajo en otro lugar para ver si han hecho lo mismo, como, de hecho, tú hiciste. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:47 17 jul 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Sentiste que deberías revertir una edición grande en lugar de simplemente decirme que hay un error? Me parece hostil. Cometo errores, no mentiré. Solo dímelo para que pueda corregirlos en lugar de revertir todo el trabajo. No sé de qué diablos estás hablando cuando presionas ROLLBACK, ahora lo sé, y es frustrante. Ahora puedo solucionar ese problema. Soy estadounidense y me veré obligado a mudarme mañana durante una pandemia y seré el primero en admitir que soy propenso a cometer errores, pero presionar "NO" no es útil para alguien que está tratando legítimamente de editar un artículo en lugar de ser un troll. Puedes simplemente decirle a alguien que cometió un error (asumiendo que no quieres corregirlo, lo cual es 100% válido). No es buena fe, he sido editor desde siempre y tengo días malos como todos los demás. Ogress 18:53, 17 de julio de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como dije en mi resumen de edición, debes ser más cuidadoso. Sigo sin ver ninguna ventaja en tus cambios al artículo del Antropoceno, y en los Olmecas veo muchos enlaces inexplicables de fechas y cambios "estilísticos" que no resultan en mejoras claras al texto, y luego veo resúmenes de edición como "gramaticales". Soy consciente de que hay diferentes enfoques para la edición, pero mi enfoque es que cada cambio a un artículo en el espacio principal debe reflejar el consenso de WP sobre el tema del artículo y debe representar una mejora clara, en lugar de solo una alternativa o la preferencia estilística de una persona (y también que el área de mejora debe estar claramente indicada en el resumen de edición). Lo que vi en esas dos ediciones (sin hablar de tus ediciones en general) no cumplió con uno u otro de esos criterios. Newimpartial (discusión) 19:00, 17 de julio de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si se pretende que sea una respuesta a mi comentario del 21 de agosto a las 00:17, entonces antepóngalo con *:;
Si es un comentario nuevo del mismo nivel que el mío y la publicación de las 16:37 del 20 de agosto, antepóngalo con * '''Comment'''o algo similar.
Si se trata de un tipo de punto general de discusión sobre el nuevo título propuesto que posiblemente podría generar algún intercambio de opiniones, y es más una apertura de discusión que una respuesta breve del tipo "encuesta", en ese caso, preceda con ===Discussion===o un encabezado de subsección H3 de su elección.
Todas estas son solo sugerencias, porque tengo que admitir que no podría entender a qué te referías con ese comentario, pero depende de ti lo que desees hacer allí, si es que deseas hacer algo. (Si nadie más ha respondido todavía, no tienes que seguir WP:REDACT ; puedes modificarlo como desees; es tuyo). Gracias, Mathglot ( discusión ) 02:34, 21 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que ya está solucionado. Newimpartial (discusión) 02:55 21 ago 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:PERROadvertencia
No me sigas a artículos que nunca has editado antes en áreas temáticas que no editas solo para contradecirme, como hiciste aquí. Si sigues comportándote así, me llevarás a buscar un WP:IBAN unidireccional para ti hacia mí. Tengo muchas pruebas de tu comportamiento problemático hacia mí, por ejemplo, aquí . Crossroads -talk- 17:43, 27 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me estás atribuyendo un comportamiento que en realidad no he llevado a cabo. He estado viendo la discusión sobre El Libro Negro del Comunismo durante algún tiempo y me uní a ella para comentar el comentario de Puedo, no el tuyo (aunque reconozco que lo sangré como respuesta al tuyo, ya que respondiste antes que yo y creo que continuar una cadena de sangrías es generalmente menos confuso que crear subprocesos paralelos).
¿También vas a acusarme de ACOSAR aquí, donde mi voto vino después del tuyo pero (1) estuve de acuerdo contigo y (2) he estado siguiendo la discusión desde mucho antes de que agregaras tu contribución?
En lo que respecta a tu "evidencia", eso no te llevó a ninguna parte la última vez que estuviste en AfD y no veo por qué algo podría haber cambiado desde entonces. El hecho es que nuestros intereses editoriales se superponen en cuestiones LGBT y otros temas de guerras culturales , y tú no eres DUEÑO de ninguno de esos artículos solo porque yo no haya editado ninguno de ellos antes. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:54 27 ago 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tu comentario en la discusión sobre el movimiento justo después del mío es, de hecho, una prueba más de que me sigues a todas partes, aunque técnicamente no sea una persecución en sí misma. Crossroads -talk- 17:57, 27 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pero verás, simplemente estás equivocado en eso. Empecé a seguir ese artículo porque busqué el tema en Google, luego seguí el artículo; en ese momento ni siquiera había mirado la página de Discusión ni sabía sobre la discusión del movimiento. Luego leí la discusión del movimiento pero no estaba seguro de cómo hacer que mi !Vote fuera efectivo/relevante. Luego leí las discusiones de ANI sobre el tema y luego, solo entonces, vi tu !Vote (no de tus contribuciones sino de mi lista de seguimiento), vi que podría ser efectivo hacer un !Vote similar pero con una lógica diferente, y así lo hice. No hubo ni un indicio de ACOSO de mi parte con respecto a esa página, en absoluto. El hecho es que el impacto total de un "iBan unidireccional" con respecto a esa página y el Libro Negro es que, para observar un iBan potencial, habría tenido que poner dos puntos menos delante de mi comentario del Libro Negro (ya que el comentario en sí no estaba dirigido a ti).
Creo que sería mejor que tomaras mis comentarios en la página de Discusión al pie de la letra en lugar de asumir que de alguna manera se refieren a ti. No es así. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:05 27 ago 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Marxismo cultural
¿Seguramente no estará usted afirmando que Braune es un auténtico "marxista cultural"?
(Tienes razón en que, estrictamente hablando, violé las reglas. Probablemente lo esté haciendo de nuevo aquí. Debería haber sido más meticuloso en mi edición. Pero mi sugerencia de mejorar el artículo estaba obviamente implícita en mi queja).
Revertir mi solicitud en la página de discusión del administrador
Más vale que haya sido un error. Tengo permitido ir a la página de discusión de un administrador al respecto. No todo tiene que ir a WP:Requests for page protection . Curiosamente, estaba en proceso de revertirlo yo mismo porque me di cuenta de que Girth podría no llegar a tiempo. Flyer22 Frozen ( discusión ) 19:42, 11 de noviembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como se indica aquí, fue un error y te pido disculpas. Newimpartial (discusión) 19:44 11 nov 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:NORG
Hola, ¿has leído el primer párrafo de WP:NORG ya que contradice completamente la sección WP:NSCHOOL ? Además, hay consenso para este cambio en el RFC para el cambio a WP:CORPDEPTH . Saludos Atlantic306 ( discusión ) 00:15, 18 de noviembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No veo una convocatoria de propuestas de CORPDEPTH. ¿Podría indicarme la dirección correcta? Newimpartial (discusión) 00:20 18 nov 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está en la sección 5 de la página de archivo aquí, donde el cierre dice que no se aplica a las escuelas. También hay una discusión continua en la siguiente página de archivo, imv Atlantic306 ( discusión ) 00:32, 18 de noviembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esa fue la gran reescritura de NORG de 2018. No veo nada allí que sugiera que las escuelas que cumplen con NORG no serían notables. Newimpartial (discusión) 00:42 18 nov 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gente blanca
El artículo en sí dice que esta noción comenzó en el siglo XVII y no en el XIX, por lo que puedo decir. ¿Hay algún tema que me esté perdiendo? Mcc1789 ( discusión ) 03:14 19 nov 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
La palabra clave es "pseudocientífico". Newimpartial (discusión) 03:22 19 nov 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Página de Elliot
Hola. Al contrario de lo que dices en tu resumen de edición, el anuncio de la transición de Page a hombre transgénero ha recibido mucha atención. Por favor, responde. Gracias. Onetwothreeip ( discusión ) 23:25 1 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
He leído todas las citas del artículo de WP y mucha cobertura adicional, y en ninguna de ellas se utilizan los términos "masculino" o "transgénero masculino". Newimpartial (discusión) 23:42 1 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Elliot no especificó de manera muy específica si se trata de una persona transgénero binaria o no binaria, por eso se van inventando distintos artículos a medida que avanzan. Para lograr la mayor precisión, lo más respetuoso es ceñirse únicamente a los términos de identidad que ha utilizado específicamente. -- sp azure ( contribuciones ) 07:52, 2 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entiendo ese principio, pero en Wikipedia las afirmaciones de ABOUTSELF no prevalecen sobre las afirmaciones basadas en fuentes fiables. No tenemos motivos para pensar que NBC o CNN estén "inventando" la identidad no binaria, que, por lo que yo sé, proviene del comunicado de prensa de GLAAD que supongo que vio Elliot antes de que saliera. Si descubrimos que no se identifica como no binario, entonces aclaramos el artículo, pero hasta ahora ningún RS (ni siquiera uno de ABOUTSELF) ha dicho esto. Newimpartial (discusión) 07:57 2 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Buen punto. También retuiteó el artículo de GLAAD, lo cual me parece suficiente. El sentido común dice que podría haberlo corregido en ese momento, si hubiera estado mal. -- sp azure ( contribuciones ) 13:22, 2 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Un cupcake para ti!
El libro negro del comunismo
Antes de eliminar las citas a las que se hace referencia, consulte la página de discusión. -- 86.6.148.125 ( discusión ) 16:01 3 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Consulte WP:ONUS sobre la incorporación de material en disputa y WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY sobre las incorporaciones al texto principal. ¡Gracias! Newimpartial (discusión) 16:16 3 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Yo no inicié la guerra de ediciones, la guerra de ediciones comenzó por la palabra "somewhat", que corregí. La cita no necesita aprobación, ya que no hay nada controvertido en ella, simplemente establece un hecho sin tomar partido.-- 86.6.148.125 ( discusión ) 16:47 3 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me temo que estás malinterpretando el historial del artículo, pero de todos modos el lugar para esa discusión es la página de discusión del artículo. Además, si has leído WP:EW, sabes que "¡ellos empezaron!" no es una justificación que cumpla con las políticas para una guerra de ediciones. Gracias. Newimpartial (discusión) 16:55, 3 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Página de Elliott
Estaba mirando una versión anterior de la página. Fue un error mío. He revertido mi comentario por mi cuenta. Gracias por ser tan amable. -- Tenebrae ( discusión ) 22:59 13 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Flyer22 y WanderingWandaSe abrió un caso de arbitraje
Hola, lo siento si esto es raro. No estoy muy segura de cuál es la política de Wikipedia sobre este tipo de mensajes, ya que no he usado el sitio en mucho tiempo. ¡Solo quería agradecerte todo el trabajo que has estado haciendo en el artículo de Elliot Page! Algunos de los malentendidos flagrantes y deliberados sobre las personas trans en esa página de discusión y cómo se entienden a sí mismas y quieren ser vistas por el mundo hacen que la lectura sea sombría, así que aprecié ver tu nombre aparecer continuamente como alguien que estaba denunciando eso y dando a las identidades de las personas trans el respeto que merecen. ¡Gracias! -- Yrissea ( discusión ) 02:33, 19 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nada. Y no hay razón para no dejar mensajes de aliento. :) Newimpartial (discusión) 01:41 4 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tus reversiones en Intersex
He notado que estás revirtiendo mis ediciones en Intersex. ¿Puedes ir a la página de discusión y explicar con más detalle por qué eliminaste la encuesta que agregué? CycoMa ( discusión ) 17:21, 20 de enero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La inclusión de esa fuente ya ha sido revertida por otros editores, por lo que la ONUS depende de usted para llegar a un consenso sobre su inclusión en la página de discusión del artículo. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:25 20 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Editor novato(?) Leej12255
Observé que Leej12255 no tenía una página de discusión y nunca fue bien recibido. Lo hice ahora. No estoy lo suficientemente familiarizado con el tema como para seguir con el asunto, pero su ausencia parece sorprendente para alguien que, según dices, ha estado editando desde 2009. Sin duda, sonó como un wp: por favor, no muerdas a los novatos , pero te creo.
Todavía no lo veo como una violación de wp:NOTFORUM pero ciertamente se lee como una publicación de blog sin un objetivo claro (no se apuesta a que no aparecerá textualmente en su blog). Aunque la página de discusión tiene una etiqueta {{ Round in circles }} , tal vez sería amable señalarle la RFC, ya que las búsquedas en el archivo son tan buenas como las palabras elegidas para la búsqueda. Tu tiempo, tu decisión. -- John Maynard Friedman ( discusión ) 18:58, 26 de enero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por darle la bienvenida y, si resulta que está AQUÍ, intentaré fomentar un enfoque más constructivo. Mi tolerancia hacia las personas que consideran a Jordan Peterson un colega productivo es quizás menor de lo que debería ser en línea, donde "nadie sabe que eres un perro". Newimpartial (discusión) 19:05 26 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
lucan27
Quizás te interese leer esto [[8]]. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 19:14 27 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. Resulta que lo hice justo antes de recibir tu mensaje, pero a veces la redundancia es útil. :) Newimpartial (discusión) 19:17 27 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No se puede invocar BRD (o CONSENSO) como apoyo a una guerra de ediciones para mantener una adición BOLD a un artículo. WP:ONUS especifica que la carga recae sobre quienes agregan material controvertido para obtener un consenso antes de hacerlo. Newimpartial (discusión) 22:13 28 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:BRD es un complemento explicativo de las páginas Wikipedia:Consenso y Wikipedia:Sé audaz . Es cierto que no es una política ni una directriz, y que existen alternativas . Me parece que los cambios en torno al nombre de nacimiento requieren consenso .
Dado que el nombre de nacimiento ha sido parte del artículo desde su creación el 15 de enero de 2003, creo que eso constituye un argumento sólido a favor de EDITCONSENSUS en lugar de su afirmación de ONUS, que data de hoy, 28 de enero de 2021.
Pero no hay nada en EDITCONSENSUS que entre en conflicto con la disposición de ONUS que establece que el material en disputa debe eliminarse hasta que se llegue a un consenso para incluirlo . Por lo tanto, esta disposición se aplica. Newimpartial (discusión) 01:07 29 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Respetuosamente, no estoy de acuerdo. Tal interpretación permitiría la eliminación de una cantidad sustancial de material existente de un artículo porque uno o varios editores audaces deciden cuestionarlo. De hecho, ONUS está fuertemente inclinado hacia el consenso. Incluso un ONUS audaz no supera el consenso previo. ONUS habla de inclusión, que por definición se refiere a material más nuevo. No, no hay nada en ONUS que implique que anule el consenso. Peaceray ( discusión ) 01:20, 29 de enero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Puedes señalar un consenso previo para la inclusión de DEADNAME en Billy Tipton ? No he visto ninguno. El silencio no es consenso. Newimpartial (discusión) 01:35 29 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como alguien que ha utilizado el consenso décadas antes de que existiera Wikipedia, sospecho que no tiene una comprensión completa de lo que constituye el consenso. Lea el artículo sobre la toma de decisiones por consenso para obtener más información.
Usted afirma que el silencio no genera consenso. Por el contrario, en la tradición cuáquera y en otras, el silencio sí genera consenso.
Dado que el CONSENSO EDITORIAL ha incluido el nombre de nacimiento desde la creación del artículo, la responsabilidad de presentar razones para excluirlo recae sobre usted. Para ello, daré la vuelta a la pregunta: ¿Puede señalar un consenso previo para la exclusión del nombre de nacimiento en cualquier artículo sobre una persona transgénero histórica? Peaceray ( discusión ) 04:13 29 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me temo que eres tú quien está malinterpretando lo que se entiende por consenso en Wikipedia: aunque no requiere unanimidad, es un consenso activo, verbalizado, que es relevante para las políticas. Y en ausencia de un consenso previo basado en el debate, se aplica la ONUS y el material en disputa debe excluirse a menos que se forme un consenso para incluirlo. Newimpartial (discusión) 11:56 29 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que tú y yo tenemos interpretaciones muy diferentes del consenso en Wikipedia y ONUS. Creo que cualquier cosa que se incluya en el artículo dentro de las políticas y pautas y que haya cumplido con el CONSENSOEDITARIO requiere consenso para eliminarla. No se requiere ONUS. Si te entiendo correctamente, crees que cualquier cosa en un artículo es un blanco legítimo para su eliminación y requiere ONUS para mantenerla. Ambos somos wikipedistas experimentados, ya que te registraste unos años antes que yo y yo tengo considerablemente más ediciones que tú. Ambos estamos familiarizados con las políticas y pautas, aunque con interpretaciones opuestas. Creo que es probable que la discusión continua aquí resulte infructuosa. Por lo tanto, probablemente sea mejor dejar la discusión aquí y llevarla a las páginas de discusión del artículo o del WikiProject donde otros pueden ofrecer sus aportes. Peaceray ( discusión ) 17:21, 29 de enero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puede ser, pero la segunda oración de WP:EDITCONSENSUS dice: Se puede asumir que cualquier edición que no sea disputada o revertida por otro editor tiene consenso (énfasis añadido). Para las ediciones que son disputadas -y en este caso, disputadas por varios editores- se aplica la disposición de WP:ONUS , que especifica que el material polémico se eliminará hasta que se alcance el consenso. Este no me parece un caso complejo ni digno de un tablón de anuncios. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:31 29 ene 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, me inclino a estar de acuerdo con eso. La información polémica es algo diferente a la mera información que la gente quiere eliminar. - Bryn (discusión) (contribuciones) 03:23 13 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Editas artículos sobre juegos de rol?
Me encantaría colaborar contigo en una, como muestra de que no te guardo rencor. ¿Cuál de las dos opciones te corresponde a ti? O puedo elegir yo si lo prefieres. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 23:07 2 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puedes elegir cualquier cosa que no esté relacionada con Dungeons & Dragons :) Newimpartial (discusión) 23:38 2 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Genial! Fui a WP:RPG , vi que tienen una lista de artículos solicitados y voy a hacer una búsqueda inicial de fuentes para cada uno y colocaré los resultados en User:GRuban/RPG cooperation . Puedes ayudar o simplemente esperar a que recopile la información y podemos elegir uno. Hasta ahora, casi con certeza he encontrado suficientes fuentes confiables para Cthulhu for President , pero solo será un artículo sobre el juego de rol de manera tangencial. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 18:05, 3 de febrero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, no veo ningún problema en contactar con los autores siempre y cuando no se llegue al punto de conflicto de intereses. Y apoyo el enfoque basado en líneas, agrupando la información sobre unos pocos libros, en comparación con un enfoque basado en un solo libro. Entonces, en el caso de GURPS:STEAMPUNK habría al menos, ¿qué?, ¿cuatro volúmenes impresos más publicaciones electrónicas adicionales? Eso sí, 2000-01 estuvo cerca del punto más bajo de las reseñas independientes de juegos de rol de RS, pero veré qué puedo encontrar. Newimpartial (discusión) 20:21 3 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
También me encantaría colaborar en los márgenes de Cthulhu for President, ya que me pareció bastante divertido en su momento. Newimpartial (discusión) 20:22 3 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Relacionado: User_talk:BOZ#Review_sources? Supongo que no tienes acceso al número relevante de Alarmas y Excursiones.
Lamentablemente, no. Y como digo, mi acceso a fuentes ajenas al SJG para ese período es bastante limitado. Newimpartial (discusión) 01:22 4 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un usuario que podría tenerlo es Guinness323 ? BOZ ( discusión ) 17:27 4 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Envié un correo a Guinness323. William Stoddard respondió y está interesado en ayudar, pero no parece tener fuentes impresas aparte de las que se encuentran en la web. Comencé a recopilarlas en User talk:Newimpartial/GURPS Steampunk . Supongo que está bien usar la página de usuario que creaste anteriormente para este propósito. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 19:19, 4 de febrero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, eso es perfecto. He hecho un par de comentarios (sin firmar) en respuesta, pero siéntete libre de usar ese espacio como quieras en este proceso. Trátalo como si fuera una página de borrador, si quieres, o mueve el contenido a otro lugar una vez que esté ahí. Newimpartial (discusión) 19:28 4 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tenemos muchas fuentes y podemos crear un artículo interesante sobre Steampunk en GURPS, pero me preocupa que no cumpla con los requisitos de Wikipedia:Notability . Tenemos un premio Origins, pero aparte de eso, se trata principalmente de fuentes primarias y un montón de blogs autopublicados. https://www.rpg-collecting.com/gurps/ dice que ganó 3 premios, pero eso fue una novedad para Bill Stoddard, por lo que es probable que se trate de un error. También me puse en contacto con Phil Masters , que tampoco conocía ninguna reseña publicada (aunque pudo publicar una imagen para nuestro artículo sobre él, por lo que no fue una pérdida total). Es posible que lo eliminen en WP:AFD . Si eso no te molesta, podemos empezar a escribirlo de todos modos y simplemente arriesgarnos. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 13:39, 9 de febrero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ BOZ : ¡Hay una posibilidad! He encontrado este sitio: https://annarchive.com/ que parece tener escaneos completos de muchas, muchas revistas de juegos antiguas. No podremos poner un enlace a él, ya que dudo que tengan los derechos reales para alojarlas, pero podemos leerlas. La página de índice de Dragon https://annarchive.com/dragon.html parece estar rota, pero existen los enlaces, por ejemplo https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg126.pdf. No creo que se pueda buscar, así que habrá que buscar a la antigua usanza, buscando más o menos en la época en que se lanzó la cosa y haciendo muchos clics y leyendo. Estoy haciendo ping a BOZ, que escribe más artículos sobre juegos antiguos en una semana que la mayoría de la gente en toda su vida, así que este sitio podría serle de gran utilidad. -- GRuban ( discusión )
¡Gracias por el ping! :) Sí, definitivamente es un recurso excelente que he usado una y otra vez, ese y muchos otros escaneos en archive.org. :) BOZ ( discusión ) 14:51 12 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, por favor, adelante con Cthulhu para presidente. Me decepcionó no encontrar ninguna referencia a Steampunk de GURPS en Designers & Dragons Vol. 2, y también preferiría no quedarme sin un segundo RS intachable además del premio, así que seguiré buscando. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:19 9 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me puse en marcha y puse todo lo que se me ocurrió. Por favor, mejorad lo que podáis. También enviaré un correo electrónico a Chaosium o Cthulhu For America para ver si publicarían una imagen de uno de sus carteles o pegatinas para la imagen del artículo principal, o si tienen alguna revisión sugerida. (Sinceramente, hay un 75 % de posibilidades de que ni siquiera me respondan, pero no es un 100 % y sería bueno que lo hicieran). Cuando estéis contentos y hayamos terminado de esperar a Chaosium, ¡podemos infligirle una sorpresa en un espacio principal! Mwuahahahah.... -- GRuban ( discusión ) 17:46 9 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Chaosium (¡ Michael O'Brien (diseñador del juego) de hecho!) respondió: no publicaré ninguna imagen de calcomanía para el parachoques. Pero pidió una corrección de los derechos de Cthulhu (creen que Cthulhu, el personaje, es de dominio público, pero el estado de los Mitos en general es confuso; simplemente eliminaré ese texto de derechos del borrador) y confirmó que Chaosium no tiene nada que ver con cthulhuforamerica.com o cthulhu.org (eso fue antes de su tiempo, pero no hasta donde él pudo averiguar). --16:13, 10 de febrero de 2021 (UTC)
Ahora, "Samir Al'Azrad" (de CthulhuForAmerica.com) respondió. (Creo que sé su nombre real, pero si quiere ser Samir Al'Azrad, que así sea). Confirmó que no está relacionado con Chaosium, pero señaló que Cthulhu for President es anterior al paquete de accesorios de Chaosium, al señalar esta imagen de Steven King con una camiseta de Cthulhu for President en 1983: https://www.tor.com/2018/08/10/forbidden-planet-40th-birthday-mark-hamill-neil-gaiman-stephen-king-pics/ (aproximadamente a la mitad de la página). Lamentablemente, no creo que podamos citar eso como fuente. También confirmó que no recibieron mucha prensa por la campaña de 2020. Escribió un libro asociado Your Stars are Wrong en 2018, pero no recibió ninguna crítica real. ¡Sin embargo! ¡Aceptó publicar dos imágenes políticas de Cthulhu! Ver la parte inferior de https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/
Sería bueno si pudiéramos encontrar una fuente para Cthulhu para presidente antes del paquete de accesorios de Chaosium.
¿Queremos añadir más eslóganes políticos? “Démosle una oportunidad al miedo”; “Igualdad a través de la locura”; “Legalizar los sacrificios humanos”; “Mantener el cambio climático”; “Quiero que tengas una cabeza y la consumas para alimentarte”. “Respondamos al llamado”; “¿Está usted listo para un cambio real?”. “Hagamos que R’lyeh vuelva a ser grandioso”. Creo que hay otros que podemos encontrar si miramos los sitios web archivados sobre los que escribimos.
Deberíamos elegir una imagen para el artículo principal; creo que me gusta la de la izquierda en https://cthulhuforamerica.com/press/, pero la otra no es terrible. O podríamos hacer una, después de todo, debería haber muchas imágenes del gobierno federal de Richard Nixon en el dominio público, y el personaje de Cthulhu es de dominio público (no es inmediatamente obvio, pero Chaosium dice que lo es, y deberían saberlo), así que podemos tomar la cabeza de una y pegarla en la otra, y hacer algo como https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24418022951030606/... pero eso requeriría trabajo. ¿Cuál preferirías?
Cuando lo hagamos, podríamos eliminar la imagen actual de Cthulhu chapoteando en R'lyeh, o conservarla, ¿qué opinas?
Esperaré tus comentarios, pero más allá de eso, ¡creo que estamos listos para comenzar! -- GRuban ( discusión ) 14:34 12 febrero 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quizás también quieras consultar a Usuario:Sciencefish, ya que creo que tiene una conexión con Chaosium. BOZ ( discusión ) 14:53 12 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y, por dar un par de respuestas rápidas e instintivas, prefiero la imagen de la izquierda que existe en lugar de una nueva, pero no tengo ningún problema con tener varias imágenes. Además, prefiero la inclusión de varios lemas; mis favoritos son "Dale una oportunidad al miedo" y "Mantén el cambio climático", aunque también tengo debilidad por "¿Estás listo para un cambio real?".
Estaba buscando alguna conexión previa a Chaosium entre Cthulhu for President y Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: este último es claramente el más antiguo de los dos, pero no he encontrado ningún RS que documente una relación, ni siquiera alguna buena anécdota. ¿Quizás otros podrían echarle un vistazo? Newimpartial (discusión) 15:04 12 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aww, no tenemos un artículo de Campus Crusade for Cthulhu. Tal vez podamos hacer uno más adelante; aunque eso está aún más lejos de los juegos de rol. Me haría muy feliz si agregaras una sección de eslóganes de campaña citados (¡y divertidos!) a Draft:Cthulhu for President , eso lo convertiría en una verdadera colaboración. Pondré la imagen. Traté de encontrar un cuadro de información de artículo apropiado para ello, pero no pude; uno pensaría que habría uno para un candidato perenne , pero no lo hay. ¡Incluso Vermin Supreme tiene algo así como una oficina real! Existe Template:Infobox US federal election campaign , pero no tiene un espacio para una imagen de candidato, solo un logotipo, que no tenemos. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 21:34, 12 de febrero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo publicaré por ahora, pero si puedes agregar una sección de lemas, ¡sería genial! -- GRuban ( discusión ) 15:27 16 febrero 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eché un vistazo a la RS en busca de eslóganes el fin de semana y no me inspiró, pero volveré a echar un vistazo si nadie más aparece para hacerlo mejor. :) Newimpartial (discusión) 15:30 16 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cthulhu 2016
¿Quieres ayudar con una propaganda de WP:DYK ? Creo que este artículo es totalmente digno de DYK, especialmente con la imagen, pero la propaganda me preocupa. Estaba pensando en ¿Sabías que "... ese horror cósmico Cthulhu se ha postulado para presidente de los Estados Unidos en todas las elecciones desde 1996?" pero no hay una fuente específica que diga eso. El Wall Street Journal dice que la campaña se ha prolongado durante varios ciclos electorales, y tenemos una fuente para cada ciclo electoral desde los materiales de la campaña de Chaosium en 1996, pero ni una sola fuente que diga "cada elección presidencial". ¿Crees que está bien o tienes una mejor idea? -- GRuban ( discusión ) 17:59, 16 de febrero de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lamento no haber visto esta última publicación, por lo que no es oportuna. Creo que "todas las elecciones" están bien. Me temo que he tenido otras cosas en la cabeza este mes, por lo que no he podido ayudar con el nuevo artículo, pero me alegra ver que lo has logrado. ¡Divertido! Newimpartial (discusión) 14:21 21 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No está muerto, puede permanecer eternamente en el poder y, con el paso de los eones, incluso un candidato de un tercer partido puede ser elegido. Parece que ya pasó la revisión de DYK. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 20:43 1 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, creo que ya estoy prácticamente agotado, he puesto todo lo que se me ocurre. Enviaré un correo electrónico a Stoddard y Masters, para que le echen un vistazo, a ver si tienen algún comentario o sugerencia. Si tuviera tu dirección de correo electrónico la añadiría, para que te puedan copiar directamente, pero no la tengo, así que en el mejor de los casos podré reenviarte su respuesta a través del formulario de correo de Wikipedia. ¿También querías añadir algo sobre Castle Falkenstein y/o GURPS Castle Falkenstein? Todavía estoy sólo 50% seguro de que pasaría WP:AFD - tiene muchas referencias, pero las respetables son pocas y cortas, mientras que las más largas y detalladas no son tan fiables. Tal vez simplemente no sea nominado - no creo haber molestado a nadie... recientemente... Por cierto, he notado , y he apreciado, que tanto tú como User:BOZ me enviáis regularmente mensajes de agradecimiento mientras lo hago, y admito que han sido incentivos regulares para seguir trabajando! No, no puedo garantizar que funcione para GURPS WW2, es posible que me canse del rol por un tiempo. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 18:13, 31 de marzo de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, si quieres, moveré la página al espacio de artículos más tarde hoy o mañana. :) BOZ ( discusión ) 18:31 31 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si pudieras esperar hasta que deje otro mensaje aquí, te lo agradecería. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:42 31 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esperemos también a que Masters y Stoddard respondan, la última vez que escribí respondieron en unos días. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 18:50 31 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Muchas gracias por tu trabajo, GRuban. Creo que tengo una o dos fuentes para agregar fuera del material de GURPS:Castle Falkenstein, y luego también quiero hacer algunas ediciones. No tengo nada en contra de lo que has hecho: solo tengo un modelo mental incipiente de cómo me gusta que se escriban estos artículos, y me gustaría verlo reflejado antes de que se mueva al espacio de artículos, si es posible. Y luego podemos pedirle a BOZ que lo mueva. :)
En cuanto a la notabilidad, puede que me equivoque, pero tengo la sensación de que los artículos más vulnerables son aquellos que parecen tener fuentes deficientes (en los que se utilizan muchas fuentes no independientes o se utilizan mal las fuentes "reales"), en lugar de aquellos en los que hay posibles problemas de SIGCOV dentro de una fuente que es una RS válida e independiente. En otras palabras, las RS (como las notificaciones independientes de premios) que respaldan una afirmación de notabilidad basada en NBOOK tenderán a superar el deseo de la gente de saber cuántas oraciones se requieren para cumplir con SIGCOV.
Ahora he perdido más batallas de las que me gustaría en AfD (antes por eliminación, últimamente más a menudo por redirección), pero eso es lo que siento que he aprendido. Así que no estoy tan preocupado por esto, en comparación con la mayoría de la lista en mi página de proyecto: algunas de las páginas de la empresa, en particular, son muy vulnerables, además de ser artículos terriblemente confusos por derecho propio. Otra cosa que he aprendido, pero que solo he puesto en práctica una vez ( Marcus Rowland (autor) ) es que los artículos bien escritos suelen sobrevivir a AfD. Simplemente odio recompensar a los AfDsters arreglando los problemas que ven, pero en un momento como este en el que la eliminación no es muy activa, habría tiempo para hacer algún trabajo preventivo. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:43, 31 de marzo de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Genial! Una verdadera colaboración fue el objetivo desde el principio. Por favor, no desesperen, en el peor de los casos todo quedará en el historial de edición, siempre podemos discutir sobre cualquier problema después de ver cómo se ve. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 19:02 31 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
He hecho todo lo que tenía que hacer por hoy ( Usuario: BOZ ). He añadido los fragmentos de Falkenstein, he reajustado el material de Difference Engine para que la publicación del libro principal se mueva hacia la parte superior del artículo y el material con licencia se mantenga unido; esto también mantiene las anécdotas de fabricación de salchichas "dentro de RPG" en una sección (licencias), lo que creo que será adecuado para la mayoría de los lectores. Revisé la introducción para reforzar la afirmación de importancia y reflejar el alcance del artículo.
Todavía tengo un par de fuentes de Steampunk GURPS reales en las que quiero trabajar otro día; también tengo muchas esperanzas de que alguien más aparte de mí sepa cómo incorporar imágenes de portada, al menos para el libro principal y los otros cuatro para los que he insertado plantillas. ¿Es eso posible? Newimpartial (discusión) 03:54 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una nota sobre los números de página, quizás quieras ver la plantilla:rp . BOZ ( discusión ) 04:01 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, BOZ. El estado actual es el siguiente: propuse en la página de discusión del artículo que deberíamos usar plantillas de libros de GURPS en la sección de 4.ª edición, pero estoy esperando a que me respondan antes de seguir adelante con eso. Además, todavía tengo un par de fuentes que agregar y algunos ajustes que hacer en la entrada principal de Steampunk de GURPS; supongo que eso se podría hacer en el espacio del artículo, pero si GRuban está esperando a que los autores me respondan, entonces prefiero hacer cambios mientras el artículo todavía está en borrador. En general, me parece bastante bueno para un borrador de artículo, casi digno del premio Origins. :)
Pero, ¿alguien podrá encontrar las cinco imágenes de portada? (GURPS Steampunk, SteamTech, Screampunk, Castle Falkenstein y Castle Falkenstein: Ottoman Empire? Newimpartial (discusión) 13:48 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me encanta, ¡es una verdadera colaboración! ¡Gracias a ambos! Puedo encontrar imágenes de portada, al principio no pensé en ellas. Me preocupa que sean demasiado para las obras más pequeñas que no tienen tanto texto, ¿quizás solo queremos steampunk y falkenstein? De todos modos, puedo ponerlas y podemos ver cómo se ven. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 14:32 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Preferiría incluir las cinco portadas y hacer la primera grande y las demás pequeñas. Podemos hacer eso, ¿no? La portada de SteamTech no es gran cosa, según recuerdo, pero me gustan las de Steampunk y la del Imperio Otomano. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:40 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tengo los archivos, pero, técnicamente, no se nos permite usar imágenes de uso legítimo en el espacio de usuario. ( WP:NFCCP #9). Puedo agregarlas cuando vayamos al espacio principal. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 15:25 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si me dices cómo se llaman, ¿quizás podría obtener una vista previa de ellos sin guardarlos en el borrador en ninguna diferencia? Me gustaría ver cómo se ven en diferentes tamaños en diferentes pantallas antes de intentar convencerlos a ustedes dos de que los incluyan. ;) Newimpartial (discusión) 15:40 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-E9tA0R70c9on-X9MHM1jZWoBHUv7_KjLVMZTMceK1o/edit?usp=sharing - GRuban ( discusión ) 16:16, 1 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Gracias. He hecho una versión de muestra completa aquí usando imágenes "ficticias" de las portadas de la Colección básica. (Creo que está permitido, y si no, entonces simplemente vuelve a la versión anterior y mira la diferencia). Elegí la imagen que elegí porque la portada de la 1.ª edición mide 279 x 356 y la de la 3.ª edición mide 150 x 199, y quería probar la diferencia de tamaños, pero no sé cómo cambiar el tamaño dentro de la plantilla.
En mi opinión, esta versión se ve bien en la computadora de escritorio (y en el modo de escritorio de mi teléfono) y está bien en el modo móvil de mi teléfono (la capacidad de abrir y cerrar secciones es una ventaja). La diferencia en los tamaños de las imágenes ayuda a enfatizar el libro principal de Steampunk de GURPS.
Por otro lado, la portada de G:F:OE o la de Screampunk no me gustan tanto como recuerdo, mientras que la de SteamTech me gusta más de lo que recuerdo. Así que tal vez un compromiso sería incluir las portadas de Steampunk, Castle Falkenstein y SteamTech (una por sección) y mantener las cajas sin portadas para Ottoman Empire y Screampunk. ¿Qué opinas al respecto?
De cualquier manera, siento que necesito agregar un poco de texto a las entradas de SteamTech y Screampunk, pero estaba planeando dejar las fuentes en la sección principal de Steampunk de todos modos, así que debería poder hacerlo entonces. ¡Gracias nuevamente por poner la pelota en marcha con esto! ¡Quizás el Libro de fuentes de Hellboy y el Juego de rol puedan ser los siguientes! :) Newimpartial (discusión) 14:27, 2 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La versión con todas las imágenes me parece buena. Creo que hay un parámetro image_size= en Template:Infobox RPG con el que puedes jugar, prueba |image_size=300px, |image_size=150px, deberían hacer algo. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 16:18 2 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, gracias por el voto de confianza. Todavía tengo un día o dos mientras esperas a Masters y Stoddard. Sabes que el juego de Hellboy también es suyo, ¿no? Newimpartial (discusión) 16:56 2 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No lo hice. Leí el cómic y vi la película, pero no creo haber jugado nunca a GURPS, aunque jugué bastantes rondas de Melee y Wizard en mi vida. Tal vez algún día. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 17:32 2 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Maestros, no Stoddard. Los juegos de Hellboy y Discworld son sus obras maestras, en realidad. Y ya no conozco a nadie que juegue a GURPS, pero yo lo pasé bien en su día. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:48 2 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ BOZ y Newimpartial : Masters respondió, me sugirió algunos ajustes que hice, Stoddard no respondió, pero ya pasaron varios días. Creo que podemos publicarlo y agregar imágenes de portada. ¿Alguna sugerencia para la sinopsis de DYK? -- GRuban ( discusión ) 14:20, 5 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece bien entonces, voy a seguir adelante y publicarlo. :) BOZ ( discusión ) 15:23 5 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Genial! Terminé mi primera edición en el espacio de artículos. ¡Gracias a los dos! Newimpartial (discusión) 16:07, 5 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, GRuban, además de los artículos que mencioné antes (o que agregué al cuadro yo mismo), uno con el que también podría estar motivado para ayudar es Countdown (Delta Green) . Solo para que lo sepas. Newimpartial (discusión) 00:42 6 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No te metas con los comentarios de AfD de otras personas
He revertido tu eliminación aquí. Seguramente sabes que no debes hacer esto. Mangoe ( discusión ) 03:37 11 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, Mangoe. @Newimpartial: ¿Cuál fue tu razón para revertir mi voto? Xxanthippe ( discusión ) 03:42 11 feb 2021 (UTC). [ responder ]
Lo siento mucho. No tengo idea de cómo sucedió eso. Te pido disculpas sinceras. Newimpartial (discusión) 12:18 11 feb 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estas cosas pueden pasar. Disculpas aceptadas. Saludos cordiales. Xxanthippe ( discusión ) 21:42 11 feb 2021 (UTC). [ responder ]
Gracias
No sé si estoy haciendo un mejor trabajo, pero estoy haciendo un trabajo diferente . A veces eso ayuda. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:23 31 mar 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Deportes NSNG/GNG
Recientemente se han mantenido un par de jugadores de críquet en la AfD a pesar de que no cumplen con el WP:GNG y siento que me estoy volviendo loco. Según la discusión de WP:SNG , ¿tengo la impresión correcta de que WP:NSPORTS requiere que se cumpla el GNG? SportingFlyer T · C 10:25, 1 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé si te estás volviendo loco :), pero la RfC de 2017 estableció que los SNG de NSPORTS para cada deporte son solo presuntivos de notabilidad GNG , es decir, también se debe demostrar que se cumple con el GNG. El lenguaje actual en NSPORTS también es bastante claro al respecto. Newimpartial (discusión) 11:57 1 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Gracias! SportingFlyer T · C 12:09, 1 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Soy un editor muy nuevo y he estado leyendo muchas páginas de discusión para entender las políticas, pautas, costumbres, mejores prácticas y la cultura general de edición aquí. Parece que tú y yo tenemos muchos de los mismos intereses académicos y experiencia profesional (¡y probablemente conocemos a algunas de las mismas personas en el mundo real!). Prestar atención a cómo editas y cómo interactúas con los demás ha sido invaluable para mí. Tu trabajo para mantener los artículos relacionados con la teoría crítica y la filosofía accesibles, precisos y (lo que quizás sea más importante para este proyecto) libres de tonterías conspirativas reduccionistas simplistas ha sido asombroso. Así que gracias. Espero algún día poder contribuir al menos a un décimo de tu nivel. Thanksforhelping ( discusión ) 03:46, 22 de abril de 2021 (UTC) Thanksforhelping ( discusión ) 03:46, 22 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por tus amables palabras. Una cosa sobre este lugar que he aprendido a las malas, y con dificultad, es evitar personalizar las disputas. No lo logro del todo ni siquiera ahora, pero los puntos bajos que surgieron de los dramas en la wiki en el pasado fueron muy bajos. Mi consejo (haz lo que yo digo, no lo que hago) sería que intentes controlarte antes de que la ira justificada comience a nublar tu juicio. ;) Sospecho que lo estás haciendo bien, hasta ahora. Newimpartial (discusión) 13:00, 22 de abril de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué tal este?
Hiciste un pequeño milagro con Ken Cliffe; ¿ves algo más que pueda ayudar a fortalecer a David O. Miller? BOZ ( discusión ) 02:07 23 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tengo nada que decir al respecto, lo siento. Sin embargo, espero poder agregar algo al borrador: Dean Shomshak . Newimpartial (discusión) 13:40 23 abr 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es un proyecto ambicioso que apenas he comenzado y ya es enorme, pero si ves algo que se destaque como potencialmente rescatable en User:BOZ/Games deletions , házmelo saber y lo redactaré. :) BOZ ( discusión ) 16:11 11 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, BOZ. Aprecio el trabajo que has puesto en esto y creo que la taxonomía de las páginas eliminadas es un valor añadido real. No necesitas redactar una página de dX RPG porque ya tengo esa en marcha; si veo otras que me gustaría que me ayudaran a relanzar, te lo haré saber. Guardians of Order y Tri-stat dX han sido mi "proyecto actual" desde hace un tiempo, pero no he encontrado mucho tiempo para la wiki últimamente. Espero que eso cambie. En realidad, me gusta añadir al acervo de conocimientos de la wiki más que defender lo que ya existe, a pesar de todas las apariencias en contra. :P Newimpartial (discusión) 16:18 11 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sustantivo de juego de rol de mesa
No soy fan de los Retronym . Especialmente no es necesario en una descripción breve que debería ser concisa. He visto que recientemente agregaste "tabletop" a algunos. ¿Hay algún consenso que desconozco? —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 17:11 25 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé si ha habido una convocatoria de propuestas formal o una discusión basada en proyectos, pero el término "juego de mesa" se ha utilizado de manera bastante consistente y sin controversias en los artículos de WP durante una década o más (incluso en las oraciones iniciales y en las descripciones breves) para excluir el LARP y los juegos de computadora. Dado que el consenso no está documentado formalmente, que yo sepa, no sería inapropiado que lanzaras una convocatoria de propuestas o algo similar, pero claramente existe un consenso de facto en la actualidad. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:29 25 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
FTR: Parece que eres la fuente más común del retrónimo "tabletop" según los cambios de descripción breve que veo. Muchas de las importaciones de wikidata que he realizado recientemente no tenían el "tabletop". No tengo ningún problema con que lo agregues. Simplemente me resulta difícil llamar consenso a lo que veo. —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 18:20 30 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, he añadido el término en cuestión a descripciones breves, en particular, pero no exclusivamente, en casos en los que se ha anulado la wikidata. Sin embargo, rara vez soy el editor que ha añadido el término al encabezamiento (que es el que llena la wikidata en primer lugar, según tengo entendido). Mi afirmación de que el término "juego de mesa" se ha utilizado de forma bastante consistente y sin controversias en los artículos de WP durante una década o más (incluso en las oraciones de encabezamiento y en las descripciones breves) para excluir los juegos de rol en vivo y de ordenador está fuera de toda duda, en realidad, pero WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE y, una vez más, siéntete libre de lanzar una RfC o algo similar si crees que lo ha hecho. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:29 30 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
He estado aprendiendo de ti, que me sigues y me corriges. Pronto actualizaré mi algoritmo interno. Soy yo quien cambiará. Espero que pronto no tengas que "arreglar" mis breves descripciones incompletas. Ya casi terminé con todos los artículos sin clasificar o priorizados.
Por cierto: veo una diferencia entre el inicio y la descripción corta, pero ese es un tema para otro día.
Feliz edición para ti. —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 19:31 30 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hace muchos años, en Newhoo, también conocido como Open Directory Project , libré una guerra para que los juegos de rol no fueran relegados al gueto de los juegos de rol de "mesa". "¡Nosotros, los jugadores de dados, fuimos los primeros!", grité. "¡Dejen que los recién llegados de la electrónica se queden con las subcategorías de videojuegos, déjennos a nosotros la categoría principal de juegos de rol!". Por desgracia, desde entonces nos superan en número muchísimo. La batalla está perdida. La subcategoría es nuestra. Bebamos juntos una jarra grande de hidromiel y cantemos tristes canciones élficas. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 21:31 30 jun 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
revertir una reversión
reeditar es lo mismo que revertir una reversión. Deberías haber abierto una conversación en la página de discusión. En este punto, espero que reviertas tu propia edición y lo hagas. Ver: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spione:_Story_Now_in_Cold_War_Berlin&curid=44480720&diff=1032296066&oldid=1031348416&diffmode=source —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 15:40 6 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, Philoserf. WP:BRD es una buena práctica, pero no es un requisito. Respondí a la razón (válida) de tu reversión (el contraste con el lede) arreglando el lede y luego reinstituyendo la descripción breve. En términos de WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , verás que hay muchas descripciones breves que incluyen el nombre del autor, y para los juegos de rol independientes o de autor esto es igualmente válido. Si no estás de acuerdo, está bien, no estés de acuerdo, en cualquier foro que creas apropiado, pero no esperes que yo mismo me revierta cuando no he hecho nada en contra de la política. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:46, 6 de julio de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, veo que estás estableciendo un patrón a lo largo de unas cuantas descripciones breves. Lo tendré en cuenta. No había visto ese patrón a menudo en mis viajes. —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 16:24 6 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien. Como punto de referencia, cuando comencé a editar en WP, había muchas, muchas oraciones iniciales de artículos de juegos de rol que incluían información del editor pero no información del autor, incluso en casos en los que ambos eran igualmente verificables (es decir, dejando de lado a editores como White Wolf y Dream Pod 9 que tendían a ocultar los créditos del autor al enumerar una larga lista de colaboradores por igual).
Es simplemente incorrecto dar crédito a las editoriales en lugar de a los autores o diseñadores, en casos en los que existen créditos claros de autor, y es especialmente escandaloso con editoriales no notables y diseñadores independientes o de autor. Por lo tanto, he ido mejorando gradualmente esas entradas, pero nunca las he revisado sistemáticamente.
Esto no significa que crea que todos los juegos deberían tener el crédito del autor en la breve descripción, pero para los juegos independientes o de autor, esta es de hecho la característica definitoria. Incluí una pequeña cantidad de estas antes, pero como has limpiado más artículos de juegos de rol (lo cual agradezco), he seguido adelante y he agregado autores a las breves descripciones donde son claramente importantes, así como (estoy seguro de que lo has notado) agregar género a los juegos donde esta característica no está sujeta a disputa y define el juego.
Espero que esto ayude a aclarar mi pensamiento. Newimpartial (discusión) 16:36 6 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
descripciones breves
Gracias por la limpieza mientras procesaba todos los artículos sin clasificar/sin prioridad en WP:WikiProject Role-playing games . Esos deberían ser la mayoría de los que necesitaban atención. Mi próxima pasada será sobre todos los artículos en orden de prioridad/clasificación desde arriba. Deberían ser menos en esta pasada. —¿philoserf? ( discusión ) 17:27 6 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por tu arduo trabajo. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:39 6 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Juan dinero
Esas son sus palabras exactas, por Dios :-) ¿Lo pongo entre comillas? Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:20 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Su artículo retrospectivo de 1994 (que revisé antes de editar) atribuye el "rol de género" a 1955 y la "identidad de género" a 1966. Por favor, dejen de exasperarse conmigo cuando estoy demostrablemente en lo cierto. :P Newimpartial (discusión) 14:24 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Tienes acceso al documento de 1955? Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:28 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No lo busqué, me conformé con su declaración de 1994. ¿Se equivocó con el término "identidad de género"? Newimpartial (discusión) 14:31 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La cita es el artículo de 1955 que hace la distinción. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:29 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
No has aportado ninguna cita ni ninguna otra prueba. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:31 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cita. Estás siendo tonto y estás equivocado. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:33 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
A menudo, las frases funcionan mejor que las palabras sueltas y los insultos. Además, tal vez si Money en 1994 se atribuyó la introducción del "rol de género" en 1955, pero atribuyó la "identidad de género" a la clínica Hopkins, ¿es porque en realidad no introdujo el término "identidad de género" en 1955? Newimpartial (discusión) 14:37 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para que su inclusión del término fuera apropiada, Money tendría que haber (1) introducido el término en su artículo de 1955 y (2) haber querido decir que la identidad de género significa lo que hoy entendemos por el término. La segunda de estas afirmaciones es demostrablemente falsa, por lo que realmente no me importa la primera. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:37 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, aquí tenéis uno al que podéis acceder (1985): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926238508406072
¿Por qué me envías una cita de 1985? Nadie discute que Money se refirió a los "roles de género y la identidad de género" en el sentido más o menos contemporáneo en 1985. ¿Leíste mal lo que dijo en 1985 como una paráfrasis de su artículo de 1955? Porque eso no es lo que está diciendo. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:44 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mira, lo admito. Estaba equivocado. Se me erizaron los pelos cuando vi que "Newimpartial" había aparecido en el artículo y la adrenalina se apoderó de mí. Temiendo que todo mi trabajo duro se desbaratara, cometí un error. Ups.
Además, ahora no es posible justificar la expresión "es distinto". Según el artículo, puede que no lo sea. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:45 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, me disculpo por la falta de sangría, estoy editando en un teléfono. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:47 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Temiendo el deshacer universal de todo mi duro trabajo..."
Mmm. Veo que ese miedo era completamente racional. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:54 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pero no hice ninguna corrección general. Revertí tu error, y una adición INDEBIDA (de una fuente deficiente, debo agregar) y tu eliminación de "es distinto". Así que no había razón para que respondieras de manera tan emocional.
Por un lado, sí, añadir material al cuerpo debería determinar en última instancia el tono del prólogo, así que estoy de acuerdo en que añadir buen material al cuerpo es el camino a seguir. Por otro lado, la versión actual del cuerpo no refleja en absoluto el equilibrio actual de fuentes de alta calidad sobre la distinción entre sexo y género: la opinión minoritaria de que la distinción es problemática de alguna manera está sobrerrepresentada. Me gustaría solucionar eso añadiendo fuentes de alta calidad que expliquen e interpreten la distinción, pero eso llevará tiempo, así que agradecería que pospusieras más dramatismo con el prólogo y me dieras la oportunidad de hacerlo.
Por cierto, he eliminado tus comentarios más tontos de mi página personal de discusión por respeto a la civilidad, pero te aconsejo que muestres más moderación en el futuro. Newimpartial (discusión) 14:55 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una entrada sobre "Perspectivas feministas sobre el sexo y el género" de la Enciclopedia de Filosofía de Stanford es WP:UNDUE? Esto es mentira. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:57 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Al parecer, las "fuentes de alta calidad" son las que te gustan. Tewdar ( discusión ) 14:58 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es medio paso mejor que un WP:SPS . Newimpartial (discusión) 14:59 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estaba hablando de la Enciclopedia de Stanford. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:23 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien. La cita de la Enciclopedia de Stanford se puede eliminar, dejando la referencia a Philosophia, que cita la Enciclopedia de Stanford. Pero ahora falla WP:DUE, aparentemente, porque has decidido que el 99% del artículo debe tratar sobre cómo la distinción no plantea ningún problema. Tewdar ( discusión ) 15:28 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esa no es mi opinión en absoluto. El trabajo de Judith Butler , que problematiza la distinción, por ejemplo, es evidentemente DEBIDO. Pero Butler es un filósofo competente y no se basa en contenido académico generado por los usuarios al definir términos. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:32 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien. Espero haber agregado algo al artículo durante los últimos días que sea útil y que no se elimine. Adiós. Tewdar ( discusión ) 15:38 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Te animo a que hagas una distinción entre mejorar los artículos y cambiar su punto de vista . Ten en cuenta que me tomé la molestia de no deshacer tus ediciones por completo; en lugar de eso, adopté un enfoque más quirúrgico (que es más trabajo) para respetar el hecho de que algunas de tus ediciones realmente mejoraron el artículo. Esta edición, por ejemplo, agregó buen contenido al artículo con una fuente apropiada, así que no quería meterme con eso. En pocas palabras, no me estoy tomando nada de esto tan personalmente como crees que lo estoy haciendo, o como tú demuestras que lo estás haciendo. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:48 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por favor, deja de amenazarme con mensajes de mierda en mi página de discusión. Déjame en paz, nunca más volveré a editar ninguna página relacionada con el género, lo juro, aprendí la lección... Tewdar ( discusión ) 15:43 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esas son plantillas estándar. No pude saber si conocías o no la regla 3RR, así que coloqué esa plantilla. No vi ninguna evidencia de que conocías las sanciones discrecionales por género y sexualidad, así que también coloqué esa plantilla. Arbcom no autoriza mensajes de mierda ; crearon un sistema de cumplimiento administrativo para limitar el comportamiento problemático en áreas donde los sentimientos tienden a estar a flor de piel. No te estaba amenazando: me estaba asegurando de que estuvieras informado antes de que pudieras meterte en problemas.
Creo que podrías contribuir significativamente en esta área y te animo a que vuelvas cuando estés un poco menos a gusto. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:54 19 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, sobre la distinción entre sexo y género , no hagas como que "existen fuentes" para demostrar tu punto sin proporcionarlas realmente. Es una violación de las normas de Wikipedia y tiende a socavar la civilidad . Limítate a las fuentes para las que realmente estás dispuesto a proporcionar. Así que si quieres decir, "la gente suele utilizar sexo y género indiscriminadamente en la vida cotidiana", ofrece fuentes que lo respalden; no afirmes simplemente "nadie en mi círculo social sabe la diferencia entre sexo y género". Una vez tuve que elaborar una lista de docenas de referencias de la CBC para demostrar que realmente utiliza el "sexo asignado" en su cobertura rutinaria, pero lo hice cuando Crossroads insistió. Mi consejo es que no te pongas en esa situación, empezando por la evidencia. Newimpartial (discusión) 20:16 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
El artículo en sí, con la fuente, ya respalda la afirmación de que "la gente suele utilizar sexo y género indiscriminadamente en la vida cotidiana". Dice: "En el habla corriente, sexo y género suelen usarse indistintamente". Hoy intentaré recopilar pruebas de que estos términos se confunden, se invierten y se utilizan incorrectamente, si realmente lo cree necesario. ¿Y qué es un círculo social? ¡Suena divertido! Tewdar ( discusión ) 08:35, 21 de julio de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
El Compendio del Cielo Azul ya está disponible en la página de discusión del artículo para que lo consultes. Probablemente haya miles de otras fuentes que dicen exactamente lo mismo: "género" y "sexo" son términos que a menudo se usan indistintamente. Tewdar ( discusión ) 12:00, 21 de julio de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, no estaba negando que algunas personas utilicen el sexo y el género de forma indiscriminada en la vida cotidiana. Eso es lo que se conoce en el mundo de los negocios como un ejemplo . Lo que has estado afirmando en esa página de discusión, sin aportar pruebas relevantes, es que fuentes fiables (aparte de tu conveniente minoría de filósofos disidentes) cuestionan la existencia de la distinción. Tu lista de "cielos azules" no ofrece ninguna evidencia de eso, me temo. Newimpartial (discusión) 12:55 21 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
O, como dije hace un tiempo en la página de discusión, tendrías que encontrar fuentes reales, no esotéricas, que no hagan ninguna distinción o insistan en que sexo y género son lo mismo, y no he visto ninguna fuente de ese tipo. Hasta ahora, lo que has presentado son fuentes que dicen el equivalente a "algunas personas no entienden la velocidad de la luz". Bueno, claro. Newimpartial (discusión) 13:00 21 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
"Buena suerte con eso"
¿A qué te refieres? ¿Y acabas de estar de acuerdo conmigo en algo? :-O
Creo que iré a acostarme... Tewdar ( discusión ) 17:23 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La respuesta a tu segunda pregunta es sí. La respuesta a tu primera pregunta es que, según mi experiencia, tenemos varios editores que se dedican a un solo propósito en este ámbito y que tienen diversos ejes de trabajo sobre concepciones cromosómicas y/o anatómicas y/o "biológicas" o evolutivas del sexo. Es probable que alejar el texto de cualquier artículo (sin importar cuál sea su enfoque) del énfasis preferido de algún propietario sea, bueno, más difícil de lo que debería ser. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:32 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La definición biológica de sexo tiene una relevancia mínima para ese artículo. Es necesario reducirla y reemplazarla por lo que realmente se pretende. Me complace haber encontrado algo en lo que estamos de acuerdo. Tewdar ( discusión ) 17:46 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, en mi opinión no existe una única "definición biológica del sexo", pero por lo demás estamos de acuerdo en una cosa. :p. Newimpartial (discusión) 18:07 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
La mayoría de los biólogos creen que el tamaño de los gametos es la esencia del sexo biológico. Lo que estoy diciendo es que, a los efectos de este artículo, no es muy importante. Tewdar ( discusión ) 19:52 20 jul 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Newimpartial. Supongo que este comentario pretendía decir algo como "no hay absolutamente nada de malo en referirse a un término como un silbato para perros transfóbico". Si es así, es posible que quieras modificarlo para que ese significado quede claro. ezlev ( usuario / tlk / ctrbs ) 02:34, 5 de octubre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Correcto; arreglado. Supongo que capto casi el 90 % de esos antes de publicarlos. :P. Newimpartial (discusión) 02:40 5 oct 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, lo agrego aquí porque es semi-relevante y no quiero saturar tu página de discusión con nuevas secciones. Cuando esta discusión finalmente termine, ¿estarías interesado o podrías ayudarme a abrir una discusión en el lugar relevante ya que no estoy seguro de cuál es el lugar correcto para hacerlo, para que no tengamos que repetir este tipo de conversación circular interminable nuevamente? Como dije en la diferencia, parece que esto es tal vez algo que debería resolverse con una política. Sideswipe9th ( discusión ) 03:17, 5 de octubre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por cierto, Sideswipe9th , solo como ejemplo (y reconozco que no fue tu trabajo), esta sección es un ejemplo de lo que considero una denuncia prematura. Evidentemente, me he opuesto a las intervenciones en la página de Discusión por parte del editor en cuestión, y simpatizo con la frustración del denunciante con ese editor. Sin embargo, me parece que AE se ocupa mejor de las infracciones claras de las reglas claras o de patrones muy claros (y fácilmente documentados) de comportamiento disruptivo; no creo que el editor en cuestión haya registrado un nivel lo suficientemente alto en ninguna de las dos escalas. (También podría ser mejor denunciar cuando el editor infractor tiende a generar más disrupción, en lugar de menos... solo es una idea). Newimpartial (discusión) 15:47, 3 de noviembre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, entiendo lo que quieres decir. Sé que la gente de ANI dijo que lo abriéramos en AE, pero parece prematuro. Sin embargo, espero que algo bueno salga de esto si ese usuario cumple con su palabra de mantener un estándar de conducta más alto. Sideswipe9th ( discusión ) 17:02 3 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
En mi opinión, fue especialmente prematuro en AMI. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:21 3 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como autor de la queja, esto es un tema interesante para reflexionar. No tengo mucha experiencia con AE y podría haber sido una buena idea investigar más sobre el tema antes de publicarlo allí. Aun así, mantengo mi decisión de llevar el asunto a un tablón de anuncios en primer lugar, porque los repetidos intentos de intervenir de alguna otra manera fueron ineficaces y la conducta del editor no pareció haber cambiado. Si bien estoy de acuerdo en que parece que el editor en cuestión no ha sido disruptivo de una manera que los de AE consideren procesable, el editor ahora ha declarado en ese lugar que prometo un alto estándar de conducta donde me ceñiré a los hechos y la lógica y no a bromas sarcásticas y cosas por el estilo. Con suerte, ese será el final de las cosas: mi objetivo no es provocar un bloqueo o restricción de ese editor, es crear un entorno de edición constructivo y colaborativo; y si no es el final del problema, seguramente ayudará y no obstaculizará cualquier presentación futura que sea necesaria. (Y, por cierto, me gusta que me notifiquen cuando se habla de mí, especialmente cuando se trata de comentarios como este que podrían ayudarme a mejorar. No me molesta que no haya sucedido aquí, solo creo que vale la pena mencionarlo). ezlev ( usuario / tlk / ctrbs ) 19:39, 5 de noviembre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Discusión:LGB Alliance
Hola, creo que has enlazado la diferencia incorrecta en tu comentario reciente en la página de discusión de LGB Alliance. La primera diferencia en concreto. La conversación que el bot archivó allí era del mes pasado. ¿Quizás te referías a esta diferencia? Sideswipe9th ( discusión ) 23:28 13 oct 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien visto. Gracias, arreglado. Era un error raro. Newimpartial (discusión) 23:32 13 oct 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, en relación con tu consulta por correo electrónico, la respuesta a tu pregunta es básicamente no. Cuando un editor se las arregla para escribir entre líneas con la suficiente frecuencia, no hay ninguna forma que cumpla con las políticas de eliminarlo de un área temática. Eso solo sucederá cuando un editor comience a escribir fuera de las líneas, y es mejor esperar a que se desarrolle un historial de esto en lugar de iniciar una acción de AN por la menor infracción. Además, WP:AE suele ser el lugar menos ruidoso para tales discusiones, aunque solo se puede utilizar cuando los problemas se encuentran principalmente dentro de un tema de DS. ¿Tiene sentido? Newimpartial (discusión) 17:32, 15 de octubre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Solo un aviso para los que están al acecho: ha habido repetidos intentos de piratear esta cuenta en los últimos minutos. Sospecho que se trata de un granjero de calcetines. Newimpartial (discusión) 15:59 3 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Espera, ¿alguien está intentando hackearte? CycoMa ( discusión ) 17:45 3 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Correcto. Decenas de intentos, desde no sé cuántos dispositivos. Newimpartial (discusión) 17:49 3 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me pregunto si es el calcetín de CatCafe el que sigue haciendo esto; parece que están bastante motivados. Newimpartial (discusión) 20:01 10 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me perdí esto cuando lo publicaste, pero parece que tanto Jytdog como yo tuvimos experiencias similares con respecto a los calcetines CatCafe anteriores. Además, ambos teníamos cuentas falsas de Twitter creadas con nuestros nombres, así que es posible que quieras estar atento a eso. - Bilby ( discusión ) 21:30, 28 de noviembre de 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
RFC en Kathleen Stock
No lo entiendo. Realmente no entiendo por qué sigue abierto, dadas las graves fallas en la forma en que se ha llevado a cabo. Sideswipe9th ( discusión ) 18:23 5 nov 2021 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, y sé que otros editores piensan lo mismo. Pero dado que ahora está abierto y ofrece una opción, creo que lo menos disruptivo que se puede hacer ahora es asegurarse de que el encabezamiento no se desplace de A a B y limitar la discusión a esas frases iniciales del encabezamiento sin desviarse hacia otros temas (tanto como sea posible).
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]
RFC on JK rowling
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]
Elliot Page question
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]
Incivility
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]
To IP 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E188:AB34:F849:5200
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]
lol
: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 ‘gender-critical’ movement
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[12]. 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]
I see a new draft is being worked on.
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]
Personal attack Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Marsh (writer) (2nd nomination)
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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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]
Drafts
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]
Bassingthwaite was published from AFC today. :) Some of the others I mentioned here are already at AFC or soon will be. :) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan Skemp
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
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]
Discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:
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]
Your draft article, Draft:John Chambers (role-playing)
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. LizRead!Talk! 22:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this one to article space recently. :) BOZ (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (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]
Antipodean Cultural Marxism IP editor
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]
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]
The Bad Hatter
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]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3 § Transgender and transsexual categories
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]
Barnstar
Wut?
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".
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]
New sandbox
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]
Skryba2000
This is a heads-up regarding the user on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newimpartial/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]
One more today, SSDC, Inc.. BOZ (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversion on Marsha P. Johnson
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]
Please respect the process
NI, please respect BRD and NOCON. When new content is added then reverted it may be correct to restore as you did here [13] 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]
Asterisk indent
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]
What should I do in the AfD?
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]
Wut?
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]
Revert at They
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]
Unreliability of The Times on trans reporting
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]
A question
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 [14]? 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]
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
That went well :). Newimpartial (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow BRD
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]
JS bullying case revert
Looking at [15], 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]
Still working on it
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
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]
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
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. SilverserenC 22:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent tip
I notice that you like to use the outdent connector when needed (so do I), such as in theseedits 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:
[M]ost of the sources this article actually cites. ... Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore . /sig/
Well, let's try an exercise, ...
all lined up perfectly. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :)
Discussion tool glitches
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]
Edit warring
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. SilverserenC 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes get the impression…..
…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]
WP:CTOP
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 mustby 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]
Tewdar
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]
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]
Hope all is well
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 with 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.[16] 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]
On being argumentative
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:
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".
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.
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]
This is courageous. Much respect. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just closed the ANI thread
And I have found that there is consensus to impose an indefinite topic ban from the WP:GENSEX area and an anti-bludgeoning restriction, whereby you are banned from making more than two comments per discussion per day, although you may reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and add very brief clarifications of your own comments. My complete rationale is here. Salviogiuliano 09:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gamergate
Hi,
I saw your self-revert and thought I'd drop by to help clarify since you were unsure. Its a little unusual since the sanction was imposed by the Community but makes reference to an Arbcom-defined topic area for the scope. WP:GENSEX wasn't a real case, but rather a sort of shell page that folded three cases into one topic area (another odd thing about it). One of those cases was Gamergate, and the motion creating the GENSEX area says "For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy." So yes, Gamergate and associated people are included within the scope. Thanks for the self revert, I think that's a good sign that you're trying to abide by the restriction instead of skirt it.
As a side note, you might want to think about setting up some archiving for your talkpage. Not sure how it looks on your device, but on mine it takes a while to load and can be difficult to navigate. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, The Wordsmith. I have no intention of skirting the TBAN. I had previously read about, but since forgotten, the rollup of Gamergate into GENSEX. And I wasn't reminded by the format of the mobile version of the Talk page, either, which offers a link to the original GG sanction decision but hides the reference to the current CT regime (and the textual reference to GENSEX). Eventually I will get the hang of looking "under the hood" for instances where GENSEX sanctions apply at the page level. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I became interested in watching ANI after I was threatened with it. I followed your recent "trial" there with interest. I have very little to say about your specific case (it is above my pay grade), and I know that you accept the sanctions placed on you, but I did see some rough or questionable forms of "justice" emerge along the way, both there and elsewhere.
I have decided to be openly critical of a tendency to apply WP policies in an unjust way, and I do this in my welcome statement on my user page [17] in case you are interested to read it.
It seemed to me that you are very articulate, with an ability to deal with complex ratiocination.
All my very best wishes.
Sincerely, Walton22 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query re: MOS
A question for Squared.Circle.Boxing - when was the last time you encountered someone with a Welsh passport? And yet Welsh is a recognized nationality for BLPs .... Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the comparison with Welsh/Scottish, but for me there's two important differences; 1) Wales and Scotland were at one point (albeit a long time ago) recognised as sovereign nations 2) they're currently internationally-recognised as constituent countries of the UK. Unfortunately, European settlers saw to it that tribal nations were never recognised as a sovereign nation(s) and US federally recognised tribal lands aren't recognised as countries. I see Native American closer (not identical) to Cornish than Welsh; Cornish identity has legal recognition in the UK--not to the same extent as Native American in the US--but is not recognised in relation to citizenship/nationality in the international community, although the international community does recognise both identities through various declarations (EU and UN).I'd personally rather see English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish subjects described as British, but I recognise the confusion it can cause (I view my nationality as British and English more of an ethnicity). Conversely, I can't see any confusion in describing an American national/citizen as American. – 2.O.Boxing 01:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'd just like to note, as someone from Northern Ireland, describing all Northern Irish BLP subjects as British would be controversial given our history. Significant care would need to be taken for Northern Irish biographies for people who outright reject British citizenship and nationality as per the Good Friday Agreement, which alongside Irish nationality law affords those of us from Northern Ireland the right to be British, Irish, or both. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, right you are. I forgot about the dual nationality for NI. That's one that I tend to stay away from unless there's strong sourcing favouring a particular one. – 2.O.Boxing 05:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will AGF, here, Squared.Circle, but the Two Row Wampum Treaty and the Treaty of Fort Niagara in North America represent clear documentation (among many other examples) that First Nations were indeed recocognized as sovereign by European states, and more recently so than Wales and Scotland, respectively, were recognized by anyone as sovereign entities. And if you think that the constituent countries of the UK are recognized internationally in a way that is stronger or more widely endorsed than the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - well, I'd appreciate seeing some evidence for that; it doesn't seem to me, prima facie, to be all that plausible a claim.
The fact is that Wikipedia describes subjects of the UK as English, Scottish, or Welsh (for example) because enwiki has decided that these, and not "British" or UKvian, are the generally relevant national labels. For parallel reasons, many biographical articles about figures associated with national movements, as in the case of Quebec, are described using national terms rather than in terms of legal citizenship. In the case of Indigenous people, the relationship between possible labels is varied and complex, and contra some other editors' views I don't think the "First Nations represent primordial citizenships" is often the best way to talk about it. But take the example of Buffy Sainte-Marie - it would seem obviously wrong to me to insist that either Canadian or US citizenship should take pride of place against her Indigenous (Piapot Cree) identity, and any "rule" that would discourage the kind of solution that article currently presents would seem obviously wrong-headed to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The differences I noted are just what pop to mind when specifically comparing Welsh with Native American. I view neither as a nationality, but can understand the argument for one and not the other. As for the treaties (your AGF was rightly extended, I was unaware of such dealings), I don't see where they establish tribal nations as sovereign nations. And reading things like However, the agreement was recorded in wampum and no paper document was signed; Canadian law does not recognize the legality of the agreement, or how there's a dispute of whether or not the Two Row one actually took place, doesn't fill me with much confidence. Regardless, even if proven wrong (a likely possibility that I'd be happy with), it's kind of a moot point for determining nationality/citizenship in 21st Century BLPs. The UN Declaration also does not establish tribal nations as sovereign nations, or that their citizenships are internationally recognised. The declaration itself is not a legally binding instrument under international law. As for the national identities being more widely endorsed--or recognised--I take into consideration that constituent countries in the UK having widely-known "national" sports teams has an undeniably further reach than a little-known UN declaration. In my opinion that adds a great deal to the Welshy side of the argument--considerably more people will recognise English, Welsh and Scottish as a nationality (rightly or wrongly) than Native American. We cater to an international community, and the international community doesn't recognise tribal nationalities or citizenships. Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit for what is essentially a very extreme case of international WP:CONLEVEL.I see Buffy Sainte-Marie and Wilma Mankiller as perfect examples of exceptions; their identity is directly related to their notability. However, I see Donna Nelson as a perfect example of why the guidance in CONTEXTBIO should be downgraded to a note in the same spirit as ethnicity and religion. As far as I can tell her identity has no relevance whatsoever to her notability. – 2.O.Boxing 05:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you and I appear to agree that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the matter. As far as your claim that the international community doesn't recognise tribal nationalities or citizenships - as far as I can tell, it recognizes them at least to the same extent that it does Scottish or Welsh nationality (with the notable exception of FIFA of course, but I don't think the reason Anthony Hopkins is described as Welsh has anything to do with his FIFA eligibility).
As far as your claim that FIFA's "home nations" recognition is widely-known and the UNDRIP is little-known - well, I think that is very dependent on one's mediasphere. I know that here in Canada I have to explain to people each and every tournament why a Scotland or a Wales team might or might not be playing, or why Caroline Weir isn't capped for England. But I never have to explain to anyone what the UNDRIP is or why it was important to ratify it.
Anyway, I think our underlying disagreement is that you would like, most of the time, for articles on living or recently deceased people to identify them in the terms by which they would be identified externally using a nationality recognized by the international community. And I would like, most of the time, for BLPs to be identified based on the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, which often depends on the context in which their life is lived. Obviously these preferences lead to the same outcome in the vast majority of instances, but where they differ, they differ. And I'm not sure what you believe about the support in policy text for your preference, but I believe that the status quo ante text was perfectly compatible with mine. Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Newimpartial/Robert Hatch (game designer)" listed at Redirects for discussion
Kolya Butternut - concerning this comment - perhaps you are right, but my intention was not to "split hairs" about language choices. I meant to direct attention away from what an editor unfamiliar with my participation on WT:MOSBIO might imagine it to be, and to look for themselves at what my track record in that venue actually is - devoid of BLUDGEON or other POV-pushing, and also almost entirely innocent of annoyance at other editors along with any other form of personalizing disputes. Feel free to reply here I'd you like.
And concerning this comment, I don't mean to "argue about where a discussion took place". I mean to point out my track record on the specific page for which I am seeking a strictly limited exception. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kolya Butternut, DeCausa and Czello - concerning this series of edits, bludgeoning is defined as when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. ... A person replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". That is not what I am doing in any of my comments at User Talk, as I have stated explicitly here (I am under no illusion of changing your mind), and as I meant to imply here in asking what Ealdgyth meant by productive editing. I didn't mean to try to change any of your opinions about anything, except for this comment reflecting my view that De Causa is not taking into account the opposed views Sideswipe and I have on the issues at stake in MOSBIO when interpreting what she wrote in her support !vote at AN. That is the extent of my attempt at persuasive speech.
What I said here, here and here is not about that at all. I am responding to what I regard as somewhere between misunderstanding and caricature - that I am petitioning "to get back into the topic area on two specific pages just because they really want to", that I am "arguing over the precise location of a dissussion", or that I am proposing that "an exception should be granted just because Newimpartial really wants one". None of these statements reflect my actual contributions to any discussion. I have identified a page and domain in which my contributions - past and present - have been uniformly civil, non-bludgeon-ey, and productive. I have provided receipts from both current and prior discussions outside and inside of GENSEX. I believe that within the context of my editing pattern in 2023, there is no risk of disruption as a result of contributing to GENSEX discussions on the relevant page (or in gnoming GIDINFO). You all disagree, and that is fine - my filing always had a considerable WP:SNOWBALL feel about it, especially given the large number of involved editors who were likely to participate, and I have never been under any particular illusion about the likely outcome. And I have certainly learned from the unfolding process.
But my assertion - backed by diffs, that policy development is an area where I have contributed well both in and out of GENSEX without causing problems, so I think I can help, while it may not be convincing to you, it isn't insincere, "bogus" or contrary to policy or to the logic of the consensus at ANI. I understand that the purpose of a topic ban is to prevent disruption, and I have never disrupted the genre of discussion in which I am asking to participate - not in GENSEX, and not outside of it. DeCausa, I know you believe that "institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow" is not a thing in Wikipedia, and I won't try to convince you otherwise, but my experience tells me the opposite. In the extended discussion here, which became an RFCBEFORE, I feel that I learned a great deal not only about the Notability policy domain but also how to collaborate effectively with editors holding very different views and preconceptions and how to communicate P&G nuance more effectively. That discussion led to this RfC which produced the current WP:SNG subsection. You can tell me I didn't learn anything generalizable in that exercise, just as you can tell me that I didn't learn anything in particular by combing through the prior GENDERID discussions as I gnomed the discussion list (though you'd have to admit that I learned, by trial and error, how to transclude). But my lived experience, and the ways I interact with other editors on P&G pages, tells me otherwise. I'm not pretending that my contribution is necessary or that something will be done "incorrectly" if I'm not there to help. But this is an example of a domain where I bring light and not heat, as a pretty much universal rule. I won't extend this further, and I don't expect this comment to affect the AN discussion - once it closes I will go my way with the many other places I can continue to help the project. But after sitting on the question for a full week, I couldn't satisfy my conscience without making the offer. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey NI, I value your editing and mean this in all good faith, but this is not a good look. It still feels like bludgeoning if you are pinging editors to a conversation rather than engaging on a specified talk page. And while I completely understand the urge to make your point, discretion really is the better part of valor sometimes. I don't think you're likely to change any of these editors' minds (which is not intended as any sort of comment on them, just observation of the human condition). To me (and I may well be wrong), an ideal response to these sorts of posts would be "I disagree with your characterization, but hopefully I can convince you otherwise with my actions." I still support the exception you request, because I believe you are both honestly trying and improving, but I can't say that this level of engagement didn't dampen my enthusiasm a bit. All that said, hope you are well and having a nice weekend. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Impartial, what Dumuzid said. Yesterday, I referred to this/you as "comically incorrigible" in the AN thread. Pinging me from a WP:WALLOFTEXT on your own talk page with a dissection of the wording in WP:BLUDGEON to "prove" that you following me (and others) to my/our talk pages wasn't bludgeoning is...well, I can't get upset about it because I can see you mean well, there's no malice and you're expresing your honestly held view. But, I'm sorry, I can't help finding it very very funny. But really, from your point of view, you've got to get out of this mindset. It's not doing you any good. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! New Impoartial this is a terrible idea. You ask for help in understanding BLUDGEON. I don't know how to do that - obviously there's some sort of deep-seated blind spot - but as a short-term emergency measure I would suggest self-reverting before anyone replies and, as a rule of thumb, if anyone says you are bludgeoning don't reply to them either directly or through pinging them elsewhere etc. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to bludgeon (but not WP:AN)
Well, this has been quite a learning experience for me. I am stumbling towards the realization that, in addition to the meaning of "bludgeoning" delineated at WP:BLUDGEON as an approach to disputes, editors also mean several other things by "bludgeoning", including something like saying too much about a topic and offering unwelcome replies to the comments of others. I will give more thought to this penumbra of "bludgeoning", a set of meanings that I am coming to detect among many editors, and might write a wiki essay about these issues at some point.
As far as But, I'm sorry, I can't help finding it very very funny - that has been relevatory. I haven't been diagnosed with autism (although see here), and I hadn't identified deeply with autistic editors when they remarked on their difficulties navigating wiki culture. But your amused reaction to my blind spots reminds me viscerally of every person I've seen laughing at the difficulties of non-neurotypical people offline as well as online, and reminds me that whatever my motives for not disclosing my diagnoses, clearly non-disclosure doesn't help anything. My further attempts to negotiate the community can only be helped by a more transparent user page, regardless of my fears. Being discounted on the basis of neurodivergence plus nonbinary identity can't be any more damaging than what happens if I try to keep one of my relevant identities in the closet. (And, in the absence of direct questions, I will get back to you in another eight hours or so. :) )Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Brief addendum added byNewimpartial (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaah, that explains things much more. You know, after I wrote that and particularly after you went back today and reoplied to BilledMammal I did start to wonder, but I couldn't see a way of asking you that didn't appear I was ridiculing/persecuting etc I did have a look to see if you'd raised it anywhere but couldn't see anything. In hindsight, everything you've said/done on BLUDGEON now makes total sense. I'm sorry - you must have found all this incredibly difficult and i'm also very sorry for saying I found it funny and that it was comical. That now looks like a terrible thing to say. You're right - BLUDGEON is not necessarly about the strict wording in the essay. Many take a meaning from it which is broader/looser. Part of that is because it's an essay not a policy. I can see it's an elephant trap for the neurodiverse. Declaring neurodiversity won't or at least shouldn't lead to being discounted - but I think it will help these sort of situations. Let me know if there's anything I can do. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who struggles with the tempation to bludgeoning conversations, and a diagnosis dating from childhood, I can understand. The only advice I have is that when you realise you're posting the third or fourth comment in a row, stop. I know it hurts, and leaves your thoughts incomplete, but go and do something else.
Also when it comes to comments by other editors try to take them in the best possible light, this might not be the correct interpretation but it's better than basing assumptions on the wrong interpretation. I've seen several good editors go to the wall because they have been unable to grasp that their understanding is wrong, maybe it was rational and made sense to a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's word salad of policies/guidelines/essays etc, but it wasn't the communities standing on the subject. All those policies are just an attempt at an explanation of what the communities expectations are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Impartial, I reverted you here because someone saying that they want to agree to disagree means the discussion is over. At the AN thread, the opposes on the ground that you are bludgeoning that thread are rolling in. You should not post anything more to that thread even if you think it's not bludgeoning. I think it's clear that your request won't get consensus agreement but I think you're now running the risk of further sanction. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, except that I had read your "agree to disagree" as being directed to another editor, not myself. Sigh; another blind spot.
Anyway, thankfully the filing is closed now, and I trust that a mention of that here can't be said to "bludgeon" a closed discussion. I regret wasting editors' time, but I did learn a great deal, and there has to be some improvement aleady in my *not* having the most comments in the discussion, and in being tied for second-most replies to my OP with two other editors. And that was in an unstructured format; clearly it would have better if I had set up a separate section (or used the sectioned discussion set-up like at ARE) and offered only necessary replies in my own section. Hopefully I won't need to use that specific insight in future. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thought on that: I think you may trip up if you focus too much on statistics ("I can't be bludgeoning because X has posted more times than me"). I think people feel bludgeoning rather than identify it analytically. For instance, the nature, tone and content of the posts sometimes comes nto it. It can be a little bit amorphous which I think could make it so difficult for the neurodivergent. DeCausa (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly agree on that last point. And one good thing about my anti-bludgeoning restriction (as opposed to the fishbowl in general) is that it is not subjective in that sense - the only question that has arisen in its application is whether commenting in reaction to a discussion in another location counts as "contributing" to a discussion. Now that I know how editors feel about that, I can avoid inadvertently provoking them. So long as I remain very strict about what counts as a "direct question" or a "very brief clarification" (the latter of which I see mostly as a limited license for refactoring), there isn't really any likelihood that I'll run afoul of the restriction.
Now as far as what editors feel to be bludgeoning (as opposed to what WP:BLUDGEON says), as I have mentioned, I feel an eventual essay coming on. I don't actually see very much agreement within the community - outside of the stricter definition in BLUDGEON, some editors tend to point to number of replies, others I'm sure are influenced by length of reply, and still others are probably as much impacted by tone as anything else.
But when it comes to my understanding of why my restriction was placed, the expressed rationale was really all about disruption, which is a different concept. Is the behaviour described in WP:BLUDGEON disruptive? Absolutely. Is it disruptive to have the most replies in a particular discussion? I think it depends. Is it disruptive to have the longest replies in a particular discussion (if they are not textbook bludgeon and there aren't especially many of them)? Again, I think it depends.
To me, there is a meaningful difference between engaging with !voters at an RfC (typically disruptive) and participating in a discernment process à la SNG RFCBEFORE (not necessarily disruptive). Uncharitable editors can obviously cite evidence that shows up on one metric - like number or length of edits - as evidence, when they know how they feel about an editor's history and what they're guilty of. And few editors - even Admin - are able to evaluate the edits of an editor when they are in agreement on a topic the same way they would when they disagree, even when the objective factors are the same. (I have one really clear example of this from my "hearing" at ANI - with truly marginal exceptions, those who had issue with my contributions in prior ANIs as "bludgeon" were almost exclusively editors who had disagreed with me in those ANIs, while those who had agreed with me did not see significant issues - and this from a broader population where the overall support for my substantive positions in those discuasions was near enough 50%).
So I will continue to work at discerning the spirit of bludgeon while I continue to follow the changes, in relation to reflective time, respect for editors, and tone, to which I am committed. I know I expressed (obliquely) some frustration with my overall Kafkaesque situation in my comments in User Talk space, and quite apart from any rules or consequences I can see how unhelpful that was just as part of my Dasein on-wiki. Having noticed that, I hope that add that to the list of things I won't re-enact. Thanks for your accidental contribution to my trajectory, and rest assured that I won't ping you here in that way again. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idea board for participation in on-wiki discussions
(Others may add to this as they like, but I will be editing it as a bulleted list per WP:OWNTALK, rather than maintaining it as an indented discussion).
Best practices (for me) for on-wiki discussion:
make infrequent rather than frequent contributions to Talk discussions;
make standalone commments as much as possible (or self-replies), rather than direct dialog;
break off commenting and reflect when it becomes clear that my perspective is not widely shared;
consider carefully that each comment contributes directly to the health of the encyclopaedia, rather than simply expressing my view;
take a generous amount of time before deciding whether, where and how to make new contributions to any discussion;
ask the question, "would the editor in question be likely to interpret my question or comment as helpful", before replying or initiating conversation with any editor;
interpret any editor's suggestion that I am (or have been) bludgeoning as an indication that they are not interested in any further reply I may have.
That's a start, anyway. Some of these will undoubtedly seem painfully obvious to page lurkers,
but that is kind of the point. My experience to date with blind spots tells me that there is no painless way to name and tame them, and that the best I can do is (1) to minimize the collaroral impact on others as I do the work and (2) to stick to the process through the discomfort until I have insights I can use.
(Section created by Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC), and subsequently modified.)[reply]
Maintain an off-wiki document for draft comments - write immediate responses, and then let the comments marinate as a discussion continues. Later review, edit, and maybe post a summary comment about key points in the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please self revert
This is a violation of your topic ban. You've been doing a great job sticking it out, so please don't muck it up now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion as an administrator that I am banned from introducing in discussion - without any commentary on the topic - my understanding of a comment directed at a group to which I belong? Should I retract, then, and seek an exemption at WP:AN?
I have seen many editors, in the Roxy discussion, the TT discussions, and elsewhere, distinguish between the discussion of GENSEX topics and of the conduct of editors to each other (with the latter not being subject to a topic ban). Is it your opinion that the community does not make such a distinction? Because my intention in that diff is only to communicate the effect of those comments on me, personally, as an editor. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking part in a discussion explicitly involving topic banning another editor from GENSEX. That is an unambiguous violation. Please self-revert, and if you'd like to ask for an exemption at AE, go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have self-reverted; I'll file at AN once I can pull together an appropriate template to distinguish INVOLVED from UNINVOLVED interventions.
In the mean time, I am curious why you think it is an "unambiguous violation". I didn't venture an opinion on the TBAN whatsoever - my comment didn't refer to any ban at all, and the question of "how attacked editors feel about Roxy" would have to do with the CBAN proposal rather than a TBAN.
I didn't think a topic ban from GENSEX was intended to prevent a topic-banned editor from commenting on attacks on them related in some way to the topic of the ban. Would someone topic-banned from Israel-Palestine be prevented from commenting about the use of the term "Zionist" in a diff of questionable civility? I have trouble seeing it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans cover all pages and discussions related to the topic area. See WP:TBAN (you can replace "weather" with "gender-related" or even "LGBT" if it helps). To your last question, yes, that would also be a tban violation. Hope this clears things up (and thanks for reverting first and seeking clarification afterward). – bradv 23:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that comment were in a discussion about topic banning someone from IP, it would also be an unambiguous violation. I'm not sure how better to explain how it's unambiguous other than pointing out that it's a discussion actively discussing an editor being topic banned from GENSEX. It's obvious on its face.
I'm really not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just interested in not seeing another editor blocked or stuck with a longer topic ban than they would otherwise have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer this question, it isn't a topic ban violation to report personal attacks from a transphobic user. To answer your other question, I think it's safe to say you should avoid editing in or commenting about the GENSEX topic area altogether. Of course, as ScottishFinnishRadish said, you can always try to get your topic ban amended. Cheers, Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for further clarifications
Thanks to each of you for your considerate replies, to which I have given considerable thought. Bradv, I hear what you are saying but I don't see anything in WP:TBAN that either states or implies that a topic ban applies to the discussion of editor conduct. I understand that some editors feel that the "broadly construed" aspect of a TBAN covers any adjacent content (e.g., the explanation by ScottishFinnishRadish, above, that I should not participate in part of a discussion concerning a CBAN because another part of the same discussion contemplates a TBAN on the same topic from which I was banned). But I have seen other editors who distinguish between the topic under dispute that is covered by a TBAN and matters concerning personal attacks and attacks on editors based on their inherent traits, which may not be part of the topic itself (such as the close of the discusion on which I attempted to comment - by El_C, here). In my draft comment I think I was quite careful to comment only on the impact of Roxy's comment as I understand it, and not at all on GENSEX issues.
I don't find Topic bans cover all pages and discussions related to the topic area to be all that helpful, because the question I am trying to get at is what counts as "related". For example, consider the plausible scenario that another editor might hurl transphobic invective at me once again.
We have a TBAN appeal currently under development by an editor who received the in question, in significant part, as a result of referring to me (known to him to be a nonbinary editor) as "it". - Do I have to go to AN for an exemption to my sanction of I want to comment on that one - is the contribution of that editor's conduct to my sense of safety as a nonbinary contributor a "GENSEX issue", rather than one of straightforward editor condict, UCoC security and respect?
This may he my neurodivergent traits giving me trouble, but it seems as though, as Admins, your recommendations imply that, as a nonbinary editor banned from the GENSEX topic, I should consider myself topic-banned from editing any page in which the word "nonbinary" or "transgender" appears, including my own User page. And perhaps also that I am not supposed to talk about the impact on me when other editors cast aspersions upon myself and other editors because of our gender identities. Under such circumstances, it doesn't seem in any way healthy for me to continue editing enwiki, and I have trouble reconciling this Kafkaesque scenario with the comportment expected of editors under the UCoC. I have lots of wiki-interests that have nothing at all to do with "LGBT issues", but I have found it challenging to pursue those with any enthusiasm while feeling vulnerable at all times to transphobic invective without community recourse.
Yes, until a few months ago, I used to bludgeon discussions from time to time (principally at RSN or at dramaboards, but sometimes elsewhere) and yes, my behaviour was disruptive (both inside and outside of contentious topics). I get that. I have gone to some lengths to figure out what was wrong with my behaviour, to it change and to ensure that I maintain the change. I have done that in spite of what I see as an environment of continuing hostility towards editors like me. Having three administrators show up on my page to give me three different and conflicting accounts of how I am not allowed to comment on my own experience of hostility from personal attacks made by other editors - well, that is really hard information to process constructively, and it doesn't feel like proportionality or due process.
So I would like to know whether the Kafkaesque situation I have described in relation to editor conduct is really the way Wikipedia works, so I can make some kind of grounded assessment of whether it is at all safe to be here. At the moment, based on my experience on-wiki since I came out as nonbinary, my suspicion is that it is a dangerously hostile environment. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ping Nythar as well; that somehow seems to have ended up on the editing-room floor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So first of all, I am not familiar with the background of your particular case, so forgive my ignorance on that part of this discussion. I just came here from the Roxy thread, where I promptly crossed wires with SFR.
The simple answer to most of your questions about the scope of the ban is in the "broadly construed" language we use consistently when describing these bans. Topic bans are not meant to have hard lines or firm rules – they are meant to create distance between you and the topic area. If it helps you to think of this visually, a topic ban is not like your neighbour's fence that you can still peer over or reach across. Instead it's packing up and moving to a new town, where you can gain some new experiences and make some new friends. And then, when you're older, wiser, and able to get past the issues that caused you to move away in the first place, you can move back.
Again, I haven't read everything in your history so I don't know if someone explained this already to you, but the point of a topic ban is to disengage completely and move on to a different topic area in order that, when it comes time to appeal, you can show evidence of your ability to work collaboratively with others. We have millions of articles, most of which have nothing to do with GENSEX controversies, and they could all use someone with your talents and experience. My advice: delete your watchlist, find some queue to work through, and come back to this in six months. (If you're looking for a suggestion the 4 month AfC queue is down to fewer than 100 articles!)
I just want to address your last comment briefly by saying this: 5 years ago, I couldn't have told you the name of a single LGBTQ+ editor on Wikipedia. I'm sure there were just as many then as there are now, but they didn't feel comfortable sharing that part of their life with this website. That has changed, drastically and for the better. Unfortunately, a small number of people are having trouble adjusting, and we as a community are working through that together. Please be patient – there is much to celebrate, but still much to do and to learn. Plus, hopefully, by avoiding GENSEX articles for the near future, you will also be able to avoid the people that make you feel unsafe.
I really hope this helps. – bradv 02:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I understand what GENSEX articles are, and I stay away from them (the only problem I had in these months was the Gamergate article, where I didn't see a notice on the page, commented on a non-GENSEX aspect of the text, and self-reverted when my error was pointed out to me).
I also know that any GENSEX ban includes editing related to GENSEX issues outside of GENSEX articles as well. Where it comes to Article space and Talk space, I haven't had any trouble recognizing and staying out of GENSEX material: I have followed the advice to disengage completely and move on to a different topic area and will continue to do so as long as I am banned. I am in fact editing productively in other areas, including policy pages, Talk discussions on other contentious issues, and in Article space, and have observed both topic and bludgeon bans (as described here) with general success. And I have in fact deleted from my Watchlist all pages that are related to the GENSEX topic (whether strictly "GENSEX pages" or not).
So, Bradv, my question isn't about GENSEX pages or discussions of GENSEX topics in relation to pages that are not themselves GENSEX. I get that I am banned from these topics "broadly construed", and I have no interest in finding edge cases. I am taking a full break from them.
But my gender identity as a nonbinary person, which I have publicly disclosed onwiki for a couple of years now, is not a "GENSEX issue", and it doesn't make sense to me to have to go to AN for permission to object when another editor attacks me on that basis, whether as an individual or among a group of editors. I don't want to interact with editors on the basis of GENSEX topics, but I don't have the ability to control what other editors will do in relation to my nonbinary identity. And if, for example, I am not allowed to weigh in on whether or not I would prefer GoodDay to have an IBAN from me if his TBAN is lifted - when the Admin rationale for not giving him a 1-way IBAN when his TBAN was imposed was that GoodDay's TBAN would, essentially, prevent them from repeating his attacks on me or other nonbinary editors - well, I don't think I ought to be excluded from sharing my perspective on un-banning conditions because I need to "take a break" from the topic of gender. My gender identity, and how other editors treat me on the basis of that gender identity, isn't something I can "take a break" from, and I can't really imagine the community expecting Jewish editors not to communicate how another editor referring to "Zionist hounding" makes them feel on-wiki, even if they have been banned from the Israel-Palestine topic.
And by the way, I don't expect you to know the background, but the collapsed section above gives a brief account of my (initially 1-way) IBAN, which was a bit of a comedy of errors and certainly a traumatic experience, though it was rectified somewhat in the end. My current TBAN came from this sprawling discussion, which happened as a direct result of my bludgeoning an RSN discussion (for the last though not the first time) about anarchist collectives as sources. That was one of very few times - over many years, on any topic - that I have disagreed with a clear consensus as it formed onwiki, and I would never express that kind of stubborn resistance again. Looking back on it now, the ANI discussion consisted largely in editors - many of whom I had disagreed with on GENSEX topics, where my view aligned with the community's view and theirs did not - trying to fit a bludgeon-shaped "peg" into a TBAN-shaped "hole". Anyway, I have fully internalized both sanctions as best I can; the present discussion about editor behaviour strikes me as something else entirely.Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that if you are attacked based on your gender expression, or any other trait, you can always report that. In a situation where you observe someone making blatant attacks, you can report that as well. If you're unsure if something is a "blatant attack," you can email an administrator, including myself, to take a look. Your topic ban in no way forces you to stand by and take that shit quietly.
When it comes to community discussions about GENSEX topics, including topic bans of other users, that is covered by the topic ban, because it's not just your behavior around articles that was seen as disruptive by the community, but your behavior in the entire topic. A discussion about topic banning or community banning an editor started because of their comments in the GENSEX topic area is covered by your topic ban because it is clearly tied to the topic. I wouldn't see reporting a statement like zionist hounding or similar as a topic ban violation, but joining a discussion in process is a violation. I would recommend that if you see an attack that doesn't target you personally and report it that you immediately disengage after the report and let the community handle it, or if it isn't immediately pressing, just email an administrator.
On the topic of GoodDay's appeal, that discussion will likely take place at WP:AE where I believe (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) an admin can give you permission to take part without going through AN, as it would be very helpful context. I also can't see a request to make a statement in such an appeal being denied at WP:AN because of your obvious involvement in the underlying topic ban.
Lastly, I hope my original message here didn't across as a dire warning. I chose the language I used, specifically leaving out the word warning, to try and communicate that this was a friendly reminder/ask, rather than an admin swooping in to lay down the law. I understand where you're coming from with wanting to make a statement, and I really didn't want to see this held against you in the future or for someone to make a report that ended in a formal warning or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another clarification, I can't imagine anyone going after you for violating your anti-bludgeon restriction on your own talk page while seeking clarification from admins, or on your talk page at all, really. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I will take that risk, then, for this one discussion only. It had occured to me at AN to ask whether my Talk could be exempt from the restriction, but (1) I can think of a couple of occasions that could reasonably be described as me bludgeoning my own Talk page (one involving a now-indeffed editor but one with a currently productive contributor) and (2) given mistakes I made when asking for a MOS:BIO exception to the topic ban, when I unintentionally entered into dialogue in User talk that many editors saw as violating the bludgeon ban, I suspect it would be difficult to convince AN that I would not use a User Talk exception to circumvent the spirit of the ban (though now that I am aware of the issue, I won't do that).
Anyway, I will allow myself more flexible responses in this discussion but not elsewhere on this page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was constructing a reply when SFR commented, and honestly everything they said is better than what I drafted. So I'll just leave you with this part, meant as a rhetorical question: Were you to appeal your topic ban, would you want GoodDay commenting on it? – bradv 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is that I would rather Dennis had imposed a one-way IBAN on GoodDay along with his TBAN, as several editors proposed at ARE, so I wouldn't have to worry about it. I didn't (and don't) prefer a two-way IBAN, because my experience is that those are easily gamed (and of course one-way IBANs can be weaponized, but after that having been done to me I would never do that to another editor).
But to get to what I take to be your real point, what matters more to me isn't "who participates" but rather, how are the contributions counted in making the decision? GoodDay has the luxury of an appeal at AE, where Administrators will make the decision and where a fairly clear line is made between involved and uninvolved evidence.
Were I to appeal my ban, I am (according to the banning admin) required to do so at AN. While decisions there are supposed to be made based on the judgment of uninvolved contributors, the appeals I've looked at at AN in the last year, and the resulting closes, haveen't effectively distinguished involved from uninvolved !votes and other comments. (I feel that the same principle should be followed at ANI, but there is clearly no appetite for that.)
So, to take your question a bit too literally, I would be fine for GoodDay to comment on my request in an involved section, as long as the closer were to based their decision on the judgment of uninvolved editors. I would also point out that in my comment on Roxy that provoked this section, I was pretty clear that I was not !voting and that I was simply giving my personal interptetation of Roxy's recent editing history in relation to editors like me (an interptetation that El_C essentially solicited, and which seems confirmed by Roxy's editing history since my comment).
I would also point out that, while a neurotypical person might see it differently, to me there can be a distinction between the contribution of civility "offenders" and of civility "victims", which ought to be relevant to discussionsnof editor conduct. Aside from two now-banned editors, I can't think of anyone who has interpteted my edits as personal attacks, and certainly never as creating a hostile environment for any group of editors. Even when my editing was more "playful" in tone, which I have given up in the new direction I've pursued from just before the BLUDGEON ban, I was always careful not to use loaded terms (even "cis") about my interlocutors and apologized immediately (in real time, not on dramaboards) when I used language that could be misconstrued. So I don't see myself as an "offender" who shouldn't be commenting on the behaviour of other editors, while I put editors like Roxy and GoodDay in a potentially different category - we are all responsible for our own actions, and my actions were certainly disruptive, but not all disruptive actions are the same.
I suppose that last paragraph doesn't really matter much to anything, except that the parallel you have drawn between my TBAN and GoodDay's rankles a bit. I wasn't banned for attacking other editors or for editing against consensus in a contentious topic area - I was banned for not knowing when to stop contributing and to pull away from discussions, because that was a pattern and had been disruptive. If anything, I suspect that two pre-2023 discussions that I bludgeoned (the more recent Athaenara CBAN discussion at ANI and the long-ago J.K. Rowling lead discussion) had left a lasting "impression" among certain editors and just in themselves made it easy to find that I had left a pattern of disruption. I think it is quite safe to say that I haven't made *any* disruptive edits on Wikipedia that could not have been prevented by my anti-bludgeon restriction (rightly understood). Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one real question in this reply, and that question seems rhetorical. The adversarial nature of ANI is difficult to deal with, and without spending days researching editor interactions, no closer can rightly be expected to know the interaction history of each editor in a large thread. That said, as someone who closes some discussions on ANI, I do look at the interactions between the editors as much as I can without getting paid for research and analysis, and pay attention to both adversaries and allies, and take that into account when weighing responses.
One of the issues that arises is that the people involved in a topic area are the ones that are most aware of any disruption, and those that interact with other users are the ones most likely to note if their behavior is disruptive. A second issue is that it is incredibly difficult to get uninvolved input, as most editors don't really care to spend time outside of their wheelhouse. In almost any ANi thread there is a pyramid, where the most valuable but smallest share of the input is fully uninvolved editors. The next tier which isn't quite as valuable, but is larger is those who are somewhat involved in the topic area, but not with the underlying dispute. Then the lion's share, and least valuable for determining community consensus are those who are involved in the dispute. I don't know that there's a fix for this.
Lastly, I only mentioned GoodDay as you brought up wishing to be involved in an appeal. I was just noting that at AE it wouldn't require the full AN thread, and at AN I don't think you'd have much trouble getting the OK to make a statement. I did not compare your situation and theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SFR. I'm afraid that the threading may have fooled you, but the comment to which you replied (including the parallel you have drawn bit) was a respnse to Bradv. My reply to your comment was above (and only concerned OWNTALK BLUDGEON, not the actual issues I've raised in the section).
I do appreciate your account of how you approach the challenge of closing at ANI. I just find that the AE/ARE structure basically works, and the AN/ANI unstructured approach basically doesn't work (and this was my perception long before this year). The AE/ARE process relies on INVOLVED editors for evidence but uninvolved Admin judgement for resolution. ANI and AN, by contrast, typically devolve mostly to !vote counting, as I've see it happen, without any serious effort to sift through contributions based on involvement. (Involvement taking three forms, I think: editors showing up to support their friends, editors showing up to punish their enemies, and editors showing up to punish their "opponents" on a specific topic. The ANI discussions that I have read have mostly been resolved based on how many editors show up from each of those three groups. I really think that requiring editors to place themselves as "involved" or "uninvolved" would go a long way to placing contributors in relation to those groups.)
Anyway, you're right that my reply to Bradv didn't ask a clear question. I suppose my question is, isn’t it better *not* to consider issues of editor conduct to be part of the topic of a TBAN, so long as editors confine themselves to personal statements of how they have been/are affected and refrain from arguing about the CTOP itself? It seems to me that the interptetations you three have offered imply that editors who are topic banned from discussions of social attributes on the basis of which they have been victimized must be (somehow deserve to be?) victimized again by being excluded from community processes that directly affect their onwiki safety and security. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFC?
FOARP - I have asked a question at the Village Pump but have not opened an RfC; I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. I have simply asked other editors what they understsnd the status quo to be, and I even went so far as to request threaded discussion rather than !votes.
While I strongly suspect that this is simply yet another instance of activated neurodivergence on my part, I did go to some lengths to clarify what I intended to do, and find it quite difficult to have been misunderstood in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your topic ban
Hi there. If you don't want to hear from me that's totally fine -- remove this section and I won't take offense and I won't say another word.
I saw the recent discussion and it got me wondering -- when will you appeal the ban? I think 6 months has passed, and I think that was the initial duration. I wanted to say that I voted for the ban initially, but if you appealed now (or in the future) I'd vote to repeal it. There're multiple reasons for this, which I'd spell out in my eventual statement, but the main two are that enough time has elapsed and that my view on the matter has softened. I'm sure there's plenty we might not agree upon, but I do think you're ultimately a good editor and indefinite doesn't mean infinite. Hope you're well. — Czello(music) 21:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Czello, truly. I do intend eventually to appeal the TBAN (for "time served") while leaving the bludgeon ban in place - I think this is the approach that has the greatest net benefit for the community.
However, I am still looking for the best time to do so: there are one or two article space contributions I mean to make first, the Notability policy space keeps having tremblors that I find unpredictable, and there are occasional external impingements in my life - most recently from Covid but also more often from neurodivergence-related phenomena. So finding what feels like "a good time" to appeal seems like an n-dimensional chess problem at the moment. I trust that, sometime before the end of the calendar year, this will no longer be the case.
Thanks again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the end of the calendar year, it seems, and more likely a full year after the ban was placed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned you at ANI, sorry
This is just to let you know that you are mentioned in the ANI report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XMcan_stirring_up_trouble. I apologise if this creates any additional unwanted drama for you but I think this might be the only way to put a stop to the disruption. Please feel free to comment, or not, as you see fit. DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Leonard Balsera" listed at Redirects for discussion
While I had you mentally categorized as a generally balanced and grounded editor, this filing - which includes an obvious error in counting my discussion contributions in relation to my BLUDGEON ban - encourages me to revise that perception; this situation is exacerbated by an addendum where you add a diff from more than 24 hours after the first diff. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
I am going to try and be as tactful as I can and I do not mean you any disrespect but you need to drop the stick. As a PTSD sufferer, I'm well aware that Wikipedia can be a hostile place for people with mental health issues or personality issues. I've often felt like some people see it as a bloodsport to refer to them as often and as painfully as possible. Which is why when I saw your excessive posting at WP:BLPN and the notices you put on your talk page, I chose not to report it as I could have. When someone else reported it at ANI, I made sure to oppose any proposed sanction. My view that you transgressed your restriction is not unique, I just don't see it as requiring a sanction and don't feel the need to document it. Your posts were excessive and Thomas trying to be helpful responded to you, which was then held up as an example of Thomas posting excessively. I was trying to defend both of you and I was not being uncivil toward you. You are trying to refute an argument I didn't want to make in the first place. WCMemail 21:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment here. There is a formal definition of excessive in the context of my posting on Talk pages - it means making more than two posts within the same Talk section within a 24 hour period, not counting posts where I answer a question asked of me directly. I simply have not violated this restriction, and no editor has presented evidence that I have. Therefore, per WP:ASPERSIONS, you should not make unfounded statments about my editing (or that of any other editor). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RPG stuff
Hi there, I hope you are well. :) I'm not sure if you are still interested in RPG articles anymore, but I'm just letting you know that I'm done for now working on the game designer drafts that you started a few years ago. I did a little bit with each of them, but left several in your user space. I was able to start full articles for Bruce Baugh, Luke Crane (game designer), Andrew Bates (game designer), Shannon Appelcline, and Allen Hammack. :) If you think you might want to work more on RPG articles one day then you will always be welcome to return, but if not then I want you to know that I for one have appreciated your contributions. :) BOZ (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BOZ, for your hard work on those articles - Like Crane especially, which was a ridiculous gap in coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, and of course. :) I'll be here doing my thing until I'm not anymore. :D BOZ (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please look at this diff again. There was no content deleted. It was copyediting and converting the references to the ref format. --Notgain (talk) Notgain (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you removed a lot of wikilinks, and moved the topic sentence of the first paragraph so it is obscured by a definition. I don't see how either of those changes can be seen as an improvement. And moving references to a separate section isn't going to be widely accepted as an improvement, either, I think. But a discussion of your proposals on the article Talk page might offer a constructive way forward. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Newimpartial for your message. Please discuss further if you have any issue. I was in middle of upgrading to the new sfn format. I needed to do that to make the citations more manageable. That section is done now. At the moment, the references are unmanageable and difficult to edit. see Help:Overview_of_referencing_styles --Notgain (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment on your talk: your "work" has removed all wikilinks in the section you were working on. Please fix it. Newimpartial (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't realise that. I thought you were referring to the citations. I'm restoring now but will make it easier to maintain in future. --Notgain (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits on Modernism
Hello. You reverted one of my edits on the Modernism article. I'm currently actively engaged in improving that page. The change you reverted was done because the quote cited does not actually exhist on the page it pointed to ('Social change' from Encyclopedia Britannica Online). I kept the intention of the sentence intact while attaching another, more appropirate quotation from Britannica's article on 'Modernism (art)', which in any case I believe is more appropriate as it actually concernts the topic in question.
I will be continuing to make edits to the Modernism article in effort to get it to a state where the current issue tag can be removed. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there. I have fixed the issue with the former quote - at some point a reference to the wrong Brittanica article was added.
Also, I support enwiki improvements of all kinds, but adding a quote to the opening paragraph of Modernism treating it as a reaction to "Victorianism" strikes me as WP:UNDUE and rather parochial - if the quote belongs anywhere in the arricle, it certainly isn't in the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parochial? The quote is directly out of the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the subject. If you have a disagreement with it, it's with them, not me. It's perfectly valid to use, as Encyclopedia Britannica is an authoritative source. I have thus added it again, while also keeping your updated one intact. Please do not remove again, or I will be forced to seek arbitration. I think we both want to improve this article, but we are literally using citations from the same source, just different articles, and the one I'm using is actually called "Modernism". And actually, come to think of it, I read the article you are citing and, while that line is present, it's not even referencing modernism in particular, just talking about social structure in general. So not sure why you believe its inclusion is somehow more integral than, once again, a citation specifically from the actual article on modernism. Despite this, I'm leaving your citation in. Maybe you didn't notice it, but another editor tried to remove the line you want in completely because, as they correctly noted, the citation has absolutely nothing to do with modernism. I am actually bending my back a little bit to keep it in for you, so I hope you can be satisfied with this compromise. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Victorian" is specific to the UK (and by extension to the former British Empire). The term therefore does not apply to the context that produced modernism in general, which was mostly not UK-centric (with a minor exception for literary modernism, in which the UK was important, but not so in visual arts, or music, or architecture - at least not at the time of its emergence). A sentence about Modernism in a good source does not automatically deserve inclusion in an article's lead paragraph, which is where you put it. If you want another Brittanica quote in the lead paragraph, I suggest you chose something less parochial in content.
As far as the quote about social organization/social change is concerned, (i) I didn't put it there; (ii) it was added by another editor who found the term social organization to be jargon. The quote was therefore added by that editor to solve a problem - according to the sources on Modernism (and the enwiki article), social experimentation (mostly utopian in one form or another, but sometimes more purely critical) was an important thread of Modernism. The quote seemed to the other editor to be an effective way to include this thread in the lead paragraph. I did not disageee, though I am quite open to other ways of achieving similar inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Mr. UnderhiIl in case he hasn't yet seen this objection to his "Victorian" addition. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concern (although the British Empire did loom large in the world at the time), so I changed the passage to 'Philosophy, politics, architecture, and social issues were also aspects of the movement, which arose from a "growing alienation" from prevailing "...morality, optimism, and convention and sought to change how human beings in a society interact and live together".' I think this still retains the essential meaning while de-emphasizing Victorian England and offering the suggestion similar developments were occurring elsewhere. I hope this is a workable compromise for all. Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am fine with that. I also recognize that there is a sort of NPR usage of "Victorian morality" in the US that isn't supposed to be about the UK. But given that first-wave modernism was centered in the US, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and even Russia in various fields more than it was in the UK, I think it is best not to give even a hint of UK-centrism on this topic. Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm going to continue to slowly work though the article every day so that tag gets removed and maybe all the noobs editing it get redirected elsewhere (yeah I'm a noob too but I've done at least a bit of editing before on other wikis). Mr. UnderhiIl (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Oh no, don't delete your comments, they were good! Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under a unique restriction that limits my contributions to any one discussion to two comments in a 24-hour period - I wasn't paying attention to the clock today.
Replies to direct questions are exempt, though, so if you were to ask me, "Newimpartial, what do you think?" In that discussion, I could work my material back in before 5 hours from now. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. LOL. Would you likely have page stalkers who would use this discussion as an excuse to create drama for you if I did just that? Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you did exactly what I said, word for word? Quite possibly. But other editors have defibitely asked me direct questions on purpose so they didn't have to wait 24 hours for my reply. My intuition is that a rhetorical question would produce drama and a sincere question would not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe best just to wait five hours. I think I've given the fanboys plenty to chew on for that long. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol at this edit, from an editor whose primary recent concern is to move consensus so that the Deep State in the United States is no longer considered a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat amused that the reaction for me asking for examples of other academics with paragraphs like that on WP was to completely change the topic to something entirely tendentious, claiming that the edits being discussed were vague and far-reaching. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take, btw, is that while my application of 3RRBLP was not unanimously well-received, there is also pretty wide support for the application of WP:ONUS/WP:BLPRESTORE to this material. There is clearly no consensus for its continued inclusion, and the argument that "it was in the status quo therefore editors can filibuster to keep it in its current state indefinitely" represents a small minority view.
That said, my take is also that the best practice is to distil something from the concessions made to JP's work by decent sources, as to his "contributions", and to strive for consensus for something decently sourced by the time protection expires. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
I have made clear that I want to improve the tone of a sentence in the article, and that I'm trying to separate the content and wording to follow policy and be as objective and neutral as possible. When you said:
"I would point the editors here to the discussion at article Talk, in which one editor has gone to some lengths to refute the critique published in SBM. Meanwhile the editor who opened this section is proposing article language inplying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kulldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus."
My statement:
"This topic is clearly disputed between researchers, and factually the rephrasing I did is accurate, more neutral, and less judgmental."
Was meant to indicate that this back and forth exchange is a dispute between researchers. Kulldorff was a researcher before this who worked at some fairly large institutions, and while I believe he is wrong here, this is a dispute between him and the broader scientific community. (I'm personally very disappointed, as I make tremendous use of his software SaTScan in my professional research, and only learned of this controversy after making the page for it.) Therefore, I believe while his views should not be given weight, the existence of his publication should be neutral, and the criticism of the publication should be attributed to the author of the publication. I have edited the Bigfoot page a bit, and defended the use of the words "dubious evidence" by adding several sources. I attributed more detailed opinions in block quotes on that page. This is how good, non-biased, writing is supposed to look as far as I've been trained.
I stated my position here:
"Attributing the fact, that Kulldorff published an essay, followed by an expert rebuttal of that essay, is not giving "equal validity" to a fringe position, it is just reflecting reality."
This is an attempt to make me appear bias and move the conversation away from the content of what is said to my personal beliefs and motivation for why I want a change. I completely reject the assertation that I have implied Kulldorff "should have the same weight as the scientific consensus." As you have kept up with the conversation, I believe this should be fairly clear, and going back to the first thing I posted, where I was trying to indicate that the back and forth between the two publications should be attributed to them, rather then stated without a citation in Wikivoice. As I clarified this within the conversation (noted above), you are "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they meant something they did not." I believe you would only make this accusation because you believe it is an example "impropriety," which is a serious accusation. I consider being associated with "anti-vaccination arguments" for a simple matter of tone dispute, not content, as a "personal attack" to dismiss or discredit my arguments based on your interpretation of my views or intentions. At the very least, it does not appear to be assuming good faith when I sought additional eyes from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This does not appear to be civil in my opinion. Sorry for the wall of text, and thank you for preposing an alternative wording. That is more then I can say for many others, and what I was ultimately hoping for in the talk pages. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there. For clarity, the statement I made referring to your position was, the editor who opened this section is proposing article language inplying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kulldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus. The proposal I was referring to was this one, which says in part, In December 2021 Kuldorff published an essay ... This essay was criticized by....
As I said in my initial reply, I don't think the proposed revision is compliant with wikipedia policy - it takes a BOTHSIDESIST "he said ... but others say ..." approach to questions that are actually settled by science. Your revised proposal still made the initial statement, Kulldorff published an essay ... that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies, which IMO continues to fall afoul of the point I made in my most recent comment/proposal: it doesn't make clear that Kulldorff's essay hasn't just been criticized - it made statements that run directly counter to the scientific consensus around Covid and vaccines. In wikispeak, that version still presents "fact" as "opinion" in the way it presents information; I understand that the descriptive writing you are accustomed to differs from what enwiki tends to regard as best practice, and I sincerely believe that my latest proposal comes much closer to "the wiki way" than either the status quo text or anything you have proposed on Talk does.
As far as quoting you out of context - I'm sorry you feel I did that, but I'm not sure where you think that happened. I certainly have not speculated or implied anything about your personal beliefs and motivation as you say here, nor have I associated you with any anti-vaccination arguments besides the ones presented by Kulldorff on Covid vaccines for children. I am somewhat at a loss why you think I have done so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to do this full undo
This diff on NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view&curid=4710468&diff=1227417402&oldid=1227416825 I don't know if you meant to wipe your whole reply. Only as you raise valid points that I wanted to address on time factors and facts versus opinions and other factors. — Masem (t) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, because I didn't wait out my 24-hour "anti-bludgeon" clock. But I should be ok to restore it now. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
"that the consensus of WP:RS, especially WP:HQRS, supports all of these as being objectively valid statements"
You refer to both in the same breath, so what does HQRS mean to you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the talk page at NPOV is a mess, and with the continued bludgeoning by Dominic, I give up. The levels have all been changed, and the huge amount of text and refactoring of other's comments just fucks it all up. I can't make heads or tails of it. I'll limit my contributions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am basically using RS to mean "run of the mill sources we use that are typically independent and secondary" and HQRS to mean "especially high-quality, often academic sources". Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if that meaning were clarified somewhere. I think it has value. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Sorry I deleted you comment at NPOVN, I certainly didn't mean to. I'm sure it should have warned me about a conflicting edit. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The various tools to edit Talk don't always play nicely together. :) Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
August 2024
Over at New Left, I restored someone's additions to the "see also" section. You removed them because of a supposed lack of reliable sources. This was only specified after multiple other ambiguous statements of yours had been directly addressed. I cite MOS:SEEALSO:
Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
Please explain your reasoning. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's start with the link you added to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - I haven't seen any good sources connecting the New Left to that conspiracy theory in either direction. Why would you see that link as relevant and helpful for readers? Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are various sources doing so, and AFAIK I do not have to invoke them at all right now. The comparative relevance is fairly common sense. I'll consider adding the same links to Freudomarxism and maybe - likely with an invisible comment explaining further - even Woke.
I find these kinds of disputes over the very smallest of edits extremely troubling. Be careful about the way in which you set the burden of proof if your editing is not supposed to be seen as tendentious. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding links from an historical topic to articles on contemporary conspiracy theories and culture war tropes does not strike me as constructive editing.
If you are concerned about one-sided editing of sensitive articles, though, I suggest consulting the neutral point of view noticeboard, where editors might be found with experience in such questions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Bienvenido a Wikipedia. He notado que tu nombre de usuario, " Newimpartial ", puede no cumplir con la política de nombres de usuario de Wikipedia porque podría interpretarse como un nombre de usuario engañoso. Si crees que tu nombre de usuario no viola nuestra política, deja una nota aquí explicando por qué. Como alternativa, puedes solicitar un cambio de nombre de usuario completando este formulario , o simplemente puedes crear una nueva cuenta para editar. Sé que has estado aquí por un tiempo, pero solo quería informarte que tu nombre de usuario podría interpretarse como uno que viola la política de nombres de usuario como un nombre de usuario engañoso. No hay riesgo de UAA por mi parte, solo te hago saber que otros podrían no ser tan generosos. Kirbanzo ( discusión ) 02:17, 29 de agosto de 2018 (UTC) 
La página de índice de Dragon https://annarchive.com/dragon.html parece estar rota, pero existen los enlaces, por ejemplo https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg126.pdf. No creo que se pueda buscar, así que habrá que buscar a la antigua usanza, buscando más o menos en la época en que se lanzó la cosa y haciendo muchos clics y leyendo. Estoy haciendo ping a BOZ, que escribe más artículos sobre juegos antiguos en una semana que la mayoría de la gente en toda su vida, así que este sitio podría serle de gran utilidad. -- GRuban ( discusión )
Por cierto, he notado , y he apreciado, que tanto tú como User:BOZ me enviáis regularmente mensajes de agradecimiento mientras lo hago, y admito que han sido incentivos regulares para seguir trabajando! No, no puedo garantizar que funcione para GURPS WW2, es posible que me canse del rol por un tiempo. -- GRuban ( discusión ) 18:13, 31 de marzo de 2021 (UTC) 
Actualmente hay una discusión en Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de administradores/Incidencias sobre un problema en el que usted puede haber estado involucrado. Gracias. Binksternet ( discusión ) 18:03 7 ago 2021 (UTC) 
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)
The redirect Newimpartial/Robert Hatch (game designer) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 7 § Newimpartial/Robert Hatch (game designer) until a consensus is reached. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
