Welcome!
Hello, Clicriffhard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
The Rambling Man (
talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Sorry I missed your message; I'm semi-retired and can't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I would like. Do feel free to let me know if I can be of any future assistance; if you'd like Jason Steele (footballer born 1990) moved to Jason Steele (footballer), I'd be more than happy to facilitate that.
Cheers! — madman bum and angel 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the Louis Laing article now exists in article space, and you have a duplicate in your userspace at User:Clicriffhard/Louis Laing. Could you please blank your one and replace the content with {{db-u1}}. No point in having it 2 places. Thanks.--Club Oranje T 10:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Todd Kane, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- 93.209.78.210 ( talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Williams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Jordan Pickford. JohnCD ( talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and I do apologise for not checking the article history to see who was actively involved in maintaining the page and speaking to them first. However, no, I don't think I should have done the work myself, though if I'd known of an easy reliable source to link to as a general source, I'd have been happy to do that. The problem is, consensus at WP:FOOTY is that Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source, because they still accept user submissions for facts, and user-generated info isn't reliable. WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
...for all the work you do in maintaining the England under-age football team pages, and for your remarkable tolerance towards people who come blundering in... Much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-21 football team, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serravalle and Michael Keane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Clicriffhard,
Updated Lewis Baker (footballer) for his Chelsea Goal of the Year and Young Player of the Year awards. If they don't belong as they are not league honours, my apologies and feel free to remove them.
EDIT: References added. Linked the video on Chelsea FC's official YouTube channel containing their awards night 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusoh ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here, I have cleaned up the wording and referencing, a very decent start to an article if I don't say so myself! Giant Snowman 21:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Baker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, i wasn't going to revert again since the interest in that is not high but i get your point. Kante4 ( talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Emmanuel Sonupe has been created and I was wondering if you know his appearances for the England U16 and U18 teams? Thanks :) JMHamo ( talk) 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar regarding your edits in all the English football teams age level articles. Keep on going and Happy Editing. Cheers!!! Sammanhumagain t@lk 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, sorry about this revert; I have no idea how I managed to do that. Your edit to the Biscuit article appeared on my watchlist, so I must have somehow misclicked on the rollback button when I went to your contributions. Graham 87 12:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Norwood, Christmas 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
He was on the bench in the 2013/14 season, per Soccerbase. Mattythewhite ( talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
According to the
WP:TPG, The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
An editor's unsubstantiated opinions about what Linehan is or isn't is an example of the latter, not the former. Off-topic comments can be removed per
WP:NOTFORUM.
If the specific aspect in question had not already been talked to death- using actual sources- on that same Talk page previously, I might have a more liberal view about unsubstantiated assertions on talk. *Might*. But it has, at tedious length. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference.is purely an expression of the IP's feelings about the article's subject, and doesn't say anything about how to treat it on Wikipedia. It is as if I were to post to Talk:Donald Trump "Trump never made any false or misleading statements" - it just wouldn't be an actionable comment on-topic for a Wikipedia Talk page. The rest of the comment,
False narrative about Graham on Wikipediais precisely as actionable as it would be for me to post "False narrative about Trump". I don't know what pages you are used to editing, but within the GENSEX topic area there is a lot of vandalism and trolling, often by IP editors, and therefore little tolerance for irrelevant Talk topics like this one. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You are actual poison? Should I be asking for a longer block, then, or for you to be denied access to your own Talk page? Did you not understand my explanation of the higher standard of behaviour expected of editors on WP:ACDS topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Insult the administrators once they take a different stance than you expected - always a shrewd move. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's all about the calculation, isn't it?No.
I'm not playing a game of self-interest.Neither am I.
I'm telling you what I think of you and other people who view it that way.(1) You are not perceiving me accurately at all, and (2) Wikipedia is not an EST seminar. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
My advice? Walk away from the BLP-in-question & its talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
integrityby making personal attacks on editors and accusing them without any kind of evidence - well, I expect that some reflection may be in order. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
manipulatinganyone, thanks. I have been (sometimes painfully) civil throughout our entire interaction, and your reply is to allege that I
don't know what integrity is? Do you think this is what editors' Talk pages are for: repeatedly insulting other editors? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Just take the 24-hr 'break' & try not to let anything get under your skin, in the meantime. GoodDay ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
disinformation, and that the reason behavioural norms (like 3RR and CIVIL) and WP:ACDS exist is to promote
even-handed and collaborativeencyclopedia-building? You seem awfully convinced that something nefarious is happening, although this seems to have come from one article that, for some reason, you don't like. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not to discourage you. But, I've been on Wikipedia for over 16 years & trust me, it'll never truly reach NPoV status, across multiple topics & areas. Is this the hill you want to die on? Rightly or wrongly, you're heading towards a possible site-ban. I know, you're not going to get done what you want done at that BLP's talkpage, nor are you going to get the editors you're frustrated with blocked. Ya don't have the support base. GoodDay ( talk) 04:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Newimpartial ( talk) 01:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The relevant part of the guidelines is
WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, where it plainly says It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject
. The comment that both I and Newimpartial removed is somewhat frequently posted by anonymous IP editors and fresh accounts, and is nearly uniformly disruptive.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk: Graham Linehan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is.
Newimpartial repeatedly claims that the sources support calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and that's why he simply has to keep reverting anyone's attempts to change it to something neutral but, when pressed, can only produce about one and a half citations from sources somewhere between semi-reliable and dross- please stop misgendering me; I use they/them pronouns, as any long-time watcher of Talk:Graham Linehan ought to remember.
Meanwhile, the very numerous citations produced from highly reliable sources that use genuinely neutral language in stark contrast to the Wikipedia wording are skirted over as meaningless or biased ("conservative"!), or just plain ignored- if you are talking about the characterization of these debates by The Times and The Telegraph, their particular WP:POV on transgender issues has been documented in reliable sources. [1]
remarkably lucid commentof an editor who was eventually blocked from English Wikipedia after a series of transphobic screeds [2] might not really be the best choice of authorities (
Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't- which was presumably aimed at me directly - would probably be hate speech in the laws of the country where I live). If you take Lilipo's evaluation of Graham Linehan as being somehow neutral and objective - rather than deeply partisan - then I am afraid you simply haven't read the situation correctly.
playing stupid gamesfor wanting an article on Graham Linehan, and any other BLP for that matter, that accurately reflects the balance of what the recent, reliable sources actually say about them. If you don't think that is the current status of the text of the Graham Linehan article, then the correct approach is to bring sources to a discussion of the article text, not to edit war over the inclusion of a semi-literate diatribe by an IP on the Talk page. If you look at the FAR process for J. K. Rowling, (e.g., [3] [4]) you will see that editors (including Crossroads and myself) are able to work within a source-based framework to arrive at sourced and balanced article content and, yes, even NPOV headings. Accusing editors of whom you've formed a negative impression in the past of
manipulationand
gamingdoesn't contribute to achieving such outcomes.
Why did you argue on that basis if you don't believe it?is failure of AGF and of understanding my actual position, then you may not be equipped to participate in discussions of controversial topics on Wikipedia without leaning into disruptive rhetorical strategies - which is pretty much where this current discussion started, I'm afraid. Your belief that it was fine to revert four edits by two editors - even though my last edit preserved all the information you accused me of removing, and even though many, uninvolved editors and administrators told you that they would have removed the material in question themselves and that your edit war was unjustified - well, I hope you have learned better by now, but I am restraining my optimism. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
will always presume good faithis contradicted when you allow your own interpretation of an RfC and Talk discussion from years ago to prompt an interpretation of my recent actions on Talk that is invalidated by (1) interpretations of the same situation by uninvolved administrators, (2) my actions on other Talk pages (which I have linked above) and (3) my actions within the same Talk page interaction, which you
didn't realizeeven though I explained them to you repeatedly before you were blocked - perhaps you read my edit summary and not my actual edit? In any case, the standard of AGF, and of WP:CIVIL behaviour generally, seems to represent a higher standard on Wikipedia than you seem prepared to accept wt present. The unsubstantiated assertion that you have
years of evidenceand that therefore AGF is therefore
a stupid gamedoes not represent an approach that is suited to a collaborative project, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
If you don't want me to comment on your Talk page, you need only ask me to stop (I would be happy to revert this reply and place it on my own Talk page, for example).
But if you insist on seeing an editor who was eventually permanently blocked for *her* behaviour as not being the villain of the piece
- that is, on adopting her point of view against those of the many editors and administrators who found her statements misleading and her conduct consistently disruptive - then you are unlikely to be able to learn from her example and avoid further disruption yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and abusive and disruptive behaviour is (eventually) not tolerated. If you have difficulty seeing and internalizing that, then you will have difficulty editing contentious topics on Wikipedia. And if you don't see the relationship between Lilipo's edits against consensus on
Graham Linehan, her POV against consensus in the PinkNews RfC at
WP:RSN, and her eventual lashing out and departure from Wikipedia (including her apparent off-wiki canvassing activity on the PinkNews RfC which she turned into an opportunity to claim that she was being threatened with doxxing, when no such threat was ever made) - well, that also weighs against your ability to edit sensitive issues judiciously.
Newimpartial (
talk) 03:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree that terms that are used by multiple, reliable sources to designate a person or organization are necessarily an opinion
, just because you believe it to be so. WP leaves what is a fact and what is an opinion to be determined by the sources themselves and if, for example, you had read the FAR discussion about J.K.Rowling that I linked above, you would would have seen just how diligent I am willing to be in sifting sources, looking for when they give factual statements and when they signal opinions, and in attributing DUE balance. But the idea that the
Graham Linehan article cites my opinion repeatedly as objective fact
, when I neither originated most of the text in question nor did I clash with the majority view in discussing it on Talk - and when the article text doesn't even reflect my preference (as I have repeatedly stated, I would have preferred "anti-transgender campaigner") - well, your depiction of the article is so consistently inaccurate I scarcely know where to begin.
You haven't responded in any way to my comments about PinkNews, which you can easily verify at WP:RSP and WP:RSN. The idea that sources like PinkNews and XTRA are more inclined to publish reporting on Trans issues influenced by their editorial stance than is The Times or The Telegraph is, ahem, unproven, no matter how strongly you might believe it to be true.
Finally, the idea that a source not using a term is equivalent to the same source denying that the term applies is simply not grounded either in the real world of language use or in Wikipedia policy. I run into this all the time with terms like "alt-right", "far right" and "white nationalist", and it isn't any more true in this case than it is in those. If sources like the BBC or The Guardian depicted Linehan's actions in a way that suggested that he is not pursuing an anti-trans agenda then we would have to reflect that alternate view for BALANCE (as we do, for example, at J.K. Rowling). But they don't suggest that, because it would be nonsensical to do so. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Open up a new RFC at the Graham Linehan page, as it's been going on two years, since the last one. BTW - I don't care what pronoun you use to describe me. But if it matters? I'm a male & I'm heterosexual & quite proud of it :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Female (gender) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please focus on the content of the article. During the course of the AfD, you have asked others to maintain civility, e.g. [5], but as the discussion progressed, your conduct seems to have become more personalized and negative, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], including after I asked [10], [11] for this conduct to stop, [12]. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
dictionaries do not appear to help disavow the validity of a standalone article on the topic of female gender.
the sources have changed since I have worked on it, so I'm not sure what you are referring to at this point.
I also find it very strange that the cited sources that discuss female gender are characterized as not doing so, and I am done with this discussion, which yet again was not the point being made.
Please focus on the content, stop cherrypicking quotes, and please do not engage in mindreading. I am tired of the repeated suggestion that sources obviously supportive of the content of the article, and specifically, its introduction, are somehow wrong? justifying deletion of this article? At this point, I am only interested in collaboration about improving this article, not defending against repetitive efforts to undermine it. Thanks
it's perfectly clear to me that you're an intelligent woman who could understand what was being said if she could be bothered, and there appears to be nothing further to discuss at this time now that the AfD has closed and it has been requested by the closing administrators that proponents of the article be given a disruption-free environment to continue working. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Clicriffhard. I'm willing to continue to discuss here if you can briefly explain what's causing you to be less and less clear. Valereee ( talk) 19:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
have disagreements about the contentfrom contributing at all, as that is only going to lead to the POV issues that the groups above are concerned about - and yet, that seems to be how the AfD request has been interpreted by the article's unambiguous proponents (e.g. Newimpartial), its unambiguous opponents (e.g. Crossroads), and by people in-between who I think generally just want the article to avoid POV issues (e.g. Tewdar, me).
Hey. Let's coordinate. I understand your frustration, and I think there is a calm, rational way through that does not require appeasing the trenchant. If you're keen, contact me, either hit me up through my talk page (preferred, for transparency), or rendall@gmail.com, or through my website https://rendall.dev Awesome! Rendall ( talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
calm, rational way throughwent like this, in case you missed it. Can't wait for the second sketch! 😂 Tewdar 09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
which inevitably makes me wonder if they are in fact all tracking his contributions- of course they are. But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce -
or coordinating in some way- quite possibly. It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this. Tewdar 13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce
It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this.
I would also note that I [...] have never discussed any identifying information about Rendall or tried to get them in trouble.
get Rendall in troubleI would have posted to one of the relevant noticeboards (probably WP:ARE, since Rendall has been working as an WP:SPA in an area covered by discretionary sanctions). But I didn't do that and I didn't support anyone else who did - all I wanted was to undermine Rendall's and the IP's disingenuous and spurious arguments, not to "get them in trouble". As far as my edits being
off the scale, I would suggest that you and I refrain from interacting on user Talk pages until your scale is recalibrated - you are responsible for your own emotional regulation on-wiki just as I am responsible for mine, but there is no reason for anyone to be wandering into fields of triggers which, if activated, might well result in a block or a ban. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Clicriffhard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
The Rambling Man (
talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Sorry I missed your message; I'm semi-retired and can't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I would like. Do feel free to let me know if I can be of any future assistance; if you'd like Jason Steele (footballer born 1990) moved to Jason Steele (footballer), I'd be more than happy to facilitate that.
Cheers! — madman bum and angel 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the Louis Laing article now exists in article space, and you have a duplicate in your userspace at User:Clicriffhard/Louis Laing. Could you please blank your one and replace the content with {{db-u1}}. No point in having it 2 places. Thanks.--Club Oranje T 10:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Todd Kane, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- 93.209.78.210 ( talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Williams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Jordan Pickford. JohnCD ( talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and I do apologise for not checking the article history to see who was actively involved in maintaining the page and speaking to them first. However, no, I don't think I should have done the work myself, though if I'd known of an easy reliable source to link to as a general source, I'd have been happy to do that. The problem is, consensus at WP:FOOTY is that Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source, because they still accept user submissions for facts, and user-generated info isn't reliable. WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
...for all the work you do in maintaining the England under-age football team pages, and for your remarkable tolerance towards people who come blundering in... Much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-21 football team, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serravalle and Michael Keane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Clicriffhard,
Updated Lewis Baker (footballer) for his Chelsea Goal of the Year and Young Player of the Year awards. If they don't belong as they are not league honours, my apologies and feel free to remove them.
EDIT: References added. Linked the video on Chelsea FC's official YouTube channel containing their awards night 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusoh ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here, I have cleaned up the wording and referencing, a very decent start to an article if I don't say so myself! Giant Snowman 21:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Baker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, i wasn't going to revert again since the interest in that is not high but i get your point. Kante4 ( talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Emmanuel Sonupe has been created and I was wondering if you know his appearances for the England U16 and U18 teams? Thanks :) JMHamo ( talk) 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar regarding your edits in all the English football teams age level articles. Keep on going and Happy Editing. Cheers!!! Sammanhumagain t@lk 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, sorry about this revert; I have no idea how I managed to do that. Your edit to the Biscuit article appeared on my watchlist, so I must have somehow misclicked on the rollback button when I went to your contributions. Graham 87 12:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Norwood, Christmas 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
He was on the bench in the 2013/14 season, per Soccerbase. Mattythewhite ( talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
According to the
WP:TPG, The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
An editor's unsubstantiated opinions about what Linehan is or isn't is an example of the latter, not the former. Off-topic comments can be removed per
WP:NOTFORUM.
If the specific aspect in question had not already been talked to death- using actual sources- on that same Talk page previously, I might have a more liberal view about unsubstantiated assertions on talk. *Might*. But it has, at tedious length. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference.is purely an expression of the IP's feelings about the article's subject, and doesn't say anything about how to treat it on Wikipedia. It is as if I were to post to Talk:Donald Trump "Trump never made any false or misleading statements" - it just wouldn't be an actionable comment on-topic for a Wikipedia Talk page. The rest of the comment,
False narrative about Graham on Wikipediais precisely as actionable as it would be for me to post "False narrative about Trump". I don't know what pages you are used to editing, but within the GENSEX topic area there is a lot of vandalism and trolling, often by IP editors, and therefore little tolerance for irrelevant Talk topics like this one. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You are actual poison? Should I be asking for a longer block, then, or for you to be denied access to your own Talk page? Did you not understand my explanation of the higher standard of behaviour expected of editors on WP:ACDS topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Insult the administrators once they take a different stance than you expected - always a shrewd move. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's all about the calculation, isn't it?No.
I'm not playing a game of self-interest.Neither am I.
I'm telling you what I think of you and other people who view it that way.(1) You are not perceiving me accurately at all, and (2) Wikipedia is not an EST seminar. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
My advice? Walk away from the BLP-in-question & its talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
integrityby making personal attacks on editors and accusing them without any kind of evidence - well, I expect that some reflection may be in order. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
manipulatinganyone, thanks. I have been (sometimes painfully) civil throughout our entire interaction, and your reply is to allege that I
don't know what integrity is? Do you think this is what editors' Talk pages are for: repeatedly insulting other editors? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Just take the 24-hr 'break' & try not to let anything get under your skin, in the meantime. GoodDay ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
disinformation, and that the reason behavioural norms (like 3RR and CIVIL) and WP:ACDS exist is to promote
even-handed and collaborativeencyclopedia-building? You seem awfully convinced that something nefarious is happening, although this seems to have come from one article that, for some reason, you don't like. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not to discourage you. But, I've been on Wikipedia for over 16 years & trust me, it'll never truly reach NPoV status, across multiple topics & areas. Is this the hill you want to die on? Rightly or wrongly, you're heading towards a possible site-ban. I know, you're not going to get done what you want done at that BLP's talkpage, nor are you going to get the editors you're frustrated with blocked. Ya don't have the support base. GoodDay ( talk) 04:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Newimpartial ( talk) 01:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The relevant part of the guidelines is
WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, where it plainly says It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject
. The comment that both I and Newimpartial removed is somewhat frequently posted by anonymous IP editors and fresh accounts, and is nearly uniformly disruptive.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Talk: Graham Linehan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is.
Newimpartial repeatedly claims that the sources support calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and that's why he simply has to keep reverting anyone's attempts to change it to something neutral but, when pressed, can only produce about one and a half citations from sources somewhere between semi-reliable and dross- please stop misgendering me; I use they/them pronouns, as any long-time watcher of Talk:Graham Linehan ought to remember.
Meanwhile, the very numerous citations produced from highly reliable sources that use genuinely neutral language in stark contrast to the Wikipedia wording are skirted over as meaningless or biased ("conservative"!), or just plain ignored- if you are talking about the characterization of these debates by The Times and The Telegraph, their particular WP:POV on transgender issues has been documented in reliable sources. [1]
remarkably lucid commentof an editor who was eventually blocked from English Wikipedia after a series of transphobic screeds [2] might not really be the best choice of authorities (
Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't- which was presumably aimed at me directly - would probably be hate speech in the laws of the country where I live). If you take Lilipo's evaluation of Graham Linehan as being somehow neutral and objective - rather than deeply partisan - then I am afraid you simply haven't read the situation correctly.
playing stupid gamesfor wanting an article on Graham Linehan, and any other BLP for that matter, that accurately reflects the balance of what the recent, reliable sources actually say about them. If you don't think that is the current status of the text of the Graham Linehan article, then the correct approach is to bring sources to a discussion of the article text, not to edit war over the inclusion of a semi-literate diatribe by an IP on the Talk page. If you look at the FAR process for J. K. Rowling, (e.g., [3] [4]) you will see that editors (including Crossroads and myself) are able to work within a source-based framework to arrive at sourced and balanced article content and, yes, even NPOV headings. Accusing editors of whom you've formed a negative impression in the past of
manipulationand
gamingdoesn't contribute to achieving such outcomes.
Why did you argue on that basis if you don't believe it?is failure of AGF and of understanding my actual position, then you may not be equipped to participate in discussions of controversial topics on Wikipedia without leaning into disruptive rhetorical strategies - which is pretty much where this current discussion started, I'm afraid. Your belief that it was fine to revert four edits by two editors - even though my last edit preserved all the information you accused me of removing, and even though many, uninvolved editors and administrators told you that they would have removed the material in question themselves and that your edit war was unjustified - well, I hope you have learned better by now, but I am restraining my optimism. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
will always presume good faithis contradicted when you allow your own interpretation of an RfC and Talk discussion from years ago to prompt an interpretation of my recent actions on Talk that is invalidated by (1) interpretations of the same situation by uninvolved administrators, (2) my actions on other Talk pages (which I have linked above) and (3) my actions within the same Talk page interaction, which you
didn't realizeeven though I explained them to you repeatedly before you were blocked - perhaps you read my edit summary and not my actual edit? In any case, the standard of AGF, and of WP:CIVIL behaviour generally, seems to represent a higher standard on Wikipedia than you seem prepared to accept wt present. The unsubstantiated assertion that you have
years of evidenceand that therefore AGF is therefore
a stupid gamedoes not represent an approach that is suited to a collaborative project, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
If you don't want me to comment on your Talk page, you need only ask me to stop (I would be happy to revert this reply and place it on my own Talk page, for example).
But if you insist on seeing an editor who was eventually permanently blocked for *her* behaviour as not being the villain of the piece
- that is, on adopting her point of view against those of the many editors and administrators who found her statements misleading and her conduct consistently disruptive - then you are unlikely to be able to learn from her example and avoid further disruption yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and abusive and disruptive behaviour is (eventually) not tolerated. If you have difficulty seeing and internalizing that, then you will have difficulty editing contentious topics on Wikipedia. And if you don't see the relationship between Lilipo's edits against consensus on
Graham Linehan, her POV against consensus in the PinkNews RfC at
WP:RSN, and her eventual lashing out and departure from Wikipedia (including her apparent off-wiki canvassing activity on the PinkNews RfC which she turned into an opportunity to claim that she was being threatened with doxxing, when no such threat was ever made) - well, that also weighs against your ability to edit sensitive issues judiciously.
Newimpartial (
talk) 03:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree that terms that are used by multiple, reliable sources to designate a person or organization are necessarily an opinion
, just because you believe it to be so. WP leaves what is a fact and what is an opinion to be determined by the sources themselves and if, for example, you had read the FAR discussion about J.K.Rowling that I linked above, you would would have seen just how diligent I am willing to be in sifting sources, looking for when they give factual statements and when they signal opinions, and in attributing DUE balance. But the idea that the
Graham Linehan article cites my opinion repeatedly as objective fact
, when I neither originated most of the text in question nor did I clash with the majority view in discussing it on Talk - and when the article text doesn't even reflect my preference (as I have repeatedly stated, I would have preferred "anti-transgender campaigner") - well, your depiction of the article is so consistently inaccurate I scarcely know where to begin.
You haven't responded in any way to my comments about PinkNews, which you can easily verify at WP:RSP and WP:RSN. The idea that sources like PinkNews and XTRA are more inclined to publish reporting on Trans issues influenced by their editorial stance than is The Times or The Telegraph is, ahem, unproven, no matter how strongly you might believe it to be true.
Finally, the idea that a source not using a term is equivalent to the same source denying that the term applies is simply not grounded either in the real world of language use or in Wikipedia policy. I run into this all the time with terms like "alt-right", "far right" and "white nationalist", and it isn't any more true in this case than it is in those. If sources like the BBC or The Guardian depicted Linehan's actions in a way that suggested that he is not pursuing an anti-trans agenda then we would have to reflect that alternate view for BALANCE (as we do, for example, at J.K. Rowling). But they don't suggest that, because it would be nonsensical to do so. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Open up a new RFC at the Graham Linehan page, as it's been going on two years, since the last one. BTW - I don't care what pronoun you use to describe me. But if it matters? I'm a male & I'm heterosexual & quite proud of it :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Female (gender) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please focus on the content of the article. During the course of the AfD, you have asked others to maintain civility, e.g. [5], but as the discussion progressed, your conduct seems to have become more personalized and negative, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], including after I asked [10], [11] for this conduct to stop, [12]. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
dictionaries do not appear to help disavow the validity of a standalone article on the topic of female gender.
the sources have changed since I have worked on it, so I'm not sure what you are referring to at this point.
I also find it very strange that the cited sources that discuss female gender are characterized as not doing so, and I am done with this discussion, which yet again was not the point being made.
Please focus on the content, stop cherrypicking quotes, and please do not engage in mindreading. I am tired of the repeated suggestion that sources obviously supportive of the content of the article, and specifically, its introduction, are somehow wrong? justifying deletion of this article? At this point, I am only interested in collaboration about improving this article, not defending against repetitive efforts to undermine it. Thanks
it's perfectly clear to me that you're an intelligent woman who could understand what was being said if she could be bothered, and there appears to be nothing further to discuss at this time now that the AfD has closed and it has been requested by the closing administrators that proponents of the article be given a disruption-free environment to continue working. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Clicriffhard. I'm willing to continue to discuss here if you can briefly explain what's causing you to be less and less clear. Valereee ( talk) 19:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
have disagreements about the contentfrom contributing at all, as that is only going to lead to the POV issues that the groups above are concerned about - and yet, that seems to be how the AfD request has been interpreted by the article's unambiguous proponents (e.g. Newimpartial), its unambiguous opponents (e.g. Crossroads), and by people in-between who I think generally just want the article to avoid POV issues (e.g. Tewdar, me).
Hey. Let's coordinate. I understand your frustration, and I think there is a calm, rational way through that does not require appeasing the trenchant. If you're keen, contact me, either hit me up through my talk page (preferred, for transparency), or rendall@gmail.com, or through my website https://rendall.dev Awesome! Rendall ( talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
calm, rational way throughwent like this, in case you missed it. Can't wait for the second sketch! 😂 Tewdar 09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
which inevitably makes me wonder if they are in fact all tracking his contributions- of course they are. But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce -
or coordinating in some way- quite possibly. It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this. Tewdar 13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce
It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this.
I would also note that I [...] have never discussed any identifying information about Rendall or tried to get them in trouble.
get Rendall in troubleI would have posted to one of the relevant noticeboards (probably WP:ARE, since Rendall has been working as an WP:SPA in an area covered by discretionary sanctions). But I didn't do that and I didn't support anyone else who did - all I wanted was to undermine Rendall's and the IP's disingenuous and spurious arguments, not to "get them in trouble". As far as my edits being
off the scale, I would suggest that you and I refrain from interacting on user Talk pages until your scale is recalibrated - you are responsible for your own emotional regulation on-wiki just as I am responsible for mine, but there is no reason for anyone to be wandering into fields of triggers which, if activated, might well result in a block or a ban. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)