You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
- gadfium 09:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Georgina Beyer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use
your sandbox for that. Please review
MOS:GENDERID for more information on Wikipedia guidelines on presenting information on transgender people. —
C.Fred (
talk) 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mk91552, above, you were informed what it means to edit contentious topics. My suggestion is to you read MOS:GENDERID. And then you follow what that guideline says. You may not agree with what it says, but on Wikipedia you cannot step outside of what it says; not on a contentious topic. Break the rules again and you will be blocked from editing. Schwede 66 09:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did give a valid reason. Thank you Mk91552 ( talk) 13:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Schwede
66 11:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)- It was not a contentious edit. Female is a sex, not a gender. Ms Beyer, of whom I knew, was a trans woman. She was not female, however. So I think you should lift my ban and correct the mistake you seem insistent on keeping Mk91552 ( talk) 10:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Georgina Beyer 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; read about 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. -- Pokelova ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not contentious. It's an appropriate edit that conveys the facts. Tell me in what way was Georgina Beyer a female?
Mk91552 (
talk) 11:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please see
MOS:GENDERID and, by referential inclusion,
Transphobia#Misgendering. "Female" exists in an overlap space where it can describe sex and also gender. In short, rather than just remove the descriptor, the article is better served to rewrite it. The AP Stylebook—yes, it's US-specific, but it's the resource I have access to—suggests "woman" as an adjective in these situations. I've offered that as a compromise. If you still reject that, you'll need to offer alternatives on the talk page. However, the original wording will go back in the article while it's discussed, on the basis of the cited source:
The following year Georgina ran for the top job in the town and won, becoming the world’s first transsexual mayor, Carteron’s first female mayor and the first Māori mayor Wairarapa had ever seen.
[emphasis added] — C.Fred ( talk) 12:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please see
MOS:GENDERID and, by referential inclusion,
Transphobia#Misgendering. "Female" exists in an overlap space where it can describe sex and also gender. In short, rather than just remove the descriptor, the article is better served to rewrite it. The AP Stylebook—yes, it's US-specific, but it's the resource I have access to—suggests "woman" as an adjective in these situations. I've offered that as a compromise. If you still reject that, you'll need to offer alternatives on the talk page. However, the original wording will go back in the article while it's discussed, on the basis of the cited source:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 
Mk91552 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
ban based on biased opinion and disregard for scientific fact. Politicking by Schwede and Gadfium. Encroachment in freedom of speech Mk91552 ( talk) 11:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have no freedom of speech here, see WP:FREESPEECH. Freedom of speech means that your government cannot jail or punish you for your speech- not that you can force a privately operated website to allow you to post your views on a topic. Just as I could not enter your residence against your will and force you to hear my views on a topic, Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers. Wikipedia has policies about its content; the ones regarding your editing have been explained to you and you are blocked because you disregarded that information. If your views on gender/sexuality issues prevent you from abiding by policies and the editing restrictions in that area, you won't be permitted to edit. You aren't going to be unblocked to make further edits regarding gender issues; you will need to agree to a topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, and tell us what you will edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I cannot reject your unblock request but I can tell you that a WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH argument is not going to get you anywhere. -- Pokelova ( talk) 11:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
- gadfium 09:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Georgina Beyer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use
your sandbox for that. Please review
MOS:GENDERID for more information on Wikipedia guidelines on presenting information on transgender people. —
C.Fred (
talk) 01:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mk91552, above, you were informed what it means to edit contentious topics. My suggestion is to you read MOS:GENDERID. And then you follow what that guideline says. You may not agree with what it says, but on Wikipedia you cannot step outside of what it says; not on a contentious topic. Break the rules again and you will be blocked from editing. Schwede 66 09:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did give a valid reason. Thank you Mk91552 ( talk) 13:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Schwede
66 11:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)- It was not a contentious edit. Female is a sex, not a gender. Ms Beyer, of whom I knew, was a trans woman. She was not female, however. So I think you should lift my ban and correct the mistake you seem insistent on keeping Mk91552 ( talk) 10:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Georgina Beyer 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; read about 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. -- Pokelova ( talk) 11:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not contentious. It's an appropriate edit that conveys the facts. Tell me in what way was Georgina Beyer a female?
Mk91552 (
talk) 11:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please see
MOS:GENDERID and, by referential inclusion,
Transphobia#Misgendering. "Female" exists in an overlap space where it can describe sex and also gender. In short, rather than just remove the descriptor, the article is better served to rewrite it. The AP Stylebook—yes, it's US-specific, but it's the resource I have access to—suggests "woman" as an adjective in these situations. I've offered that as a compromise. If you still reject that, you'll need to offer alternatives on the talk page. However, the original wording will go back in the article while it's discussed, on the basis of the cited source:
The following year Georgina ran for the top job in the town and won, becoming the world’s first transsexual mayor, Carteron’s first female mayor and the first Māori mayor Wairarapa had ever seen.
[emphasis added] — C.Fred ( talk) 12:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please see
MOS:GENDERID and, by referential inclusion,
Transphobia#Misgendering. "Female" exists in an overlap space where it can describe sex and also gender. In short, rather than just remove the descriptor, the article is better served to rewrite it. The AP Stylebook—yes, it's US-specific, but it's the resource I have access to—suggests "woman" as an adjective in these situations. I've offered that as a compromise. If you still reject that, you'll need to offer alternatives on the talk page. However, the original wording will go back in the article while it's discussed, on the basis of the cited source:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mk91552 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
ban based on biased opinion and disregard for scientific fact. Politicking by Schwede and Gadfium. Encroachment in freedom of speech Mk91552 ( talk) 11:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have no freedom of speech here, see WP:FREESPEECH. Freedom of speech means that your government cannot jail or punish you for your speech- not that you can force a privately operated website to allow you to post your views on a topic. Just as I could not enter your residence against your will and force you to hear my views on a topic, Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers. Wikipedia has policies about its content; the ones regarding your editing have been explained to you and you are blocked because you disregarded that information. If your views on gender/sexuality issues prevent you from abiding by policies and the editing restrictions in that area, you won't be permitted to edit. You aren't going to be unblocked to make further edits regarding gender issues; you will need to agree to a topic ban from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, and tell us what you will edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 11:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I cannot reject your unblock request but I can tell you that a WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH argument is not going to get you anywhere. -- Pokelova ( talk) 11:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)