User talk:Userwoman

Welcome!

Hello, Userwoman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Trans man. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

tl;dr version: your edits were reverted, so you can't just restore them; you need to get consensus for that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification for Gender and Transgender issues

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc canvassing at Trans man

User woman, when notifying people about an Rfc, you may not pick and choose which users to notify, as you did in the links provided by -sche at Talk:Trans man#RfC. This is called canvassing.

I think you misunderstood User:-sche's comment at Talk:Trans man#RfC; where -sche stated that "soliciting votes from users (predominantly those who've previously expressed a certain viewpoint) ... may constitute canvassing (vote-stacking): [1], (hi fellow Wiktionarian!), [2], [3]". They weren't saying not to notify anybody, they are merely saying that they way you did it violates WP:CANVAS which is a prohibited procedure contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline.

You may notify people about an ongoing Rfc in a completely neutral way. For example: you can post a neutral message at a WikiProject by simply requesting feedback without sharing which side of it you are on, and providing a link to the Rfc discussion. Another example: you may notify everyone who participated in a previous discussion by leaving a message on their Talk page. (Simply linking them in the discussion itself is not enough, because they may have notifications turned off in their preferences, and also because IP users do not receive notifications when linked.)

What you cannot do, is cherry pick, notifying some users, but not others. This may cause your Rfc to be rejected on procedural grounds if the outcome appears tainted, and you might have to redo it. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot I apologize for canvassing if that is indeed what I did. I only hoped to hear the opinions of users who have commented on this issue in the past. I did think that it was reasonable to alert people who participated in the dispute resolution that there is now an ongoing RfC. I have not biased their opinions in any way and my message to each of them was neutral. Userwoman (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Userwoman, you don't need to apologize, but it's appreciated nonetheless. Wikipedia has a learning curve, and inevitably we all fall afoul of the many guidelines and recommendations, at least until we learn about them. I know I do. It is reasonable to alert people who participated in a previous discussion; just be sure that if you notify one person, you notify all of them, even the IP users. (You don't have to notify banned socks.) The full guideline for this is at WP:CANVAS. Whether we end up agreeing on the substance of different Rfc's or other discussions in the future or not, doesn't matter; your voice will be a constructive one if you keep up the civil tone you've shown here, and I think you're well on your way to being a good editor. Keep it up, and I hope you continue editing. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The great barrier erector replies

In reply to this, which ideally would not have been posted there: It's unclear to me both how you seem so confident about knowing my motivations and why you apparently feel so comfortable about expressing them. In the former case, perhaps you're a mind reader, but you may want to consider the possibility that there are flaws in your method. In the latter case, while I'm never thrilled at being the target of reckless accusations, it's not a big deal—I'm accustomed to seeing bad manners on the Internet, after all—but I guess it doesn't make any sense for me to continue to assume good faith on your part. The facts pretty much speak for themselves: I've had an account here for 12 years, I edit on a wide range of topics, I always try to hew to the core policies, and I am open to constructive criticism and consensus-based collaborative editing. You're a newbie who has shown every indication of being a single-purpose account, you're clearly unfamiliar with site policies and don't seem especially interested in learning about them, and you seem to have arrived prepared to do battle with the community. You're not the first user to display such a pattern; the wiki is littered with them. Most end up blocked or banned, but occasionally one sees the light and becomes a clueful editor. If you're ever interested in taking that road less traveled, you'll find plenty of help and support available. I wish you luck. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch I appreciate that you have responded to me a reasonable fashion. Looking through the talk pages on GENDERID, I realize that you were a part of those discussions as well. I think that we are beyond any content focused discussion at this point (and never truly had one). The entire discussion seemed to revolve around labeling me as a POV pusher, single purpose account and a sealion, rather than addressing the issue that I was bringing up. Any assumptions of good faith were not apparent to me. I do not think that Wikipedia editors need to waste their time on trivial matters, but the point that I am bringing up is a serious one. Several reasonable editors who participated in the RFC recommended that the definition should change. I do feel that the community that runs this page and other similar pages (and the consensus of that community) has bias that is not shared by the sources (no original research). I think that this bias has crept into the articles, which makes them less credible and no longer neutral. As has been pointed out before, I do wish to come to a compromise, but it seems that several editors (on your "side") are unwilling to even consider the possibility. I apologize if my comments came across as harsh, but I feel that this community (knowingly or not) lives in an ideological bubble that maintains a certain point of view by actively preventing any discussion that questions the bias in this article. Userwoman (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't know whether you're right or not about there being an "ideological bubble"; it seems a bit subjective. It seems to me that Wikipedians mirror society to a certain extent. In some ways, we're ahead of the curve; in other ways, we're limping along, barely able to keep up. I can tell you that among Wikipedia's roster of longtime, valued users is a sizable minority that is socially conservative. Among those users is a much smaller group who have expressed open hostility toward LGBT rights, gender equality, and related issues. Theoretically, ideology shouldn't matter as long as it doesn't determine how one goes about editing articles. Few if any of us are devoid of opinions, but many of us make a conscious effort not to let those opinions creep into the content we write. There's actually a risk of being so hyperconscious about this that we overcompensate and slant articles in ways that we personally disagree with and that don't meet WP:NPOV or even WP:V. I know I've done that on occasion. It's all about staying aware and striking a proper balance. Editing on a variety of topics, including some that one knows nothing about and doesn't even care about, tends to help build the perspective to make that possible.

I'm sorry if you're feeling a bit beleaguered. Wikipedians do tend to get sick and tired of having the same discussions over and over, and if we're wary of people who show up and immediately begin editing on contentious topics, it's from bitter experience. In the end, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and we have over 5.5 million articles to keep track of. Keeping that in mind, it's difficult to muster much appreciation for new users who spend most of their time on the talk page of a single article, making similar points for the umpteenth time. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

After no activity for a month, you return with this edit despite no consensus on the talk page, a discussion you're clearly aware of because you initiated it. This type of editing is disruptive & tendentious. I will remind you of the discretionary sanctions placed on this topic. Please stop your disruptive behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, do you have a problem with the source or me? Userwoman (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is about your editing, not the source. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. If you think that the source is not credible then say so. If you have a personal vendetta against me, then keep that to yourself. At least try to keep this discussion about content. I'll bring this source up on the talk page for discussion. Userwoman (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to stop disruptive and tendentious behavior is not WP:ASPERSIONS. Take or leave my request as you like, but continuing that type of behavior will likely lead to requests for administrative intervention. In the future, if you have a new source like the Peterson one, bring it to the talk page for discussing since the lead is already under discussion there. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Userwoman (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, I will ask you not to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, you have already made this into a battleground. Your "Strongest oppose" comment shows that you are taking this issue personally and can no longer be an objective editor of transgender articles. Userwoman (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors sometimes put qualifiers like "weak" or "strong" in front of their "support" or "oppose". Why does that make me an unobjective editor? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Article "Trans woman"

Hi!

I have noticed that you are passionate about the topics discussed in Trans woman. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I have also noticed that you have expressed an interest in providing a neutral point of view. That is encouraging!

Here's the thing. I've noticed that things often do not go well for people -- I am definitely including myself here -- who begin their run as a Wikipedia editor with certain tendencies -- tendencies like editing a small group of articles with related topics; focusing on making the articles "right" to the (near) exclusion of any other kind of edit; and making protracted arguments on Talk pages.

In my experience things end in two ways for people like us:

Somebody calls ArbCom on us, and we have to decide whether we want to face sanctions or close our accounts to spare ourselves from the embarrassment. I saw that happen once to someone who fought hard to make major changes to an article without regard for reliability or Wikipedia's guidelines. And it was a little sad because he was obviously passionate about the topics he was interested in, and passionate editors often make the best editors.
We become more interested in making Wikipedia better -- not just by making the articles we care about "right" but also by making articles we do not care as much about right, making the articles we care about conform to Wikipedia guidelines (even when they seem to fall woefully short of letting us tell people what's "right") or by making the article we care about more readable. I think I started to get Wikipedia sometime after people stopped high-fiving me on my Talk page for fighting the Man and around the time I got a mere "thank you" for doing something about a stray left parenthesis for an article in which the stakes did not seem high for me.

(I suppose it's obvious that I think things have ended the latter way for me, but I'm still learning.)

At this point I suppose I could tell you I could give you some hyperlinked abbreviations, but I imagine you have seen the most important ones already. All I will say regarding them is that I recommend that you give them all a read and remember to ask yourself, "Is this what I am doing?" On a related note, I have found that when I admit I am wrong to someone, they usually respond by toning down the rage (although on at least one occasion I had to do it twice), and when someone admits they are wrong to me, it makes it easier to assume good faith.

The other thing I think you could benefit from is reading about logical fallacies. I like the list at The Nizkor Project, but there are some other good ones out there. And if you have not done so already, I recommend reading The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article "Fallacies" so you have some idea of how to respond to people who are oversimplistic in their application of what they have learned about fallacies.

And if you want some instant gratification, here is a little something I have learned: When I look at the words listed at Words to Watch and make appropriate deletions from an article that I believe fails NPOV, and even when I delete something like a dozen words, my edits go unchallenged. A caveat: I have tried this on some pretty contentious articles but never one with discretionary sanctions, so if you want to try this, starting small might be best.

I hope we give each other the opportunity to collaborate.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Paradox, I appreciate your advice and that you are being nice to me. I do wonder if you see the runaround that I have been getting. I do believe that I am following Wikipedia guidelines by presenting a new source for discussion. I also think that my request to see the source for the current wording of the lead has also been reasonable. However, the responses that I am getting do not address my concerns, at best people respond with, "I don't know." This lack of rigor seems odd for an article under dispute and this vagueness is likely why it is under dispute. Userwoman (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for what you perceive as obstacles are mostly mundane (which is not to say that I don't hope that we can all do better -- I definitely do). Typically leads do not have explicit sources; on the rare occasion that I have been editing another article and someone has insisted that a portion of the lead must contain a citation or be dropped, I have found them to be tendentious. It's more than okay to ask which portion of the body was used as the basis for a portion of the lead, but much of the time the people who wrote the lead are long gone, and the best anyone can do is point to a section of the body and say, "Well, this (apparently) supports the current reading."

Recently there was a discussion about this sort of thing in Christianity after someone removed a mention of miracles from the lead[4]; I think it is instructive both because of the civility of Jtrevor99 and Martin of Sheffield and how Martin of Sheffield offered a compromise before tempers flared.

(Speaking of Christianity, I highly recommend regularly editing at least one article that could benefit from your knowledge but where you are unlikely to care about the outcome of an edit dispute. It can be a great way to learn the ins and outs of editing Wikipedia.)

As for your presentation of new sources, I think there is a problem on both "sides" (for lack of a better word) of the lead dispute. I am not sure how to discuss it while assuming good faith, but I think part of the solution is casting a wider net (being willing to look at more sources you expect to agree with and more sources you expect to disagree with) and offering multiple possible alteratives. And I think you need to stop pushing for the use of sources that define "trans men". I mean, assuming you are right, where has it gotten you? Some of the best compromises I have reached have come about when I have let go of being "right" (and I really was right, dammit!) and tried a different approach to getting somewhere. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

Hello. I would ask you to kindly strike this edit in its entirety or, at the very least, my username. The responses you received from others were amusing and apt, but I'm afraid I'm not in the mood. Frankly, I do not appreciate logging in for the first time in several days during a particularly chaotic period in real life, with the aim of simply getting through my watchlist, and finding that someone has been saying ignorant things about me. I called you out over making reckless accusations several weeks ago, but you have chosen to persist in this behavior, and it is unacceptable. Will you please handle this at your earliest convenience? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edit at NPOVN

Hi Userwoman,

After your recent edit to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, I thought I would draw your attention to what Wikipedia says consitutes personal attacks. I am sure you are already familiar with the policy, but I thought a few of the actions listed might be worth mentioning again:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing; see that policy for more detail.)
Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

If you have any questions, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page.

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag at "Trans woman"

After seeing the opposition to having any tag on the page, I am going to revert your edit, effectively removing the tag. If you do not like the change, I ask that you reconsider my proposed compromise: Instead of reinserting the same tag, insert the POV lead tag (which really seems like the more appropriate tag anyway) instead, and link it to an appropriate portion of the talk page. Again, as long as you link to a discussion that cites something besides a public opinion poll or the like -- even a source that I do not feel is reliable -- I will wait before removing a POV lead tag. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 17:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you. Userwoman (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to compromise in what has been a very polarizing discussion. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 23:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may not edit articles about gender issues for 6 months. You may continue to participate in talkpage and noticeboard discussions.

You have been sanctioned because of source, where you removed the caveats about "normal development" and "usually" in service of your point of view.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Your recent edit on Brett Kavanaugh appears to be in violation of your sanction. I have therefore raised the issue at AE.[5] Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Userwoman, I have just closed the AE thread, because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that your edit did not breach your topic ban: although it did skirt fairly close to the line, it did not cross it. For future reference, please bear in mind that repeatedly testing the boundaries of your sanction may also, under certain circumstances, lead to sanctions.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I appreciate your concern and that you were wrong. Userwoman (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA slogan

Mai 68, on a refait le monde.

Mai 86, on refait la cuisine.

Cheers. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]