User talk:Virginia Courtsesan

Contrary to the username, I'm actually a Virginia Gentleman - so please, be gentle.

Masud Khan Sexual Abuse Allegations

Dear Virginia Courtsesan,

I noticed that you took out the reference to Khan's sexual abuse allegations, citing "overstatement" as a reason. I understand that this is a complex subject but it is also an urgent one. I would like to restore the relevant passage but want to prevent an edit war. Could you share with me your position on this subject? Hopkins' research on this particular subject is significant and ought to be included.

Honigfrau Honigfrau (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on talk-page, I don't have strong feelings on the subject being included it was just the wording that was problematic given its use of neologisms/contemporaryianism) Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the note; my changes to Masud Khan are visible here; My reference to overstatement was more aimed at terms like "blatantly" and "tirade", and I disliked the idea that a single researcher long after his death would be stated as "Research by X brought to light numerous sexual abuses" where today's moral standards and terminologies are applied to what may be, on its face, relatively consensual sexual acts with patients but against the standards of all governing bodies of course, the terminology should be arranged more appropriately it seemed to me. But I am not well apprised of the case, hence why I simply reduced it to entering relationships with patients. I promise I have no interest in an edit war :) Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:LauraIngallsEvenWilder per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraIngallsEvenWilder. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 09:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]