User:Sweet6970/sandbox

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

they they

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at INSERT ARTICLE NAME, you may be blocked from editing. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

Introduction to contentious topics
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 * 1) ==section heading ==

subsection heading
Information

more inf

££££££££££££££££££££££££33 In an interview on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, Wadhwa stated:

Wadhwa's comments were criticized, including by the group For Women Scotland and sexual violence researcher Jessica Taylor.

JK Rowling stated that Wadhwa's comments inspired her to create Beira's Place, a support centre for cisgender women only. Wadhwa said her words were taken out context.

££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ aaaaaaaaaaaaa

feria this works because there are 3 x =, whereas with barbarian etymology there are only 2 x =

barbarian

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

''this works, whereas when I tried to adapt the factual dispute template for neutrality, it didn't

"""""""""""""""""""""XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks which says this page in a nutshell: When adding a level of indentation (for purposes of a threaded reply, or to create a sub-list) copy the style of the preceding indent and then append an asterisk or colon depending upon whether you want a bullet-point or not

asterisks only asterisks and colons not per the essay?? asterisk single repetaed plus colon Ah! Further -trying to get more than one para xxx xxx DOESN'T WORK^
 * xxx xxx
 * xxx xxx
 * xxx xxx
 * yyy yyy (asterisk double plus colon)
 * xxx xxx
 * zzz zzz
 * xxx xxx

''Q IS THIS THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK?
 * XXX
 * YYY

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&diff=prev&oldid=1097555169
 * YYY

 this works so why not on the Talkpage?

I raised the question of the use of the expression ‘thought police’ with Shooterwalker because their post at AE erroneously gives the impression that  was the one who used this expression. Shooterwalker has now accused me of ‘verbal gymnastics’ promoting a ‘battleground’, and ‘rhetorical games’. It is not my intention to do any of these things. If Shooterwalker thinks that I am playing games, then they are mistaken.

I accept that my edit summary was not tactful.

What does Shooterwalker want to warn me about?

I would be happy never to mention the expression ‘thought police’ again. But I am not happy that Shooterwalker assumes that I am editing in bad faith. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reactions to appeal

 * Reply to Sideswipe9th’s comments of 19 October 2021:


 * Brook/Helen Marshall – agree use quote (b)
 * Dr Sabine Hannema – agree don’t use
 * Marina Wheeler
 * quote (a) – discussed below*
 * agree to use quote (d)
 * I think quote (e) is of great interest – do you have any objection to using it?


 * Sandra Duffy
 * quote (a) The problem I see with this is the expression ‘It is hoped…’ This doesn’t mean anything because Ms Duffy is not saying who hopes it. If she had said that she hoped it, we could use it, because we could attribute it to her, but since she has been so indefinite, we don’t know who she is referring to. I am opposed to adding something so vague as to be meaningless.
 * quote (b) – do you have any comments on this?
 * quotes (c) & (d) – agree to use


 * Law Society Gazette/Robertson
 * your first quote – I think it is OK to use this as a reaction to the original judgment, though I think it is best to continue to the end of the sentence.
 * agree to use quote (a)
 * how about using quote (b) in the original ‘Reactions’ section?


 * Marina Wheeler – quote (a)
 * The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim for judicial review, stating that it was impermissible for the Court below to issue a declaration and guidance in circumstances where it did not find illegality. Advisory declarations were known but not, it stated, where a claim of illegality had failed. The Court below had also imposed an “improper restriction” on the test of Gillick competence by departing from the principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions if assessed as competent by their treating clinician.


 * This is riddled with legal jargon. I would translate it roughly (also adding inf from elsewhere) as:

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and said that the original claim for judicial review failed. They said that in the original judgment, the High Court had decided that Tavistock’s policy was not unlawful. Having decided this, the High Court did not have the power to issue any declaration, or issue guidance as to how doctors should approach the question of young people giving consent to treatment with puberty blockers. In some instances, a court could give advice in the form of a declaration, but this was only allowed where the court had decided that a party had acted unlawfully. The High Court had also gone against the general principle that children under 16 could make their own decisions on treatment if the doctor treating them considered that they were competent to do so (Gillick competence).


 * BUT this is, in effect, my interpretation of the main point of the judgment (the other significant point being that expert evidence was not handled properly). We should be using reliable sources, not our own interpretations. Particularly in view of the contentious nature of the subject matter, I think we need to stick to verbatim quotes. To me, the Robertson quote (a) – reaffirming that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment, and confirming that it was wrong for the Divisional Court to make a declaration in the absence of any finding of unlawfulness.  is a brief summary which would be more understandable by the general public than the Wheeler quote (a), which is aimed at lawyers.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, In an interview with Law Society Gazette in June 2021, Peter Daly, Forstater’s solicitor, said: ’At the heart of the case is a belief in the binary nature of biological sex, which the judgment makes clear is a fairly uncontroversial statement of law.’ He also said: ‘There has been a great deal of misrepresentation. My client was labelled “anti-trans”, even though many trans people share her belief (the only trans woman heard in the original tribunal gave evidence in support of her belief). It was reported that Ms Forstater misgendered trans colleagues and was disciplined for doing so. None of this happened – there was no disciplinary action, she never misgendered any colleagues, and as far as she is aware had no trans colleagues. Others incorrectly predicted that a successful appeal would grant a legal right to declare in the workplace that women are inferior to men (it hasn’t).’ The Law Society Gazette also reported that following the ruling, Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD, said: ‘The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the tribunal judge] got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act.’

In an article in Personnel Today, Darren Newman said that the original tribunal had ‘set the bar of “worthy of respect” far too high. The only beliefs that are actually excluded by that requirement are the most extreme beliefs “akin to Nazism or totalitarianism or which incite hatred or violence”.'

In Scottish Legal News Louise Usher said: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA [Equality Act] 2010 for trans persons. It is also important to bear in mind that, as a consequence of the recent ‘’Taylor v Jaguar Landrover’’ decision, those identifying as non-binary are also entitled to protection. Therefore, it is incumbent on employers to ensure that their employees tolerate opposing beliefs and act in a non-offensive way to others.'

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The Hand That Feeds You is proposing a topic ban for Swood100 from American politics on the basis that Bacondrum, the complainant, has refused to specify their complaint against Swood100. This is surreal.

I also have suffered from Bacondrum’s unspecified allegations, on the same Talk page. e.g.  And see this series of edits for someone who complains that their time is being wasted: And this om my talk page. Again,nothing is specified. I propose that Bacondrum should be warned that if they make any further unspecified and unsubstantiated allegations, they will be indefinitely blocked. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

888888888 DRAFT 88888888888 The Armenian language was first put into writing in 406 or 407AD when a priest known as Mesrop developed an Armenian alphabet.

There are three views amongst scholars about how speakers of Armenian came to be in what is now Armenia. One is that they came with Phrygians from the west, or with the Mitanni from the east, and took over from the non-Indo-European speaking Urartians, who were previously dominant in this area. Another view is that the Armenian people came to speak an Indo-European language after originally speaking a Caucasian language. The third view is that the ancestor of the Armenian language was already spoken in the area during the time when it was politically dominated first by the Hittites, and later by the Urartians. A minority view also suggests that the Indo-European homeland may have been located in the Armenian Highland. """"""""""""""""""

88888   DRAFT 888888888 stuff about the Regia

888888888888888888888888888

stuff about Juno prodigia

88888888888888888888888888 stuff about pre-Numan calendar pre-Numan

888888888888888888888888888888888 This stuff needs a citation - remember to add the date or alternatively use an abbreviation

888888888888888citation for libertarian Marxist

88888888Polly Toynbee reference ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

After an inquest found that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Mr Harwood was prosecuted for manslaughter and in July 2012 he was acquitted. ///////////////////////////////

According to the Daily Beast, Spiked is libertarian. According to Paul Mason of the New Statesman, Spiked is libertarian. According to Free University of Berlin digital media expert Annett Heft et al, Spiked is right-wing but not libertarian. According to Tim Knowles, the technology correspondent for the Times, Spiked is right-wing and libertarian.

""""""""""""""

Spiked has sometimes been described as libertarian [[, and sometimes as right-wing.

""""""""""""""""""
 * Support The fact of the inquest verdict is not controversial, as, for instance, the fact of a conviction is not controversial, even if the conviction is being appealed. It is the circumstances of this event which are controversial. I have never claimed otherwise. An inquest verdict does not have any ‘nuance’.  Information on the legal proceedings is set out in the 2nd para. You have to get to the end of this para before it is stated that the killing was lawful. It is important that it is obvious to any reader, including those who do not have a particular interest in legal matters, that in the end, this killing has been held to be lawful. This would be particularly important for anyone who came to this article from 2011 England riots via the link for Mark Duggan, and might very likely only read the first sentence of the article.


 * I have never claimed that ‘the information needs to be in the first sentence because it is factually correct’. I queried why the factually correct information was deleted by Arms & Hearts. A& H then referred to the information about the lawfulness of the killing as ‘potentially controversial information’.
 * The information about the lawfulness of the killing (i.e. the fact of the inquest verdict) is not controversial – it is the circumstances which are controversial.
 * A&H has refused to discuss this on this Talk page – their response has been to say that they are ignoring my comments as ‘tendentious rubbish’. A& H then asked for a Third Opinion without inviting me to agree to this, and  without engaging in proper discussion.
 * I am open to suggestions as to an alternative wording for the first sentence.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"""""""""""""""""""

There is general agreement that Spiked is libertarian, with the majority of specialist academic sources identifying it as right-libertarian, and some non-specialist sources identifying it as left-libertarian.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Spiked has sometimes been described as libertarian, and sometimes as right-wing.

DRAFT cite stuff about the clinic