User talk:81.170.101.15

August 2022
Hello, I'm Aricooperdavis. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Billy Bragg have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. aricooperdavis (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rosie Duffield without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason why should have been apparent in the text itself. I'm surprised that you have removed the edits in their entirety. The changes made were to make the article more balanced and to provide context to some of the points included in it. The article as it stands is quite one-sided - seemingly with the intent to frame Rosie Duffield as a 'transphobe' unworthy of any right of response. There does not appear to be any good reason not to mention the name of the unofficial fringe event at Labour conference Rosie attended - or at least what it was about; there is also no good reason to not briefly explain what exactly about Stonewall the LGB Alliance are in opposition to (or what they were formed in response to). It would also be more concise to note that LGBT+ Labour and Labour Students have called for Rosie Duffield to be disciplined for her views on multiple occasions, rather than have a separate paragraph for each instance as it is particularly newsworthy. Pink News is also not a very reliable or impartial news source and I'm surprised to see if it so relied upon in this article. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * [correction] as if it is particularly newsworthy 81.170.101.15 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking your ; we cannot say Duffield received significant online abuse after being criticised by several organisations. While the sources support Duffield being criticised, none of them support that she received abuse. The same is also true for hosted by the Labour Women's Declaration group in support of women's sex-based rights as the source does not name the fringe event, nor is that a neutral description of them from my understanding. We cannot say a group formed in response to the stance taken on gender identity theory by because it's both unsourced and "gender identity theory" is a non-neutral term. And on the last bit, I don't see a reason to merge those two paragraphs.
 * Per WP:RSP and the numerous discussions on it, PinkNews is a reliable source. As one of the few LGBT+ focused media outlets in the UK, and the general hostility of other UK media outlets with regards to trans and non-binary related issues, it is natural that they will appear somewhat frequently. However only 5 of the 54 sources in the article are from them, so there does not seem like a balance issue.
 * If you wish to see this change implemented, please discuss this on the article talk page so that other editor's can see the points you are raising. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Gender identity theory is already referred to in the very next line, for God's sake. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a quotation that is sourced. Not wikivoice. We cannot say that in wikivoice because it is not neutral. Please self-revert your, and then propose it on the talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask again, please self-revert your most recent edit to the page, and discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit comments
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries, as you did at Rosie Duffield, you may be blocked from editing. It is an inappropriate personal attack to describe other editors as "deeply ideological activists" or to label edits you disagree with as vandalism. TSP (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries, as you did at Rosie Duffield. TSP (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rosie Duffield. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I have engaged on the article's talk page. You have not bothered. You should not be editing this page in any capacity as quite clearly you cannot remain neutral. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I have engaged on that article's talk page, if you recall our earlier exchange on 29th/30th October. You are of course welcome to believe whatever you wish, but please stop attacking other editors as Adakiko has noted below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what I believe. I believe someone who is an avowed supporter of a particular ideological belief system should not be responsible for editing Wikipedia articles that touch upon that ideology which require any sort of nuance and balance in tone and content. You cannot remain neutral and you won't even pretend to. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to propose such at the Village Pump, though based on your own choice of words and actions I suspect that this might also exclude you from editing as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Rosie Duffield with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Editing disputes involve two people, why don't you challenge the other person? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be as neutral as possible, rather than having one group of people with an ideological point of view allowed to write whatever the hell they want. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure you understand or care what WP:NPOV actually means. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)