User talk:Bravetheif/Archives/2020/December

December 2020
Your recent editing history at Abigail Shrier 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I intend to represent Shrier and her book as accurately as possible. If people wish to discuss in the talk page, I will engage. Bravetheif (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I basically already stated this on the TP, but I strongly, strongly urge you to seek assistance at WP:TEA or WP:HELPDESK. They are very smart & experienced editors (much more than me), and they should be able to clearly explain to you WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:OR policies. Make sure to provide them the diffs of your edits, and of the TP discussion. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the message, and for the sake of stopping this I will take you up on that offer. Although I still believe my current statements don't violate WP:BLP (the original version definitely did), I will make efforts to rewrite and reduce the statements such that they meet the strictest interpretation of WP:BLP. This is a subject I am passionate about, and I apologise for the aggressiveness of my edits. Bravetheif (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! In the future, if multiple users revert your edits, please do not get into an edit war. Feel free to start a new discussion on the talk page, and discuss why you believe you are correct. Consensus is key @ Wiki. But edit-warring could easily lead to a block or even a ban from editing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Irreversible_Damage
Swag Lord's violated a voluntary IBAN and I'm not going to say another fucking word in that discussion. I already pointed out in my INITIAL edit summary that the Timesnest link pre-dates the Economist page. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I was not aware until MLJ told me. I took it to the talk page to try to stop Swag from repeatedly reverting your edits. I don't particularly want the source included in the article, I think the article should be more focused on the blatant transphobia and scientific & trans reactions to it, but unfortunately it does appear that the Economist did originally publish the article, so I don't think it can be dismissed on WP:RS grounds. Bravetheif (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Abigail Shrier. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abigail Shrier. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not controversial that socially mediated gender dysphoria is complete crap WP:FRINGE. The Littman study is currently the only study advancing the theory, and the sources I cited discussed foundational flaws in how the study was conducted. I have made efforts to remove citations that fall under WP:OR, and I am not synthesizing sources to advance a novel position. Her book makes direct reference to the Littman study as it's scientific basis, I described as such in the article and discussed the origins and scientific consensus on the theory. That is not synthesizing evidence. Being uncontroversial doesn't mean intentionally excluding facts to make the subject appear in a more positive light. 03:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Irreversible Damage; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Crossroads -talk- 03:17, 24 December 2020 (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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Irreversible Damage; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Crossroads -talk- 01:14, 27 December 2020 (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.

ds alert
—valereee (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)