User talk:Crossroads/2019, 4th quarter

IP ending in A2B2 says:
Yeah that’s not vandalism sooooooo....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A look at your contribs says otherwise. And don't bother me here anymore. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s a threat I’ll report you to the internet police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia really sucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And they said this: Hopefully they learn their lesson after their 36 hours. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

TERF
Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please note that the TERF article is under a 1RR restriction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , kindly retract this pointless warning. As it shows, edit warring "means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be". I changed it back one time, as permitted under 1RR, which I am well aware of. That means I did not repeatedly change it back. You did 2 reverts in 26 hours, though, for the same content, here:  -Crossroads- (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wasn't this also a revert? Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally different content by a totally different editor. That's not edit warring. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, 3RR and 1RR operate on a per page basis, not per content or per editor. You might want to keep that policy in nind, moving forward. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about this so I double checked, and the guideline does say A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But that policy says at the top, emphasis added, An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring....An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring. That makes no sense with totally different content from different people. On the other hand, the definitions for 3RR (and hence 1RR) are less clear. This may be a weird case not foreseen by the letter of the law, that is technically against 1RR but not edit warring. At any rate, as a sign of good faith, I would revert myself on one of the two, but I've already been reverted on both. I'd appreciate any other opinions on the situation as well. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Bwahaha! He didn't violate a thing. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really count as an opinion. More like a cackle. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be a weird case not foreseen by the letter of the law, that is technically against 1RR but not edit warring. I can agree that it's against 1RR but doesn't really count as edit warring. But I don't think this is a "weird case" or "not forseen". The whole point of 1RR is that it's super-strict, to the point that it proscribes behavior that would normally be considered reasonable. There's a reason that it isn't implemented on most pages! WanderingWanda (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you can agree that it doesn't really count as edit warring, then you should also agree that Newimpartial shouldn't have given me a template almost entirely warning about edit warring. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since 1RR blocks are a form of EW block, it seemed the most relevant template to place. It would be downright rude for anyone to be hauled to a drama board without having received an appropriate warning first, so I was trying to be proactive. If there is a special template for 1RR violations that some editors don't see as technically counting as edit warring (perhaps a Bwahaha template), please direct me to it for future reference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The part you wrote yourself about 1RR, without the template, would have worked fine. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean
I apparently have a problem that I have to work on. I read your revert to the end this time. Last time I read till I saw the negatives and stopped. This is what I am talking about What still bothers me is that I had to read past the negatives to get to the positive, and as we know (from even my own exprience. People are influenced by what they read or see first. Madison Ave (advertising) bases their whole business upon that premise.Oldperson (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I think you should work on fully reading and understanding what you are replying to. And you do need to stop throwing around accusations, as here, here, and here. If a topic is too distressing, it may be better to avoid it. And there should be no expectation that a person's individual edits handle content in a certain order; rather the order the article handles it is the only one that matters. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe editors should carefully choose their words, since carelessness can be misinterpreted. It is not up to the reader to understand the mind  of the author, but it is up to the author to convey his thoughts clearly. I don't appreciate your arrogance and condescension. Who  do you think you are talking to anyway?Oldperson (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So now you are telling me that I, an editor, can not, should not edit. I do not believe that isthe way things work. Editors are expected to make edits, and your choice of quotes is sensationalism, prurient and inappropriate for the general public, especially the young folk who might access the page.Oldperson (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is apprently in reference to this, which I will leave to the reader to judge. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Menstrual hygiene
Please see Talk:Menstrual_hygiene_products. "Menstrual hygiene" is the term used in authoritative literature. "Feminine hygiene" is an outdated marketing term used to describe not only menstrual hygiene products, but a whole range of douches, perfumes, deodorants, and other products that have no relevance to menstrual hygiene. There is a reason we have an article at penis, not schlong. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's being discussed there. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Desmond is Amazing
You labeled my addition as vandalism(!) and removed it as “redundant and therefore undue”. I may have missed where any other media publishing attack pieces has been added to the article. Can you help me understand your thinking on this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not label it as vandalism; that is false. It wasn't so much you adding it as it was you reverting 's removal.  As they said in the edit summary, "The breitbart piece was covering the nightclub performance; these are the same death threats mentioned in the previous sentence." I understand this to mean that it is redundant; I concur. It also misleadingly makes it look like a separate incident. And you should discuss this sort of thing at the article talk page, not mine. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The instructions on undo edits says in part, “If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.” So my mistake if the default message inclusion doesn’t imply vandalism.
 * I removed the part that they objected to (“which resulted in death threats”), so no, it was no longer redundant in any way.
 * Your point that it could be seen as a separate incident is valid. And that is a reason rewrite, not wholesale removal with misleading edit summaries.
 * I came here as I wanted to see what you meant as your edit summary wasn’t helpful to understanding your action. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Why revert edit on many worlds interpretation?
I was trying to fix the entry for the many-worlds interpretation. You reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Many-worlds_interpretation&oldid=prev&diff=924497095 How should this information be incorporated? I was trying to explain the existing sentence "In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle unnecessary." That is stated without explanation. The explanation of why it would make the principle unnecessary is in the other pages, but it seemed key to elevate it here. The inability to recover information from the time travel is what makes the NSCP unnecessary.

This is information I believe should be elevated to this paragraph. How should it be incorporated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AristosM (talk • contribs)
 * The problem is that unsourced editorial commentary on the implications of the many-worlds interpretation is basically original research, no matter how logical it seems to us. Sci-fi adjacent topics like this one tend to attract such content. The solution is to back up the existing unsourced statements and what you want to add with a reliable source, as all Wikipedia content should have. I suggest checking the Fabric of Reality source already in the paragraph. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 * Like those stickers say - "I voted". -Crossroads- (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Masturbation; 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. VF9 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2019 (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.
 * Obviously retaliatory. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, just ironic. Why would you edit-war after telling someone else not to? See WP:BOOMERANG VF9 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Boomerang indeed, for this now indeffed sockpuppet. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I made some changes to history of bisexuality page
Hi Crossroads,

I hope everything is well in your life! A couple months ago you reached out to me regarding my proposal to edit the History of Bisexuality page under its talk page. I finished editing the content recently and would love to hear your opinions about it. Let me know what you think!

Best, Xli1218 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I've looked it over now. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

NAMBLA and Thomas Hubbard
Thank you for reverting your edit to the article; I have responded to Prof. Hubbard via OTRS to let him know that it has been removed. However, you noted in your edit summary that "this was originally added at someone else's request." This raises the possibility that you may be engaging in undisclosed paid or proxy editing; can you please clarify who asked you to add this content and why you chose to do so, so that we can set the matter to rest? Yunshui 雲 水 08:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , pardon for being overly curious, the same user who created Draft:Thomas K. Hubbard seems to have requested the addition, and said it was on the article prior and should be restored. Not sure if that answers all concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See August edit request. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks. My bad for not spotting the earlier edit request. Some investigation needed here clearly, but Crossroads' hands are obviously clean. Yunshui 雲 水 10:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ., he is correct, I was referring to that edit request. I have never and will never engage in paid or proxy editing. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

My spidey senses are telling me that Draft:Thomas K. Hubbard might be a part of the pederasty series of articles that has been debunked for “creative” sourcing. If so there might be quite a few drafts hiding in plain sight to add credibility to the effort. Maybe a search on “pederasty” or similar clinical sounding terms in the drafts? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't. The pederasty articles are all from before 2010, when that editor was blocked. I searched draft space and found nothing suspicious. It seems implausible that the creator of this draft has the same motivations as that editor did. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking! Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Asian sexual fetishism
Hello. I've noticed that you've made some edits to the article "Asian sexual fetishism" and have left some comments there. In my opinion, the entire article is written horribly, the premise of the article is deeply flawed, and the article is also heavily biased. Previously, the article was titled "Asian fetish", but I changed it to "Asian sexual fetishism" in order to align it with the article "Sexual fetishism". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The article Asian sexual fetishism has a deeply flawed premise and displays heavy bias since it begins by asserting that Asian sexual fetishism is a bad thing. Furthermore, it doesn't properly define Asian sexual fetishism. Prior to my own edits to the introduction, the article implied that any White man who is attracted to Asian women is a sexual predator. Furthermore, the article's introduction previously implied that an attraction to Asian culture (e.g. food, language, customs, etc.) by White men inevitably leads to the sexual predation of Asian women by White men. Also, the sources cited throughout the article aren't of the highest quality. Many sources include things like magazines and novels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I wouldn't condemn the article in as strong of terms as you do here. The concept does appear legitimate, keeping in mind that "fetishism" is being used in an informal, cultural sense and not the medical sense. If a source can be found, perhaps the article should state this. That said, there are problems with the article. Some sources are indeed poor (e.g. a LinkedIn page, what appears to be a paper by an undergraduate, etc.) and some of the opinions presented should have in-text attribution. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that it's generally quite difficult to back up many of the claims made in the article. For example, this one: "Western fetish for Asian things developed out of a European tradition of fascination with the East, and a history of othering the inhabitants of those regions." This claim is very vague and there are no sources supporting it. Furthermore, this comment, "An Asian fetish places a psychological burden on Asian women", is also very generalised and cannot realistically be supported by evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What matters is not how we understand evidence, but what the reliable sources say. The first quote above could just be removed as it is unsourced and likely OR. The second appears supported, but feel free to check the source and adjust the phrasing if it goes beyond what the source says. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources in the article have been cherry-picked. The article presents a very biased viewpoint by excluding all opinions to the contrary and by presenting various people's opinions as facts. I believe that the entire article needs to be rewritten or revised. For example, I have changed "Origins" to "Speculated origins". I personally find it hard to believe that there is very much credible evidence of Orientalism in the Middle East dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, so I've just removed that comment entirely. The rest of the comments on the West's fascination with China, Japan, and Korea are also unsourced, but I've decided to leave them since I think there is credible evidence to back up some of these claims, such as the existence of sexualised postcards featuring Asian women. Still, sources need to be provided. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On noticeboards, pings, and the meaning of life.
Yup...that guy needs to go away. He's clearly a POV pusher. I watchdog some controversial articles strictly to try to get people to talk through the issues rather than edit war. That's one. I have 0 evidence I can offer, a quick glance would have easily shown I have no ongoing roll in the content there...so why did you ping me to a noticeboard? I wouldn't expect you'd know, but I participate at ANI with some regularity. If you link a username in a properly signed message, no matter how you mechanically link it...a ping is generated. I was not needed there. There was no need whatsoever to ping me. If you for whatever reason (there's really not a valid one), feel compelled to identify to the highly experienced editors at ANI the participants in the diff you just gave them, use Template:noping. Don't know about your neighborhood, but in mine, getting called into court is NOT a way to win friends. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that, and won't ping you again in the future if a similar situation occurs. Even though you said you have no evidence to offer, your testimony that he is a POV pusher would still be valuable at ANI. But anyway, I know that I myself would greatly appreciate such a ping. And in other such cases, editors who have interacted with the problem user have appreciated the pings, or at least simply ignored them. I wouldn't take it as getting 'called into court'. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Man
Concerning this, the material in question was not removed for the rationale you have given, and it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times to restore uncontroversial content. The fact that this material has not been in the less up to now is not policy compliant evidence for it being UNDUE, and neither is the argument in tour edit rationale. Most sources on the topic don't refer to chromosomes, either, but you don't seem to have any problem with those lede elements. The arguments that have been brought to bear justifying the inclusion of gender identity and boundary issues on Woman apply equally here, and your brusque dismissal of all this content without examination screams IDONTLIKETHAT. And your comment that "you already have" articles on "trans, intersex, and 'gender expression'" - as if those were not also aspects of the topic Man - just about scream prejudice and exclusion. Check your privilege, maybe? Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't know people were still saying "check your privilege" unironically. And you appear to have assumed that I am cisgender and not intersex. As for it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times to restore uncontroversial content, that is not correct. WP:3RR states, The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Bolding in source. Also, the fact it was being removed refutes that it is "uncontroversial". The argument against that lead content is already given here; the pre-existing lead content is another matter. The Woman article likewise does not contain such exposition nor should it. "You already have" means that Wikipedia well covers these topics; these are not major aspects of "Man", according to the sources, such that these aspects should be so focused on in the lead. This is not a slight towards these men. It is simply a matter of due weight. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reality is that weight shifts over time, as you well know from Woman; you may not remember those discussions clearly. but the fact that you have recently been defending the retention of material that you previously tried to remove (on Woman) shows that you implicitly recognize that fact. If you are intersex, you have employed a truly bizarre and self-abnegating treatment of the interaction between intersex status and gender identity, for reasons about which I cannot speculate; in any case, I prefer to use Occam's razor, here as elsewhere.
 * As far as your "entitlement" argument is concerned, I can only assume that you are still miffed at misconstruing 3RR in the past and being (politely) called out on it, or you would not be so quick to elide "right" to entitlement. Also, if you had followed the sequence of events accurately, you would have observed that Springee only launched the talk page discussion after having run out of 3RR room themselves. Finally, the nonsense spouted by editors who revert material that they claim is "controversial" and cite as evidence for controversy the fact that they have reverted it is a brand of foolishness up with which I will not put. We can have the DUE argument all that you like, but applying the "controversial" label to uncontested factual statements is just not on. Newimpartial (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, my talk page comments made it pretty clear what was "contested" about the disputed material. Why would you claim that the disputed material is an "uncontested factual statement" when it has been contested? That's like hiding your head under the bed at noon and insisting that it's dark outside. If you think this material is worth arguing about (at great length), why don't you consider it worthwhile to actually work on it and address other editors' concerns? I don't see a lot of willingness on your part to collaborate. Actually, I don't see any. I'm sure we could all do without your condescending tone as well. SunCrow (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence at all, SunCrow, that any of the three key factual claims are contested:
 * * that men have various sexual orientations
 * * that some AMAB people do not identify as men
 * * that some non-AMAB people do identify as men.
 * I could claim to contest that the sky is blue, but unless I provide some reasoning or evidence behind that assertion, "the sky is blue" would still count for WP as an uncontested statement. You have so far provided nothing but POV.
 * I have pointed to numerous, sourced, articles and discussions of these topics elsewhere on WP. If you won't read those, why should I provide more? Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notifying users for 1RR vios
I noticed the noticeboard discussion you raised about another editor, but this comment confused me:
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not really possible under 1RR, as once edit warring begins it's already a violation,...

I don't understand what you mean: what isn't possible? You can warn a user on their talk page before bringing the discussion to the noticeboard. The only difference between the two cases, is how many reverts before you warn them, right? Then, if it's ignored, you go to WP:AN3. At least, that's how I've always interpreted "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" in the AN3 template, i.e., they're asking you for a diff of the User talk page where you left them a uw-3rr or uw-1rr message. If it weren't possible to do so for 1RR, then uw-1rr would have no utility at all, right? Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've (hopefully) clarified my report in that regard, as it now says, Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. I didn't know uw-1rr existed, but it actually does appear to me to have no utility. Unless you wanted to not report someone even though you could, and warn them only, I suppose. But my experience with this editor tells me it's time for an admin to evaluate. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)