User talk:Jimhagerty

Welcome!
Hello, Jimhagerty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Joel Quenneville did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome.  Grey joy talk 04:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
Funcrunch (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This person was born male. End of story. Do you want to publish the truth or not? Jimhagerty (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This person may have been assigned male at birth, but it is a distortion of the truth to say they were male. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. What's even worse is that you believe it. Laverne Cox was male at birth and will always be genetically male. So, you either publish the truth, or Wikipedia is a joke. Jimhagerty (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you basing that statement on a published reliable source that she is "genetically male", or are you drawing conclusions based on how she was assigned at birth? —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Laverne Cox was male at birth. That's a fact, sport. I am not saying anything about what this person identifies as now. But Cox was born male. You can attempt to redefine that you want. But it will still remain a fact. Jimhagerty (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the article is sufficiently clear that she was assigned male at birth. There's no need for additional statements. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not clear, pal. As addlepated as you appear to be, you should at least see that. Jimhagerty (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you'd agree with changing the text to say she was assigned male at birth? Or would you prefer I escalate this to a noticeboard such as WP:BLPN? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Assigned male at birth" instead of "male at birth" like I've written? Jimhagerty (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually saying "assigned" male at birth isn't correct. Laverne Cox was male at birth, identifies as a woman, and surgically altered his body to make it appear female. Some call that, as I am sure you are aware, "gender reassignment", which is also a flawed concept. But of the sake of this argument, I will accept it. Laverne Cox was male at birth, and is now a trans woman who has undergone surgical gender reassignment. Jimhagerty (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Laverne Cox 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. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To put it mildly, I don't care. "Discuss" whatever you want. Hit me with whatever "violation" you'd like. I can sleep at night knowing the truth. What I published regarding Laverne Cox is the truth. If that's not good enough, or if I am not "woke" enough, then so be it, sport. Jimhagerty (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "wokeness", or frankly to do with "truth". It has to do with Wikipedia's processes and policies for developing consensus for or against disputed changes to articles, its reliance on consensus as the basis for resolving such disagreements, and its mechanisms for avoiding disruption of those processes; policies and processes for which you clearly have no respect. The community has developed those policies and processes, and has also agreed on penalties for those who evidently disrespect them. The fact that you "don't care" only reinforces the impression that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, which is yet another reason to potentially separate you from the project.  General Ization  Talk  17:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to tell yourself that. That's fine. I don't wish to argue. But this is all about being woke. The response about my "polarizing" language tells me that. It's as clear as the nose on my face, which is rather large. Anyway, thank you all for your succinct attention. I will wait out my 48-hours. Jimhagerty (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that if you resume the same edit warring activity after "waiting out" your block, the next block will be longer, and potentially indefinite.  General Ization Talk  17:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to see what my activity is and whether it's considered "warring". But, if I do decide to engage in "warring" activity, I'd certainly do so at my own peril. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Jimhagerty (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to continue editing on BLPs of trans people, please adhere to MOS:GENDERID.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)