User talk:Justgonnakeephappening

July 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Persistent deletion without discussion or participation in talk page thread. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wendy Carlos. 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:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll need to go and find the book source where Carlos is sick to the back teeth talking about being transgender and about how it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with her groundbreaking work in putting the synthesizer in the forefront of popular culture. Please, just drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold, but in that case you need to go to Talk:Wendy Carlos and state your case, rather than just blindly reverting everyone. It's that that led to the block, not your views. I don't want to play the "I'm not a racist, some of my friends are..." card but one of my real-life friends, who is also a Wikipedian, is transgender - I can't pull her into the discussion because she only identifies as "female" on-wiki and probably wouldn't want to be used as a "token" person in a discussion but rather dragged in for her views and ability to influence the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind not using that word? I understand your intentions aren't malicious, but it's still hurtful to read it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On the subject of Wendy's deadname - I agree with you, but Ritchie333 is right. If you edit war, you're just going to get banned. What good will come of that? You'll have changed the article for a few minutes at most. But if you follow the rules and and put your opinion forward on the talk page, we can change consensus, and change the article permanently. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You know the whole "trans friend" card reads kind of false when you put her gender in scare quotes and call her a slur in the same breath, right?

This is the exact kind of "objectivity" that keeps notable trans people's deadnames in their article ledes. Because consistency and The Facts™ are so very important that the majority of editors seem incapable of handling the subject with any tact whatsoever.

This has been argued time and time again in the article's talk page. It's no use. Wendy's transition and her previous name are discussed at length within the body of her article, and there is no good argument for placing it so prominently in the lede except that it's standard procedure for any notable person with a name change in their history, even though the context is complete different in this case.

It's frustrating. Justgonnakeephappening (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the Chelsea Manning & The Wachowskis should be the model for Wendy Carlos. All three subjects are notable for activities before their transition. Therefore prominently mentioning in the lead the names that were in use when they became famous is both appropriate & necessary.


 * Imagine the confusion a reader would have if s/he only knew the name Walter Carlos from Switched-On-Back or Clockwork Orange would have when, having searched for Walter Carlos, was redirected to Wendy Carlos & only had confirmation that s/he had reached the article only after reading past the lead. Many readers often do not get past the lead. Clarity is better than cultural/political correctness here.


 * Peaceray (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)