User talk:Lincean

Welcome!

Hello, Lincean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to LGBT rights opposition does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - MrX 20:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

BRD
A widely accepted practice, especially when editing controversial articles, is to follow WP:BRD. Forcing you view into an article, when other editors object to it, is not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus. Please use the talk page to sway others over to your reasoning, or yield to the existing consensus. - MrX 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:BRD is great. Especially the discussion part. Of which, you and others were failing to do. You haven't responded to my remarks on the talk page. I do not expect immediate response, as we all have things to do and there are no real deadlines. But you had plenty of time, well over a month, and continued to edit elsewhere. It seemed that you were no longer were interested in discussion. But I may be wrong, and if so, just when were you planning on responding?
 * I haven't 'forced' anything, as the change that I proposed was discussed. If anyone is forcing anything it is the people, such as yourself, who raised an objection and did not bother to make a counter response. By holding up discussion, one holds up reaching a resolution, and therefore edits.
 * It seems that BRD has worked in that my edit finally got you to respond in the discussion. Hopefully now you will engage with what I wrote and a resolution can be reached. Lincean (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to repeat the same arguments. For example, you keep mentioning the word "bigot" but the word in question is "bigotry". Those words have different meanings, and the content you wish to remove is the latter. It is a widely-held view among those who study the LGBT rights movement that bigotry is one of the reasons why some people oppose LGBT rights. A few sources:       . It's rather absurd to assert that bigotry is not one of the reasons for opposing LGBT rights, when organizations like AFTAH and Westboro Baptist Church exist.- MrX 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If it seems that I repeat the same arguments it is because they were misunderstood and not as of yet dealt with. To repeat it again so as to be clear: opinions should not be stated as facts. Moral views are opinions. Using "bigotry" involves a moral view, and therefore should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. As for the difference between "bigot" and "bigotry," that is a distinction without much practical difference. "Bigotry" came from "bigot," and is defined as that which is characterizes a bigot. Even still, "bigotry" is still a value-laden word. It is highly subjective, imprecise, and contentious. It is a term of abuse. It connotes a value system from which to pass moral judgement from. Take a look at WP:LABEL, and you can see "bigot" listed as an example. Take a look at the other words as well and it is clear that "bigotry" would not be out of place on that list. I do not see how citing those sources helps your cause here. Academic sources can and do contain opinions. These opinions can be cited in Wikipedia even, but they need to be cited as opinions, not facts. Especially if they involve a value judgement. Regarding the two groups you cited, please see WP:OUTRAGE. Even if a group may seem morally offensive, you still have to be neutral. Many people say Hitler was evil. That, however, does not justify Wikipedia taking a side as to what counts as "evil." Additionally see WP:IMPARTIAL. By using such words with normative implications, one necessarily engages in a dispute. Even if you think there is no normative implications, the tone of "bigotry" does not pass the test. You might want to take a look at this essay Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. Lincean (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to continue this discussion, but would you copy the last couple of posts (including the sources I cited) to the article talk page so that other editors can participate?- MrX 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is continued here: Talk:LGBT_rights_opposition. Lincean (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you list your reasons for opposing the use of the word "bigotry" in a non-TL:DR format on LGBT rights opposition
Hey Lincean, just wanted to check in and ask if you could list your reasons for opposing the use of the word "bigotry" on the RfC discussion without saying that you've already discussed them in the Reasons thread? I am also curious to learn what exactly your opposition is besides your repeated claims of NPOV-violation. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at LGBT rights opposition. The next time you remove 'bigotry' from this article I will invite you to ANI so that your POV-pushing editing history can be examined. - MrX 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , what I am doing is removing a POV-loaded word. I am not inserting any POV, commentary, or personal analysis into that or any other article. If you think I am POV-pushing, inserting commentary, or personal analysis into articles, tell me what is the POV I am pushing, what is the commentary/analysis. I would like to know this. Since I do not see that I done anything wrong, I do not fear your threats. Lincean (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What is happening?
, I see that you have blocked me, may I please have an explanation as to what is going on? If you would like me to confirm anything information about myself privately, I would do so. Lincean (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I consulted with another CheckUser and there is a possibility you are using this IP legitimately. I've therefore given you the benefit of the doubt and unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you! Lincean (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request

 * With all do respect, you are making a misjudgement. And for the sake of argument, say I am a sock-puppeteer, is there any reason why I can't be granted a Standard Offer? Lincean (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, because unblocking an editor who is willing to lie to get unblocked is a good way of getting one more editor who can't be trusted in the future. And as for your claim that I am "making a misjudgement", if I spelt out all the evidence, you would think "Oh my god, how can I have been so careless as to give myself away so obviously?" but for obvious reasons I am not going to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If I was a sock, then why am I fighting to keep this account instead of moving on to another? I do have access to other non-proxy IP addresses and could skirt the rules if I wanted. I am choosing not to do that, out of respect for Wikipedia's rules. This behavior does not fit the M.O. of sock-puppeteers who move from account to account. If admitting to being a sock would grant me a return, then I would not do it as it is not true. I also think you underestimate the likely-hood of similar people. Lincean (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)