User talk:Logical OverLord

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Run Hide Fight
Please see Talk:Run Hide Fight where audience scores was discussed and concluded that they will not be added unless other secondary reliable sources cover the matter. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

June 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Homosexuality. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you want to try making your argument again then you can but you must refrain from personal attacks. If you continue to attack, disparage or belittle other editors for their personal pronouns, or any similar matter, then you should expect to be blocked from editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither you, nor anyone else, can claim to own and/or possess a personal pronoun, in any way, shape, or form. It is literally, linguistically, imppossible. Therefore, it cannot be concluded as a personal attack. Sionce a personal attack, requries as a prerequisite, ' ' It was in fact, a logical line of reasoning, which was being used as evidence, which suggested that they person in question, had ulterior motives, other than the proclaimed motive of making wikipedia better.
 * From a basic google search.
 * personal pronoun
 * noun
 * each of the pronouns in English ( I, you, he, she, it, we, they, me, him, her, us, and them ) comprising a set that shows contrasts of person, gender, number, and case.
 * This is from wikipedia itself.
 * Personal pronouns are pronouns that are associated primarily with a particular grammatical person – first person (as I), second person (as you), or third person (as he, she, it, they). Personal pronouns may also take different forms depending on number (usually singular or plural), grammatical or natural gender, case, and formality. The term "personal" is used here purely to signify the grammatical sense; personal pronouns are not limited to people and can also refer to animals and objects (as the English personal pronoun it usually does).
 * The specific focus for the definiton, in relation to your statement, should be focus on this part "The term "personal" is used here purely to signify the grammatical sense; personal pronouns are not limited to people and can also refer to animals and objects (as the English personal pronoun it usually does).".
 * More specifically "The term "personal" is used here purely to signify the grammatical sense;"". As you can see, the word "personal" does not, in any way, shape, or form, reference a specific individual, nor can they be exclaimed to belong to anyone one or more individual(s). That is fundamentally not how personal pronouns work. Personal pronouns are merely a linguistic reference and have no relation to one's self, and therefore, cannot constitute a personal attack, in any way, shape, or form.
 * To put it, in it's simplest terms. Neither you, nor anyone else, can identify as a specific personal pronoun. To do so, would be to deny the basics of logic, science, and linguistics.
 * Also, i never attacked anyone. I refuted their claims, and then made reference to the contradiction in their claims, and then subsequently made reference to the possible ulterior motives and why they might have such ulterior motives. (Possiblly not in that exact order though). For ultior motives to exist, there must be a reasoning related to one's character, in one form, or another (biases are included in one's own character). However, this, in and of itself, does not constitute a personal attack. For example, if someone says they are a "bird" that can fly, by moving their arms, and i, myself, subsequently state that they are not a "bird". That is "not", myself being malicious. It is stating a biological fact. The same as which was stated by refuting the usage of personal pronouns in someone's name/bio. Such a statement in a name/bio controverts the function in which personal pronouns operate in linguistics.
 * On a side note. I already figured that the previous comment would be perceived in such a way. Though just to be perfectly cler. I hereby deny the claim that i personally attacked anyone on the Talk:Homosexuality or anywhere else. Therefore, perhaps it is your definition of "personal attack", which is too vague and/or expansive in the scope of the definition, which is far too broad, and thus enables the phrase to encompass far to many situations than it logically should.
 * Also, if you are wondering "why" one such as myself would discuss definitions this much. It is quite simple. "A word is only as good, as it's definition". A word without a definition does not exist. A word is only a symbol to reference a specific definiton.
 * This relates to using a definition which contradicts itself, which leads directly to the principle of explosion by contradiction. Whereby anything becomes possible. The usage of "gender" (a purely psychological phenomenon), conflates the definiton of "sex" (as in "biological sex") (a purely biological phenomenon). This leads to the false notion that a psychological phenomenon is the same and/or in any way equivalent or comparable, to a biological phenomenon. Which leads to the principle of explosion.
 * Also, you are factually wrong. There is no "their personal prononus". No one has and/or owns personal pronouns. That is not how personal pronouns work. To state otherwise, is to be the equivalent of a science-denier. It is therefore, not possible, to attack, disparage, or belittle anyone, in any way, shape, or form, when the thing in question, does not belong and/or reference the person in question. Logical OverLord (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You attacked a specific editor. You've had your little rant but the warning stands. Any repeat and you can look forward to a block. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I never ranted nor did i attack anyone. You are factually wrong. Simply asserting a statement does not make it true. I only stated that, which was factually correct. Your attempt at dismissing someone's argument by claiming they attacked someone's character is illogical. Logical OverLord (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You do know that everybody can see the edit history, right?
 * For avoidance of any tiny shred of doubt, this edit is what were warned for. While the whole thing was off-topic ranting, the third paragraph constitutes an unambiguous personal attack. Please do not continue to waste our time by pretending otherwise. -DanielRigal (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not even understand what you mean by edit history.
 * Also, looking at the link for the edit you provided. None of it was off-topic. Also, paragraph 3 is "not" a personal attack. Nor is it ambiguous. To make this as simple as possible for you to understand. NO ONE can identify as a pronoun. Neither you, yourself, nor anyone else, "are" there pronouns. Anyone who thinks they are, is "factually wrong".
 * Dissecting paragraph 3:
 * ""In your name, you also contain the pronouns "he/him","" - Factually correct. This is merely an observation.
 * ""which is also something that is almost exclusively referenced by those who, in one form or another, believe in the psuedo-science of "gender theory","" - Gender theory comes from sociology, and sociology suffers from the replication, basically making it pseudo-science or in other words, scientific fraud. Only those who bleieve in the theory, or a particular sbuset of the theory place any pronouns at all, in their name and/or bio.
 * ""and more broadly sociology (especially since sociology suffers from the replication crisis, whereby, approxiamtely 50% of the entire field of study cannot be replicated)."" - This is factually correct. A 5 second google search will show many articles documenting this phenomenon.
 * ""This, thereby, gives you a potential motive to obfuscate the subject being discussed."" - This entire paragraph was related to the defintions that were given previously by the other person. These definitions appeared to attempt to obfuscate the difference between "biological sex" and "gender". If you go to the wikipedia article for "sex" and the wikipedia article for "gender", both confirm the definitions i stated at the beginning, and both definitions on their own wikipedia article demonstrate in their definition that "biological sex (sex)", is a 100% biological term, and that "gender" is a 100% psychological term (technically the definition includes "social, psychological, cultural," - but i was keeping the explanation simple).
 * Here is an example of a simple observation. If you observe that a flat-earther, is, in fact, a "flat-earther", it is NOT a personal attack. It is factually correct.
 * Also, i am not pretending anything. In fact, it appears as if you, yourself, are the actual one who is pretending. Not least, because you fail to copy/paste even a single quote and explain how even a single sentence is factually wrong, but instead, you insist on merely proclaiming that someone is factually wrong, without even stating "exactly" "HOW" they are wrong. However, if you literally spent 5 seconds to look at the "sex" and "gender" articles on wikipedia, (which is exactly what i did before making the very first comment), you would see, that they represent two entirely different phenomenon.
 * Also, almost all the paragraphs are refuting the reply that was made. Only part of the what i stated even referenced the usage of pronouns in their name and/or bio, and even then, it was merely an observation that the person in question appeared to have inclinations that would dissuade them from stating that, which was factually correct; Which is what was noted in the reply, when i mentioned there statement as being a possible "attempt at obfuscation".
 * Also, the pronouns that someone uses in reference to yourself, or anyone else, has absolutely nothing to do with you, yourself, or anyone else. Prononus are not yours or anyone elses to keep. You can see this by reading the "personal pronouns" article on wikipedia. To put it simply, "You are not a reference to your personal pronouns. Your personal pronouns are a reference to you". Therefore, you cannot, by logical definition, attack someone on the basis of their prononus, ni any way, shapr, or form, and much less so, if all you do is note your own observation that someone used them in their name, and then state the possibility that such an occurence could signify support and/or alignment for a specific theory. (Not to mention the specific theory in question occurs within sociology, which suffers from the replication crisis).
 * Now perhaps you could state that some parts of the argument lacked sufficient clarification, and might have been a bit vague. Yes, you might even be correct if you properly stated such a thing. You might even be able to copy/paste specific lines and state where in which sentences and/or words the vagueness/ambiguity lies. Yet you did not. You merely stated that i as wrong, and then dismissed the arguments almost entirely. However, i would counter that with the simple notion, that conveying thoughts 100% accurately, even when typing, is, in fact, quite a difficult task to undertake.
 * Do note. I am not stating that you are attempting a personal attack, nor am i stating that you have malicious intent. In fact, you might even be acting in good faith. However, i just think your notions of what constitutes a "personal attack", are either far too broad, or just factually wrong. Logical OverLord (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow! You really are committed to the bit, aren't you. I'm sorry but I'm not reading all of that as, on a glance, it seems to be another repeat of your previous nonsensical ranting against people having pronouns. I did try to read your attempt at justifying what you wrote in the third paragraph of that and it is impossible to believe that you do not understand the problem with what you did. You impugned the motives of another editor for absolutely no reason other than the fact that that he, like about half the English Speaking world's population, uses he/him pronouns.
 * I don't think that you are actually as ignorant as you seem to be. You know what the edit history is. (You clearly saw it when you clicked the link I gave you.) You know what a personal attack is. You are sealioning and generally trying to waste our time.
 * I'm upping this to a final warning for disruptive editing. That means that you can be blocked without further warning if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * My advice to you is to find a different topic area where you have less extreme opinions and emotions. If you can edit articles constructively and participate in appropriate and on-topic discussions while avoiding insulting, denigrating or belittling your fellow editors in that topic area then you are welcome to try that. If not, then clearly Wikipedia is not for you. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)