User talk:Montyswift

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Article; 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., you appear to be a new Wikipedia user so it is understandable that you are unfamiliar with the platform's policies. Please consider this an encouragement to use more suitable methods and channels to put forward material that you believe should be included in the article. I have pointed out the reasons why your edit was not appropriate, i.e. the quality of the edit itself was poor (grammar, formatting, etc.); the sources were unreliable (Twitter is generally not considered to be an impartial reference source and Pinknews is a partisan publication catering to a specific demographic and ideology, therefore it isn't a source of neutral information either). If you think you can provide a higher quality of material to support your position, I encourage you to do so. In the meantime please start by discussing the issue on the talk page: Talk:Kathleen Stock. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC) as I have said before, if you find an error, correct it, if you take issue with the sources, improve them, removing it entirely shows that you do not want this topic mentioned, which shows your own bias, you claim that twitter is not impartial, but please explain how else you would cite the source of a tweet, she made the statement through twitter, and therefore, I cited that statement, when it comes to the facts of what she tweeted, twitter is a valid source, I do not mean to start any conflict with you, but you accuse me of bias, when my language was neutral, I acknowledged the facts, and ignoring those facts shows far more bias than acknowledging them, so again, if you find errors, correct them, you clearly have more experience than I, so use that experience to improve my additions, not remove them entirely, because until you can prove that what I've said is incorrect, there is no reason to remove it other than your own bias
 * 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.

Kathleen Stock and edit warring
, returning to the topic of Kathleen Stock, I want to reiterate that though you may be convinced that the material you added to the article is valid and worth mentioning, and in fact, time may very well bear out your position, at the moment, the manner in which you have presented the material is insufficiently supported and this is why I have insisted on removing it from the article. As I hinted at before, individual tweets are generally not something that Wikipedia is concerned about reporting unless they prove to be of significant relevance to the topic, in this case Stock's biography or career. The only reference you added to support the controversial nature of said tweet is from a partisan source, so to my knowledge, no actual controversy exists. Please do not reassert the material in its original form the way you did after I reverted your first edit, as this constitutes an edit war and will most likely get your account suspended. The best way to approach this is by starting a conversation on the article's talk page, as I have suggested to you before. There appears to be an active number of editors monitoring the page, so I am confident that any conversation you start will be taken up and discussed, the way it should be in this kind of collaborative environment. Alternatively, if you are able to locate more impartial sources that have reported on this supposed controversy, I encourage you to add them to the article and they will be reviewed in the same manner as your previous edits. All the best. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) the tweet in question was in reference to her acceptance of an OBE, which is incredibly relevant to her career, and is also relevant to her continuing controversy regarding stonewall, I fail to see how this is not relevant, and also how it is an invalid source, it is accurate, it is noteworthy, a large part of her career has been her controversial statements about gender, and so to remove any mention of this is disingenuous, and I have, all sources I have added are impartial, twitter is impartial, as it only shows the facts of what she said, the article I cited is impartial, as it only shows the interview, and that study is impartial, all sources are impartial, accurate, and unbiased, as I have stated before, removing any mention of the controversy shows your own bias, she has been involved in this controversy for at least 2 years now, it is significant and relevant to her, and as such, should be included, if you disagree, I wonder if you would think the same if the controversial comments had been about race rather than gender, if she had been criticised for being racist, and had dedicated a large part of her career to criticising racial equality, would you consider that so unimportant?
 * , please indent your comments the way I have done here, it makes for easier legibility. You have gone ahead and reasserted your edit despite my warning about edit warring. You may not realize this, but to do so is in contravention of Wikipedia policies and as I've mentioned before, continued edit warring will get your account suspended. Not a good way for a new user to become initiated into a community they wish to be a participating member of. With respect to your position and your assertion that I am biased—yes, I am biased; I am biased towards the robust scientific position that sex is binary. This means that regardless of what the media claims or what various activists and ideologues proclaim, there is no scientific controversy about the stance Stock has taken on the position; the only controversy exists within the sphere of social justice activism. Now, I'm not saying this is irrelevant, but my position is that it isn't significant enough to warrant the kind of attention on Stock's page that you have tried to assign it. By the way, Stock's career spans well over two decades, so if, as you say, she has dabbled in this topic for two years, that does not constitute "a large part of her career".
 * Would I consider it unimportant if Stock's comments related to race and she was called out for being racist? That would depend on what she actually said, her intention, and the context. It is very much in vogue nowadays to call anyone who doesn't outspokenly support critical race theory racist, just as it is par for the course to label anyone who dares say that trans women are not biological women (they're not) transphobic, but I prefer to assess the context of the allegation in detail before jumping on a bandwagon—witch burnings just aren't my thing. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Twitter as a source
Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, Wikipedia articles should not use tweets as sources for statements about third parties. Someone tweeting their opinion of an organisation would fall under that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)