User talk:Shoppe000

December 2021
Hello, I'm Bodney. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Gender dysphoria have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything I added is medically accurate. As a psychiatrist I can tell you about the importance of accurate information in this area. With a 40% suicide rate this is not a conversation that should be shaped by politics. By not having complete information you may actually be costing lives Shoppe000 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You have the following on your page. Are you willing to allow your bias to keep people with a 40% suicide right who may be perusing this page while in crisis to not have access to medically accurate information?

I am deeply passionate about protecting all Civil Liberties and Human Rights. I support the standing up against inequality & discrimination everywhere, including checking any Systemic bias that naturally occur in Wikipedia. If you do not consider yourself biased, or unsure of your own socio-political biases have fun answering the 40 questions the 8values multiple choice quiz Shoppe000 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
I would also note that you removed content on Gender dysphoria that was sourced to reliable sources for medical information, and replaced it with unsourced content. Please refrain from doing that in any subject area, regardless if the strength of your feelings. 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If I deleted information it was not my intention, this is my first edit. As a psychiatrist I was only trying to expand the information on this page to reflect the current scientific consensus on the matter. I am only trying to give information that could save lives. Political activist like the gentleman who deleted my edits named Brody I should not be commenting on medical issues due to their political slant. People with gender dysphoria should be able to live their lives anyway they want to without discrimination and to be able to have access to medical information that could help save their lives. This has nothing to do with my feelings with science. Shoppe000 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I was about to source it I was just trying to figure out where to do so Shoppe000 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the relevant project guidelines before trying to edit medical articles. Adding unsourced WP:POV information to such articles is a definite breach of Wikipedia norms - don't do that - and using a misleading edit summary, such as "typo", is also a violation. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Again I'm a psychiatrist and was sourcing the information as soon as I found the place to do so. I fixed typos in that edit. I'm happy to link you medical articles as well as information from the National Centre for Transgender Equality. To be honest it sounds as if you and Brody are arguing against medical information due to political bias. Nothing I posted is controversial in the medical community. Shoppe000 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit did not fix any typos; it removed well-sourced medical information (with which, it seems, you disagree).
 * Also, regardless of how much a psychaiatrist you are, nobody on Wikipedia cares about what you think is, or isn't, controversial in the medical community. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say about the topics of WP's articles. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So to be clear when I repost with both medical and pro trans organizations citations you will leave it alone? Also what I was deleting was a paragraph with typos. You are correct that it doesn't matter my only that the information was accurate which it was. I do understand I need to source on the same edit. Shoppe000 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you remove properly sourced information that has consensus for inclusion, as you did in the edit I linked above, and "replace" it with information that suits your POV better - even if it is sourced - that WP:BOLD edit will be reverted per WP:BRD until a discussion on Talk:Gender dysphoria reaches WP:CONSENSUS that your version represents the totality of the appropriate sources better than the existing version. That is what is supposed to happen, per WP policy, and also happens to be what will actually happen. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter if it's correct or medically accurate even if it's sourced from medical sources and pro transgender sources only if people with no training agree with it. That's the opposite of how science works but it is the first step in a populist tyrannical world. Why not just be honest and say you are unwilling to listen to any view that is different than your worldview and you will use your feelings to stop any information that disagrees with you no matter how well sourced? Is there an administrator above you that I could talk to that hopefully wouldn't have such strong bias? This site is supposed to be a place for learning not a place for activists like you to ignore science to push your own narrative. I will pray in the future that you learn to be open-minded and examine evidence before making snap decisions. Shoppe000 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Side note: if you bother to read the references at the bottom that are already there everything I've said in here except for maybe the 40% suicide rate has already been sourced. If anything several of the conclusions and the Wikipedia page are contrary to the sources at the bottom. Shoppe000 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I do not ignore science - I actually read science, whether or not I agree with the findings of the specific study. And I base my views on medical science on what I read in medical authorities, not the other way around. So I really don't know what you are talking about.
 * If you continue to feel that the article, Gender dysphoria, is not aligned with its sources, the thing to do is to raise specific issues (ideally while making concrete proposals to fix them) at Talk:Gender dysphoria. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Was there even be a point to bring it up on talk gender dysphoria when you've already said it's more about being a popularity contest even if it ignores current scientific understanding? I will do so anyway. Regardless I ask again if there's somebody over you that I could speak with. Shoppe000 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is a community, not a popularity contest. My one piece of advice would be, that starting a conversation from the assumption that you and you alone on WP are correct in your view of the current scientific understanding, is not a likely way to reach CONSENSUS in alignment with your interpretation of "current science". Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Again it's not my view or my opinion, it's just facts as far as the current understanding by the medical community. As for not being a popularity contest you're wrong and the proof is by your own description. In science consensus issues, however, it's consensus of other scientists that have done research and tests that can be duplicated by other scientists. Consensus is not a bunch of randos with no scientific background deciding they like the way one side sounds compared to the other side. This type of "consensus" it's nothing but a popularity contest. Thank you for your opinions in this conversation. I will follow up as you instructed me too and hopefully if I cite sources and point to the exact experiments people will actually take the time to read instead of just replying one popular opinion. I guess we will see Shoppe000 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Also note that not everyone is suited by temperament to working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I know I've met two already. Have a Merry Christmas Shoppe000 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is your response to an editor (me) who has simply given you information about how WP works, you might want to take a look at WP:NPA before interacting with other editors. Merry Christmas. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry where did I say I was talking about you? Maybe try to examine your own bias. I've done nothing but try to explain why I put the data that I put and where it came from and I was actually talking about two other people but because you disagree with my thoughts on the matter you seem to assume that I was talking about you. So either you're biased against me because you didn't agree with what I was talking about or because I disagreed with you that automatically makes me throwing an insult to you? Maybe you can explain it better to me? Just because we disagree with each other doesn't mean we can't have a civil conversation with each other as we had until this point. Shoppe000 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to your contribution history, you have only interacted with two editors on Wikipedia. Also, you did not put ... data into the article; you added an unsourced opinion. Perhaps starting with one of Wikipedia's highly sensitive areas, to which special sanctions apply, is not the most prudent course for you to take. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you will also see I spoke with someone in the message boards. I do find it concerning that an administrator would abuse their power to stalk my history so they can try to prove themself right. Let me also point out that this part started because you said implying me that not everybody has the right temperament to edit Wikipedia articles. As to my contribution history yes I treated account today and I decided to comment on a subject that I am fluent in. I have a wealth of knowledge in the subject and the article was full of misinformation and political narratives that have nothing to do with actual science behind the article. I decided to try and change that so I could add more facts which are not only sourced by the sources already listed on the page but I was in the process of adding it when you cut me off. Maybe the most prudent course as you put it would for an expert to be able to correctness information and not have a moderator with an obvious political slant until them that fax don't matter and we consensus and the tyranny of the majority does. Again I ask you who your supervisor is or I can talk to you above you because you obviously have a political bias and have been very standoffish and have been patronizing and condescending to me the entire time. Shoppe000 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator, I did not cut you off, and this is your user Talk page, not a customer service chat line. Have a nice day. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So you are telling me that you have no connection to wiki other then being a user and that you found me by accident. Shoppe000 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am an editor, and you edited a page on my watchlist. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Finally some truth. I see from other deletions you have made in the past it is common for you to follow your bias to delete any information you do not agree with. Having hate in your heart will do nothing but make you miserable. Just because you lead the fascism doesn't make it good. Shoppe000 (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shoppe000 (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)