User talk:Sideswipe9th/Archives/2023

Lead text in what is a woman page
What wasn't neutral about the lead text? Mwnt888 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In short, it uncritically puts into Wikivoice Walsh's point of view on the film. It's also word for word identical to the plot summaries on IMDB, the Radio Times, and AVClub. So it's also a copyright violation that I'll be requesting a revdel of momentarily.
 * I'd also add that Turning Point USA is not a reliable source per a 2021 discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard and so it cannot be used to support a claim that Walsh is a "best selling LGBTQ+ author". Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok so is pink news a reliable news source? Mwnt888 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes PinkNews is a reliable source. You can find links to all of the past discussions about it at its RSP entry here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's quite obviously bias... Mwnt888 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hang on I've just realised all of the left wing news sources are in green. That is strange... Mwnt888 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read those past discussions for why those specific sources have been found unreliable, as they will contain specific examples as to why those sources are considered unreliable. In most cases this is due to a combination of very poor editorial standards, a lack of fact checking and corrections when proven to have published falsehoods, and/or publishing conspiracy theories as facts.
 * If there are any sources that you disagree with and where you think you the Wikipedia community has got it wrong, you can if you wish start a discussion at WP:RSN, however you will need significant evidence from reliable sources to demonstrate that those sources are reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That depends on your point of view I suspect. Bias and reliability are interrelated, however not all biased sources are inherently unreliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Really though - Unless it's a journal article or a peer reviewed study it shouldn't be cited. Mwnt888 (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * there are some editors who believe that, however there are many noteworthy things and events that will never be featured in academic writing. To require only academic sources would, for example, prevent us from having an article on What is a Woman? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then so be it - it's better not to write anything at all than to write something which could be false, but then this is Wikipedia. Mwnt888 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender dispute editor
May get traction at ANI if you include their history of edit wars on a similar topic over at Anti-gender movement. Just a thought, as it appears they may need a TBAN. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I'm tempted to give em just a little rope here, they've been page blocked so I'd like to see if they try this somewhere else.
 * For some reason I have this feeling that I've reverted this content on off-label use of GnRHAs previously, sometime last year. I thought it was on OK's article, but I can't see it in the article history. I'm also not sure if it was the same editor or someone else who had added it before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And by same content, I mean almost identical. An allegation of a financial connection, off-label prescription of GnRHAs, and the false claim that such prescriptions are unlawful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: 

Suggestion
Hello, Sideswipe9th! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wi Spa controversy
Thank you for bringing WP:BLPRESTORE to my attention. Please see the new talk topic "Should the Article Name the Suspect?". Mox La Push (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
I assume that your incorrect reference to policy was in good faith. But please be more careful in future. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No assumption of bad faith was made when I said the restoration of that section was against policy, as I did not speculate on the reason why it was restored. I only remarked that it was restored. I will ask you again, will you please self-revert your restoration of that section as it has been restored against policy? Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be misreading, but I think Sweet6970 is saying she is assuming good faith by assuming your citation of BLPRESTORE was an error—one that could be prevented by being more careful in the future.
 * Sweet, I think the actual good-faith assumption here would be that Sideswipe9th has a different interpretation of the policy than you, not that she made an error. In my view, your interpretation of BLPRESTORE—which I take to be that implicit consensus is enough to restore such material—is the incorrect one. If you think you're likely to continue depending on this interpretation, I encourage you to bring it up for discussion at WT:BLP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * to Firefangledfeathers: That is really not very far from my assumption – I was assuming that her action was in good faith. As regards implicit consensus – I noted that you had amended the material, so that in practice you had accepted it, which indicated to me that there was consensus to include it, because I did not expect you to edit against consensus (and, for clarity, I am not accusing you of this). My intent with my revert was to go back to your version, except for the technical bot edit of 19:22 of 7 February. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the biggest deal in the world, but if it were me on the receiving end, I'd take "I assume you and I interpret policy differently" over "I assume you made a mistake" any day.
 * I didn't intend to indicate support for the content by my editing. I suppose I could have made it clearer via edit summary with something like "I oppose this content, but here's some fixes anyway". I did make a comment to that effect at the talk page. Whether or not my edits contributed to the appearance of implicit consensus, I really do think an interpretation of BLPRESTORE as requiring only implicit consensus is problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Killing of Brianna Ghey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing of Brianna Ghey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Killing of Brianna Ghey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Noah Talk 02:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Brianna Ghey
I would note that the article is under the 1 revert rule as specified in the editnotice. You've made more than one revert in 24 hours that doesn't seem to be exempted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh no! That definitely wasn't intentional. So that I can self-revert, what were the other revert(s)?
 * I know I'd made one revert over two edits, which on the whole I considered to be disruptive blanking by the IP editor and left an appropriate warning on their talk page, which I'd usually consider to be exempt under 3RRNO#4. Was the other one the copy-edit on the images ? I'd have considered that part of the ordinary back and forth copy-edit cycle. My only other edits since the 1RR was put in place was removing a sentence that failed verification , which would be exempt under 3RRNO#7, and fixing an accidental spelling mistake made by another editor.
 * Can I also ask, as I'm just curious, why a 1RR restriction was put in place as the first level of protection? If I'd been requesting protection at RFPP I'd have asked for semi or ECP as the first level, or maybe the lesser used consensus required. 1RR seems quite a high level of protection to put in place on an article that's still being actively developed and copy-edited. I'm not challenging that it's in place, I'd just like to understand why that protection level and not one of the other levels we have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was quite a bit of back and forward between extended confirmed and non-extended confirmed editors over what to put in the "attack" parameter in the infobox, which is when I imposed the 1RR. They were not discussing on the talk page, instead using edit summaries, and my intention was to encourage talk page discussion over a edit-war. This calmed down a little time after 1RR was imposed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The last diff I can find on this edit-warring is at Special:Diff/1139875477. I wanted to avoid protection in the first instance as there was extended confirmed editors on both side of the argument in places (e.g. Special:Diff/1139795590 and Special:Diff/1139795686) which would have made anything but full protection not a full method of curbing disruption. Furthermore, I saw good faith edits by non-ECP users that would have been stopped by ECP protection. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

My error
Apologies for the error and I just wanted to make clear I am not User talk:2603:7000:3B40:B500:28D5:89AD:26D2:494 I am having bad day and I probably shouldn't be on the internet today. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Brianna Ghey's page under her deadname
I saw you just removed a user's attempts to add Ghey's deadname to her page. You may also want to do something about the redirect page the same user created under her deadname after having their edits reverted. I don't believe I have the permissions to do anything about that. Maivea (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Already ahead of you. If you refresh the diff on your end it should show up as a non-existent revision. I've got that page watchlisted now though incase anyone else tries to do it. Thanks for the heads up :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Have a nice rest of your day. Maivea (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any time! Just so you know how to handle this sort of situation yourself in the future, take a look at WP:REVDEL. There's information there on what sort of information can be hidden, and how any editor without the tools to do it like ourselves can request it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Oolong (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC closure
It was only open for ninety minutes, and only three (or perhaps four) people suggested the RfC was malformed. Perhaps you could wait a bit longer next time?  Tewdar  09:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * while I recognise early procedural closes of RfCs can and often are controversial, which is why I don't do them often, there was a rough consensus that the RfC had serious procedural issues that would have made it invalid. I've seen plenty of admins make similar determinations on this issue, and I feel confident that in these circumstances that the closure was fair, even if controversial. There's nothing preventing all of the editors at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory from workshopping a new RfC on the same issue, and that doesn't have the same procedural problems as the one I closed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, perhaps the massive ANI discussion may not have happened if the RfC had been allowed to continue for another 24 hours or so. I suppose we shall never know now...  Tewdar   15:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With the interactions between Sennalen and Newimpartial, I think an ANI discussion was kinda inevitable. I don't think an RfC with a rough consensus of it being flawed had any measurable impact upon that.
 * P.S, I dunno if you have my talk page watchlisted or not. If you do let me know and I'll stop pinging you with replies like this! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have you watchlisted... I've unwatchlisted all obviously controversial pages, so that I have to actively pursue drama now... 😁  Tewdar   17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, you unsubscribed from your own talk page? Is that even possible? :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe you can! Good idea! 😂  Tewdar   17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

ROGD
You said that "no one had added to those topics in three months" That is completely untrue. Those topics had active discussions as recently as two weeks ago. Please take a look at the dates on the edits.. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:202D:4D20:49B3:9319 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any dates on the comments you re-inserted that are more recent than November. I think you made a mistake. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I was mistaken. My apologies.  I will refrain from editing for a week or so as a self-imposed sanction. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:202D:4D20:49B3:9319 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
I just can't see how restoring SPS content from the stable version of an article, two times, against the objections of one editor (not to the content but to the sourcing), could possibly be an egregious violation.

I mean, you and I both see actual egregious BLP violations on a regular basis, and I just can't get into your head and understand how you see one there. I get that my edit was wrong, and I won't do it again, but it wasn't disruptive (the article space conflict was over long before the ANI started), nothing I did made the article worse than it had been for weeks, and yet you are insisting that there is some immanent risk of disruption for which a ban is the only solution. It doesn't feel in any way preventative; it feels like I've done something wrong (as we both recognize) so you feel I must be punished.

There might have been a time when we could be wikifriends, but I'm losing all respect for your judgement of conduct issues at this point. I will try to remain civil, but it will be a very cold civility like I sometimes manage with Colin and Koyla, who also decided recently that it would be fine to just ignore my perspective and lay into me because it suited their understanding of the world. Blech. Newimpartial (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Like in all things, there are levels of egregiousness.
 * You're correct when you say that we see a lot of truly awful shit regularly, and are often the first responders for making sure that it gets removed or rewritten, and rev-delled or suppressed as necessary. And compared to that, this is obviously mild. However in my eyes that's the wrong comparator. We are both experienced editors in this content area. We know, or should know, the ins and outs of all of the relevant policies and guidelines that shape both content and conduct in this area. We need to know this, not just so that we can make sure that any content we contribute is in the best interests of the community, but also so that when disruptive elements do arise they can be handled in an appropriate manner.
 * For me, this was an egregious policy violation because we know the ins and outs of that part of the policy, because we are the experienced editors. If an inexperienced editor had made this same mistake, I would cut them some slack due to their inexperience and advocate for giving them a warning and coaching. On the other hand, if an experienced editor made this mistake, and there's more than a few other names that we're both familiar with that this would equally apply to including myself, then they should be held to a standard appropriate to their experience level.
 * You've said a few times in the ANI thread that you never restored content against the objections of more than one editor. And that is true. However that's not how BLPRESTORE works. BLPRESTORE applies to any good faith BLP objection, even if you have a different interpretation of whatever BLP reason the content was removed for, and no matter how many editors are making the objection, you should still respect BLPRESTORE. The reason for this should be obvious to all. When BLPs are mishandled, there is a significant risk to harm towards the article subject and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Please stop fixating on the number of editors who objected on good faith BLP grounds, as that isn't how the policy works.
 * I realise that you're hurting right now. You're being hauled over the coals at ANI, and a great many unfair things have been brought up and used against you. And when this is over, regardless of the outcome, maybe taking a few days break to clear your mind and process all of the feelings surrounding this might be something you want to consider doing. Despite all that's been said, I still consider you a wikifriend. I'm not going to change how I interact with you because we're having a disagreement. I always value your input, even when I disagree with it in part or in whole. I'm not going to treat you any differently than I have done in the past. If you want my advice or input on a topic where you think I can be helpful, I will always be there to give it, you only need to ask. Whether you reciprocate that or not is ultimately your choice, but I hope that with time you'll come to recognise that I'm not laying into you or ignoring your perspective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to respond to the first part of this in some detail, because I realized that we are still talking past each other about important aspects. You can talk about being experienced editors all you want, but one of the ways experienced editors can make mistakes is by antagonizing other editors when we hold an understanding that we believe is correct and supported as a community interpretation of policy, and to be wrong about that. We don't know what we don't know.
 * So I was wrong about how the community understands the scope of BLP requirements and BLPRESTORE. I knew the community to hold a fairly high bar for what can be excluded as "contentious material about a living person" under WP:3RRBLP, and I mistakenly applied that interpretation to the flip side of the situation, thinking the community would go along (to be clear, I acted in error and won't be doing that again).
 * Until yesterday, my understanding of WP:BLP sourcing requirements was that they apply only to statements made about identifiable living people (including, of course, insinuations about them). Just as no right-thinking editor could invoke 3RRBLP to insist that a factual and sourced statement about, say, the laws in the jurisdiction a person lives in, be removed from an article, I also assumed that a good faith BLP objection could only be understood as such if it were made in reference to content that is actually about a living person in the sense meant by policy. Further, I did not believe that a concern that was purely about the quality of a source, rather than the article content itself, counted as disputed material in terms of BLPRESTORE. So based on these beliefs, I felt that the orignal removal and the second removal were hoth instances of WP:CRYBLP. It wasn't that I felt it was fine to revert back because only one editor objected; my blind spot was that, until a second editor stepped in, it didn't occur to me that this situation could possibly be a valid BLPRESTORE scenario. In fact, I'm not sure I fully understood the implications of the situation until writing this up in such detail. I now understand that I need to treat any potentially sincere BLP objection, very broadly construed, as triggering BLPRESTORE criteria.
 * So, obviously, my perception of that situation was wrong in key respects. Many editors believe that all content in a BLP article is protected material requiring BLP sourcing - I still find the policy basis for this extremely dubious (and I wouldn't wikilawyer this on the flip side, to remove non-biographical material from a biography under 3RRBLP based on trumped-up concerns), but I respect that this view is strongly held by some and would not add content back in in similar situations without explicit consensus.
 * So where I feel you are ignoring my perspective is where you opined that The question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this, and concluded that some kind of TBAN is required. This was after I had said to you, I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING, a commitment I had also expressed in my first reply to the ANI and which I have now explained at some length.
 * From my track record, I can understand that editors want assurances that I won't bludgeon future discussions, and I am open to various mechanisms for that. But based on that same track record, there is simply no reason to think I will make another profound error on BLP norms; I haven't before, and I won't again. So when you take for granted that this it is a real article space problem and are only willing to entertain the question Of the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate? - well, I feel unheard and unseen and, yes, that you have ignored my perspective in your persistent framing of the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, my more general thoughts about what I need to change in my participation in Talk discussions are here. Also, it seems that Crossroads is about to expand the scope of the filing, so you may be about to receive what you asked for. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That helps, a lot. I have one longish request.
 * Can you promise to me, that a week from now, or a month, or six months, or a year, that I will not see a repeat of the same behaviour at RSN? Or the Hikaru Utada discussion that Tamzin brought up? Or countless other discussions I can think of off the top of my head? That I will not see you trading barbs that are right on the edge of civility with editors like Crossroads, Tewdar, or Pyxis, both on talk pages and edit summaries? Can you promise to me that you will become the change we desperately need in the GENSEX content area, so that the only controversial things we need to clean up are bad edits and bad behaviour by editors other than ourselves? Can you promise me that you'll keep checking in with editors like Firefangledfeathers, Sandy Georgia, Colin, and myself, so that we can help you before it gets to this stage again?
 * If you can make me these promises, I will strike my TBAN !vote, and write as impassioned a defence as I can muster in the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can promise you that. That is what I meant by I see the need to change ... I need to stop doing that, on my Talk page. (And I expect Crossroads to produce addional examples of the same kind of thing, though I'll be curious to see whether he includes instances that don't fit the GENSEX/BLP framing...he might see those as undermining his argument.)
 * And note that I'm not at all asking for you to "muster a defense". I'm mostly concerned that your !vote not be put to additional use for purposes that you do not intend (which has already happened). If you do decide to write anything, the one point that it would he helpful for another editor to make is that I consistently edit in favour of any consensus that has been formally established - I never edit against consensus, in the way that some of the "indef TBAN" crowd have insinuated. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NI, you aren't even holding to the promise now (as I would note on the ANI were it not for snow shoveling). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What edits do you feel are in violation of the principles I set out here? The only one that comes to mind is this, and I for one can't see anything argumentative or personalizing in it. So clearly I have a blind spot operating somewhere: could you help me? Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the baiting personalizing battelground going on between you and Tewdar on your talk under "On being argumentative. Now try to convince me that a) Tewdar has read a single word I wrote; b) Tewdar is not baiting both you and Crossroads; c) Tewdar is not partisan, putting their earlier declaration in perspective; d) Tewdar is acting in your best interest; or e) you took on board a single thing I wrote about on my talk page in January and March about unnecessary personalization.  Tewdar may have laid the bait, but you wholeheartedly bit.  At a time when editors like me are contemplating whether to support or oppose a tban, this is not a good look. Even while under scrutiny, the two of you are unable to avoid bringing up Crossroads, and this is precisely the behavior that makes GENSEX toxic. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't intend to bait anyone, and I am very sorry if I have caused anyone to look bad. Crossroads announced that he was going to be producing evidence later, I guess I was trying to make a joke about the likely length of his contribution. As for me being partisan, whose side do you think I'm on? Usually I get grouped with Crossroads I think (by Sideswipe, EvergreenFir, and others) And I think it's about 50/50 whether I vote with him or Newimpartial in RfCs, and probably closer to siding with Crossroads the majority of times. I have been trying to assist Newimpartial, not harm them, and I feel very bad if my actions caused harm. I honestly didn't put a lot of thought into that conversation.  Tewdar   19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite confused by the analysis above. If I'm partisan, why would I bait both Crossroads and Newimpartial? Unless I'm just in it for lolz? Which is ironic bevause I can't seem to stop randomly bursting out in tears these days. I'm reasonably confident that Crossroads wouldn't be offended by me taking the piss out of his potentially lengthy evidence. I've been getting on quite well with Crossroads lately, certainly I have less disputes with him than Newimpartial. We even had a laugh about Judith Butler a while back. He even gave me a barnstar once. Seems a bit OTT to me, unless there's other problems you're not mentioning. I'm sure you can find plenty of diffs of me behaving badly, but I do think I'm improving, slowly...  Tewdar   20:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The very obvious point I take from all this is that different editors experience the personal side of Wikipedia very differently, just as I'm sure we experience our IRL and social media relationships very differently. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't I ask if he is offended?   Tewdar   20:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I interpret SG's diff as more or less banter, but onlookers can without our context of past interaction could interpret it otherwise, which I suppose could have an effect on the general mood in the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 19:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and have stopped doing that. Thanks for your patient explanation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was ready to follow through on this. I had started drafting a comment in my head once you said this. But then Sandy's response gave me pause. And then I saw the of your draft reply, which also gave me pause.
 * I want to believe that you will do all of these things, that you will break these bad habits and become a better editor for it. I think you are more than capable of doing this. But I'm not sure that the GENSEX content area would be a good space for you to be active in while making those changes. It would be too easy fall into old and familiar habits. I think a short term break from the content area, of 3 to 6 months, will give you the space needed to work on these problems without the fear that someone might be watching for those one or two early slip ups that would bring us right back to where we are now.
 * And even if by the time this is all over, you do get an indefinite TBAN because that's where the consensus falls, it's important to remember that indefinite is not infinite. If you do the work on bettering yourself, and can demonstrate that you are not the same editor who was indef TBANed however many months ago by your contributions elsewhere, then I am confident that an appeal at AE would be successful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see how the difference between A few of these diffs and a couple of these diffs - which is the sole difference in the draft text between the versions from the passage that I had written - set you off in that way. I simply counted the diffs in question and saw that there were two, not three, so I made the change.
 * That said, I did not ask you to make the commitment you made, nor was my statement of intention contingent on any action on your part. I appreciate your amendment to specify the duration you seek, and I trust that the closer will weigh appropriately those !votes that cite arguments that are specifically in favor of a limited ban as though they favored an indefinite ban. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * actually it was the absurdly claims that an article part that seemed to be unnecessarily personal, and that you have reworded in . You'd already made the point about those two diffs being "discussions of sourcing and content within Wikipedia policy and guidelines", which is the key thrust of that counter argument. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, Sideswipe? That absurdly claims that an article part was Crossroads' text that I copypastaed, part of his comment to which I replied. That wasn't my text at all.
 * It's funny how different things look from either end of the microscope. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! Sorry, it's been a long week and I completely missed that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * editors like Crossroads, Tewdar, or Pyxis - what, in your view, are the common properties of these three editors?  Tewdar   19:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * that talk page discussions become very long and drawn out between yourselves and Newimpartial, to the point of exasperation from both participants and readers. Once a thread goes over a certain size, at some point sharp barbs start getting thrown out between participants that come to the edge of the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in case it's not clear, I'm not saying that you or the other two editors are the problem here. I'm just referencing the three of you as generalised and common past examples of where Newimpartial's problematic behaviour can be seen in abundance. Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't mean to flood your notifications, but you might want to specify how long of a TBAN you actually support. If that is indef, then it is what it is, but you haven't said, and at least one other editor is citing you in support of indef. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Fun typo
In your closure of Talk:Rachel Levine, whether to include one gender or another is like comparing apples to oranges? DMacks (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Haha! I do like them apples! Fixed now, thanks for that :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I should go with "an apple a day keeps the typos away!" :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix. It's all cromulent now. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You are a voice of sanity
Thank you for being a voice of sanity at AN/I. 99.196.131.218 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

PB and CC
Maybe less noisy here for a moment. Reverted because would like the validity of connecting them balanced with WP:GUILT resolved. My support of inclusion was prior to learning of GUILT this morning (I did a deep dive into ArbCom after that for any other buried policies). I haven't rescinded my opinion of including the one rally, but do have concerns with assumption that she had ability to stop them. Perhaps a narrow BLPN discussion on this one intersection can settle it? If you have strong opinions of including it while discussion occurs there, let me know and I'll self-revert. Slywriter (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think a narrow BLPN discussion would be a more favourable option at this time than a snap RfC. Ultimately I think it probably should be included, as I obviously strongly disagree with Springee's interpretation of GUILT. If you think it should be excluded for now though, that would change how I was assessing the rough and weak consensus for inclusion, so ultimately it's up to you :)
 * About to go to sleep though, if you do start a BLPN discussion can you leave me a link here and I'll try and contribute to it tomorrow please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * We are on similar timelines. No chance I'm writing that up tonight. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page echoing the hold off you left behind. Anyway, have a good one. Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sideswipe9th, if you would rather handle this via a BLPN discussion I'm fine with that. While I disagree with you, I appreciate that you are trying to stick to your reading of policy/etc.  I don't feel that your objections are based on POV pushing/blackwashing.  I wasn't planning to launching a RfC until I could figure out a reasonable way to ask the question and a BLPN discussion can serve the same purpose. Springee (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I was actually waiting to see if there was any solid sourcing on this before applying BLP on the phrasing of the content, though there were very clear BLP issues in the text as you've said. The balance issues of The Times source aside, it at least had the potential to be used for some BLP compliant text had DUE been met. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's very helpful to make yourself even more familiar with how to reference WP:RSNP. And to the charge of bias, it's often illuminating (and mentionable in discussion) to observe the various biases of presented sources. You don't have to be shy about saying it when they're saying it. A flagship Murdoch property, The Times is regarded as reliable but with a clear rightward bias. So for example if the other applied sources were WSJ and the NYPost, IMHO such sources would lack diversity, because such truth is apparently being dictated these days from the same NewsCorp board room. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! I had forgotten to reference RSP in my replies! It and the RSN archives are my go-tos when citing whether or not a source is reliable.
 * Your example on the NewsCorp board room is definitely an interesting one. There's more than a few editors I interact with regularly who would see The Times, WSJ, and any one of Murdoch's Australian papers as fully separate and diverse sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a line from the first Matrix film in which Neo is asking about the display interface and Cypher says "I don't even see the code." Perhaps what I've opined is controversial, but it's hardly unfounded and merely coincidental. I don't always agree with the outcomes on Wikipedia, but I believe in the process. Thanks again for showing yourself what side you're on. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * now that is a truly epic series. I still need to watch the most recent one, maybe I'll get around to it this weekend! Thanks again :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just recorded it, so we need to reconvene at some point. Remember, "You do not truly know someone, until you fight them." Funny, I learned that in eighth grade... BusterD (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that I only blocked them from the talk page itself. Now we'll see what outrage they'll move onto next. BusterD (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment
This comes across as patronising. I was making a serious point. Please do not lecture me as if I have no idea how to edit. There is quite enough unpleasantness on Wikipedia already, without you adding to it. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that my comment came across that way. It was just some friendly advice, given in good faith, as your comment read as though you had only recently become aware of the issues surrounding close paraphrasing and copyright violations. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but please don't bite the head off me for giving friendly advice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970, there are times when editors lecture others on basic stuff out of either frustration that they aren't displaying a clue and should be by now, or to ridicule an opponent. I'm sure I've done both. I didn't read Sideswipe9th's post like that, and find them to be a genuinely helpful editor. Article talk pages have a bigger audience, including a future audience, than just the two of you (actually, even user pages do!) So Sideswipe9th may feel the need to explain their thinking and the limitations/opportunities that are affecting their thinking, even if those are also obvious to you.
 * Btw, wrt your point about quotes, I'm reminded of User:MastCell point 5. However, we are very much encourage to write as much as possible in our own words rather than building paragraphs of quotations. At the risk of being accused of patronising lecturing, here is some advice I found.... Overquoting says some about this, as does Quotations. The latter notes that quotes can become "an underhanded method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles" The Close paraphrasing explanatory essay also advises "Quotations should be used sparingly, typically only if the information within cannot be conveyed otherwise." and "Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source....Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language." and gives an example. I think that latter point is important, that unless we need to (for example quoting someone's opinion in their own words) then we should first attempt to use our own words to explain to the reader, and only drop back into quoting when we have failed. And then maybe reconsider whether the point is worth making/repeating at all. MOS:QUOTE is short enough I won't quote it (ha!), but makes a similar point. We should try not to quote unless we need to. -- Colin°Talk 08:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your 'Contentious' notice
Much appreciated but I (think) I'm fully up to speed with that :0) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries. If there's any others you feel like you're already aware of, you could look at placing a Contentious topics/aware template at the top of your user talk page, along with the topic codes for the topics you feel as though you're sufficiently aware of. It lets other editors know which topics you consider yourself aware of and for which notices like that are unnecessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that is an excellent suggestion. Many thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Contentious
Before you ask to have an edit reversed you should ask yourself, are you missing obvious things. I'd like to know when you feel you have been involved in controversies here.Justanother2 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase the question? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
 * I've asked you to self-revert because the change you made goes against the project-wide consensus of MOS:GENDERID. I'll ask one more time, please self-revert that edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit. From my experience battling with User:Justanother2 a few days ago (which is how I learnt about this article), they do not necessarily understand or follow WP:BRD or WP:Consensus. I'd recommend being bolder when it comes to editors who refuse to sit at the discussion (e:table) at all. Cheers Soni (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas they have restored it again. I'd have reverted myself, but I've already had to deal with another editor making the same change earlier today and I'm right up to the 3RR limit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you able to look at the media reports? Audrey is the name being used.Justanother2 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Justanother2 Again, take this to Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting. Once there is consensus there on the name, feel free to change it. Before that, no.
 * @Sideswipe9th dont worry about pinging me, I have the page on my watchlist now. If I think it's necessary I'll re-revert. Sadly I expect to take this to ANI or similar... again. Soni (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the current revert/edit war issue WP:AN3 is probably the most expedient board. For the broader issues I'd recommend WP:AE over ANI, as that article has content in multiple CTOP areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been out of editing for a few years so still relearning all the minor distinctions between forums and where what belongs. Soni (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one who changed it; I changed nothing.Justanother2 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed your Talk page archive display
Hi Sideswipe9th i saw that your Archives Template was not showing the archives so I fixed it. You're free to revert it if you wanted it that way. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheTranarchist: GENSEX topic ban warning disputed. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Pound sign
Just FYI, that IP editor is unambiguous sockpuppet of blocked user:TheCurrencyGuy. Per WP:BMB, "revert all edits, good or bad".

Btw, Google search doesn't parse GB£ as a single trigraph, with or without quotes. So it is not possible to do a meaningful search. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just because you can revert the edits of a blocked or banned user on sight doesn't mean you must revert them on sight. I don't really care if they are or are not TheCurrencyGuy, what I care about is unverifiable content in an article. Who Wrote That? told me that you, and as the person who added it I would hope that you would know of a source that demonstrates use. If not, then that part of the sentence should be removed as unverifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This banned editor has been disrupting many articles from a series of sockpuppet addresses, so yes, it reached the point that every edit they make must be reverted on sight, so that they finally get the message and just go away. From WP:BMB
 * "Editors are site-banned or topic-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing 'unless they behave'. The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."


 * That trigraph has been around in one form or another for a great deal longer than a year. My version tries to de-emphasise it. Personally, I have no attachment to it but I will not collude with the obsessions of this editor by doing anything about it right now. --07:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) revised to add quote. 07:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are certainly correct to say that "GB£" did not appear explicitly in the article before May 2022. I've been digging around: the multiple uses on Wikipedia seem to originate with template:GBP, right back to its first incarnation in May 2006(!). MOS:£ now says specifically to "avoid stg and GB£", so IMO the yes option needs to be removed. If you are motivated to read the interminable discussions at template talk:GBP, talk:Pound sign and talk:Pound sterling, you may observe that I have been working to deprecate this style. So, after a decent interval elapses without a citation being provided, feel free to delete it and see if anyone complains. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @John Maynard Friedman I (somewhat reluctantly) support @Sideswipe9th's present formulation of the sentence. Leaving her wording in place means that we avoid giving undue weight to "GB£" and refrain from pandering to TCG's predilections. Maybe we can even consider moving her sentence into a hatnote with the cn tag in place. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with her wording, indeed I support it. I have no attachment to the current version, as I said already. My only concern is that we make the change at a time of our choosing, not be bullied into it by a banned editor. WP:BMB allows for another editor to apply the same change, just not by counter-reverting a BMB reversion.
 * You may have seen that I have opened a discussion at template talk:GBP that proposes deleting its ability to create the style that is deprecated by MOS:£. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But I wouldn't put it in a hat note, certainly not with a cn tag. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * apologies for not responding sooner. For the most part I'm concerned about unverifiable content in the article space. I recognise that search engine limitations make sourcing it difficult, but I would see that as a stronger reason for excluding it entirely. Though Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source, I think it's telling that our article about the GB currency doesn't actually use that trigraph.
 * I saw on the related discussion at Template talk:GBP that you mentioned IR£ is similarly mentioned in the article for Irish pound. Like in pound sign, that trigraph is unsourced. As a Northern Irish native, I don't ever recall IR£ being used in reference to the punt by the media, prior to the currency being replaced by the Euro. It also suffers from the same search engine limitations with respect to finding sources, and looking at the gives no joy either. Honestly we probably should be removing it from that article as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that GB£ probably can be sourced as a misrendering, the same way that common typos can be sourced. However I think it's somewhat unlikely that it should be mentioned in most of those articles, more of a WP:WEIGHT issue than anything else.
 * On the other point, the fact that a sockmaster doesn't like something is neither a reason to exclude it, nor is it a reason to include it. Revert or strike edits as appropriate but otherwise ignore them. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please delete any reference to GB£ from that article. It is undue at best, a Wikipedia artefact at worst but certainly not a WP:hoax. My only hesitation was that it be done at a time of our choosing and not that of a sockpuppet.
 * I have left a request at Irish pound for any evidence in support of IR£. If there is no response soonish, that can go too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Gender-affirming surgery revdel
Isn't that source CC BY-NC 3.0 and therefore acceptable to use in Wikipedia, as long as it's attributed? It's a research paper on a government site, and the copyright and license dropdown has this:

"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."

Is CC BY-NC 3.0 unacceptable? I couldn't find anything talking about it in specific on Wikipedia or Meta, but I didn't search too hard. It seems like Wikipedia would not be a commercial use, though, and as long as we attribute it (an edit summary would probably work now that it's been paraphrased differently), the revdel shouldn't be necessary. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  06:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Skarmory, took me a while but found that WP:COMPLIC says noncommercial only copyleft licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia. I think the issue is it has to be compatible with what the rest of Wikipedia is published under, which does allow commercial reuse.  Just ' i ' yaya  07:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, good work. The revdel request stays, then, I guess. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  15:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the -NC part of the license. Not all CC-BY licenses are the same, some like CC BY-NC being incompatible for use on Wiki. The whole copyright area is a bit of a minefield of confusing licenses sadly.
 * that's for answering this while I was away! Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID
I think if you look closely, you will see that my edit did not change the substance of the paragraph. It simply made it match the style of the previous paragraph to make it more clear. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. However there are three questions to the RfC at VPP, and three of the four options to the third question are dependent on the current phrasing of the guideline. As I said on your talk page, let's wait for all of the RfC questions to be closed, and see where the dust settles before we make or discuss any sort of changes to the rest of the guideline. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to give you a shout out for helping me craft the RFC. It's, of course, very early, and a lot of the more adamant voices—on both sides—have yet to comment, but it looks like it's going decently well so far. One thing's for sure: it would have been a mess without you. I knew starting an RFC after the last one—with more questions and options— would be a bit difficult. Fortunately, despite the discussion of "next steps" showing that many people disagreed on what, precisely, to propose, I think nearly everyone has found an option that resonates with them, which I'd say indicates we did our job pretty well. Here's hoping it continues!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, but I didn't do much! You had done a lot of the heavy lifting, all I did was the copy-edit at the end :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello!
 * I actually am really happy that we got even one point of consensus, and I'm semi-optimistic we might get another! I also think, based on the closing statement, it'll be possible to forge a suggestion that will yield a consensus on topic 2.
 * In terms of crafting a new proposal related to topic 2 ... I'm not sure if you would be interested in leading a second (third?) effort, but, while I'd love to participate, I just don't think I'm up to trying to spearhead it.I thought that topic 2 option 2 (incorporating WP:PLA) was a clever incorporation of the concerns raised in the RFCBEFORE and in a few article debates I had seen—a lot of editors mentioned that they were concerned readers who had seen a birth name would be perplexed if that birth name weren't mentioned at all in the article. (Audrey Hale—who most sources identified by her deadname—is probably the best illustration of the point, even though I was hesitant to include Hale in the other RFC. A recent RFC on the Hale page led to a consensus that Hale's name should be included in the article, basically for the reason I just mentioned.) But even a few of the people who supported option 2 seemed to object to WP:PLA being used as a standard, so it appears I badly misjudged how clever I am.Based on the closing statement, the consensus does appear that a deadname should sometimes be included even if the subject was not notable prior to transitioning, but a higher baseline should be used. Unfortunately, having monitored the debate as it went, I'm just not at all confident I can limn a baseline that incorporates the concerns being expressed while not at least partially relying on WP:PLA. Still, ideally the next RFC can render topic 2 into a yes/no question as to a proposal splitting the difference between option 2 or 3 rather than present different options, so the fact that we at least got some feedback makes the effort worthwhile, at least from my perspective.
 * I wanted to thank you again for all the help you gave me in setting up the RFC! Again, even if we only end up with one solid point of consensus, I'm really happy that we got that one. A few article debates I saw would lead to pretty significant tangents on the "principal reference" issue ... and hopefully those tangents will, for now, be avoided (or at least minimized).
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey! I'm still digesting the closure of the second question. It's annoying that two RfCs on this issue have been closed with a "discuss further" note, but I can't fault either closer for that. My initial reading of the closure is that there's a middle-ground somewhere between "never include the deadname" and "sometimes include the deadname", and that the barrier in option 2 was too low. We just need to figure out where that barrier for inclusion is when proposing a binary yes/no RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * got some time to think (it's difficult cause it's so relatively warm where I am!) and re-read through the closure. I've just posted a starting point for the narrow further discussion on what the barrier for inclusion should be, based on the closure of the RfC. If we're truly lucky, and a consensus can form around an option, we might not need another RfC. And if we're unlucky, the narrow scope from the closure of the last RfC should keep us to hopefully a binary choice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds great! Yes, hopefully, in light of the fact that "Always" was pretty squarely rejected (and in light of the fact that "Never" seemed to also have been rejected—or at least, as you said, the closer found that the consensus was between something between sometimes and never), editors are more willing to compromise, understanding that their ideal might be off the table. Of course ... we'll see!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it might take some wrangling though to keep everyone on track. I think the important thing will be to not let the further discussion devolve into re-litigating the just closed RfC, cause there's no point in that. We know what the issue is, we know we're close to where the community consensus lies, and we know where the consensus does not lie. So lets actually find that sweet point this time, and hopefully put this to bed for a while.
 * P.S, I dunno if you have my talk page watchlisted. Lemme know if you do and you want me to stop pinging you in replies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I hadn't, but I'm subscribed to this thread (it actually never occurred to me to watchlist another user's talk page!)—still, I don't mind the pings! Whatever's easiest for you :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as you're getting notifications whenever I reply to you, it's all good :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw no such luck on the third topic.
 * Well, I've learned a lot. Atop the list: you can't safely predict how an RFC will go (in terms of what will or won't be controversial) based on previous RFCs/discussions—even recent ones. Based on the discussions I saw, I thought topic 2 option 3 had no chance (which is actually why I went with option 2 even though I initially opposed it) and I thought topic 3 would be the second-most likely topic to get a consensus. Wrong.
 * I know you must be a bit disappointed given the relatively minimal change that actually emerged from the RFC. To the extent I'm responsible for that, I apologize. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to capture views that weren't my own in the options; it was more difficult than I anticipated to look at a collections of commonly themed comments (usually objections to various proposals) and transform those themes into workable guideline proposals. One major reason I took that approach—even though I can't imagine assuming this now—was that I thought that, in a situation like topic 2, a closer would find a consensus for an intermediate option over no change/no consensus, and I figured that something would be better than nothing. (Not faulting the closer at all there—my expectation was a stretch.)
 * As the closer noted in topic 3, it seems like there were options the community would have agreed to ... they just weren't in the RFC—in other words, even though I tried to capture both sides of an argument and present an intermediate option ... I didn't manage to actually capture the intermediate position. Maybe a straight yes-or-no on topic 2 option 2 or maybe even topic 3 would have been more likely to get a consensus, who knows.
 * I'm still proud of the work we did and really happy that topic 1 got a consensus (shoutout to for first making a proposal like topic 1 at the RFCBEFORE). Thanks again for everything!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Btw, last night, I was randomly inspired while re-reviewing our RFC, and I made a suggestion for how a topic 2 proposal might be able to split the difference on the talk page section you started. In the moment, it's always hard to tell whether your late-night flashes are lucidity or insanity. Based on the the responses it's getting, it's starting to look like mine was the former.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Star Wars Outlaws has been accepted
 Star Wars Outlaws, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Star_Wars_Outlaws help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Language maven hat
Wearing my language maven and typo hat and informed by buzzing OCD antennas, and acknowledging that this is the least important discussion section on this page, I believe that in this edit you meant to say inextricable (or synonym) rather than intractable. Carry on. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

G. Hemingway
Hi Sideswipe, I hope you're doing well. I've noted the RfC over at the Village Pump that uses G. Hemingway as an example. I don't want to post there, might post on some of the Hemingway pages but wanted to stop by here first. The issue with G. Hemingway as I see it - having brought Ernest Hemingway and a number of articles about his work through FAC - is that G's notability derives almost solely from his father. When I came to the Ernest Hemingway article before c. 2010 the two articles about his children were quite small and if memory is correct I added a bit to both - John & G. Given that the notability is derived from the parent, most of the good quality sources are about the father and his life (and children). There is quite a bit to found about the children but all that I own use G's birthname. Given who Ernest Hemingway was, there are many many sources to be found, some better than others - in fact it's a cottage industry of sorts - so some care has to taken when evaluating them. The best are the biographies by Meyers, Mellow and Reynolds. The best and most definitive source about Gloria is by Jeffrey Meyers. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not 100% sure G is a good example because that article simply wouldn't exist without the father's. Regardless, I'm not around much and will have to do some tinkering with the main articles so I'd appreciate being apprised of the final decision. Thanks, and sorry that this got so long! Victoria (tk) 20:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thanks for this. There are almost certainly better examples we could use for the proposed guideline, at the time I was drafting it I wanted/needed an biographical example where the subject had a complex relationship with their former name, but wasn't a historical figure like Public Universal Friend or James Barry where their status as non-binary or trans is unsettled, and G Hemingway jumped into my mind. With all of the hassle of the RfC itself, I've not had a time to thoroughly search for a clearer or better example.
 * Yeah I know what you mean on the sources. There was one source I thought was promising yesterday, Valeri Rohy's Hemingway, Literalism, and Transgender Reading, before realising that a not insubstantial amount of it was talking about Ernest's gender struggles, and the content on G was significantly lesser. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hemingway's writing, particularly the later and unpublished during his lifetime works, blurred gender - which, to a lesser extent is obvious in the earliest work. Because of that it's almost impossible to search because almost everything will be about Hemingway the writer and not the son. The best piece written about Gloria is this. It's available via TWL. I've almost certainly downloaded it so if you'd like I can send it on to you. I have a couple others I downloaded that I'm more than happy to share. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the books on G have thankfully been available for borrowing through archive.org's library, and I'd already found a copy of Meyers' Transgender Tragedy through TWL as you suggested. The only source I had trouble finding freely was the recently published The Broken Places by Russell Franklin,. While it looked good on the surface, I didn't discover until after I'd purchased a Kindle copy that it was largely a work of fiction, having not paid enough attention to where it was categorised on Amazon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My G.H folder also contains this from Jstor - basically a general synopsis of the family and his longer piece about G. I have a few others - notably some newpaper sources, but haven't looked through the folder for a few years, so will evaluate what's there. It looks like you've found the best that's available. Also, turns out there's an issue with the images too (which I uploaded years ago) but will address those later and on the article pages. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning testing
Hey there! I just noticed you removed a bunch of test warnings from your talk page. There's a user talk page specifically for testing warnings located here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oooh, I didn't know about that page! I'll definitely try to keep it in mind for next time I need to test a bunch of warnings. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, next time you get dragged to AN/I:


 * Indef. Sideswipe9th has already received multiple warnings on this issue . Shortly after receiving the last one, a "Final Warning", they blanked all the notices on their talk page, and carried on editing as before. Enough is enough. -- Colin°Talk 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. All of those warnings were this user just testing various warnings, they weren't actual warnings. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that it was just a joke. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell honestly. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 13:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I know Colin pretty well and this was some very British humour that I greatly appreciate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true, I sent myself a final warning and continued on just as before! And I'll do it again! Muhahahahahahaha! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was offline over the weekend and didn't get the ping. And now you've done the evil laugh thing. How can anyone AGF after that. -- Colin°Talk 09:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi re: WebCite RfC
Sorry didn't meant to cut off your excellent suggestion, we can follow up on the WebCite talk page on what to do ongoing. Archiving WebCite is actually pretty difficult/impossible in some cases as they designed it to be that way, still I think some technically astute people might be able to find a way. -- Green  C  18:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries! I've just tested if the Wayback Machine can take a snapshot of a WebCite archive, and it looks OK to me. Normally I'd be against an archive of an archive, but as many of these sites are not archived directly by another service we may just have to live with it. Is there an easy way we can get IA to archive as much of the site now while it's live, that doesn't involve an editor or group of editors manually adding the URLs to it, and if possible leave us a list of pages that aren't archiving? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wayback captures the wrong content, usually. Compare:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20230626155114/https://www.webcitation.org/5Kt3PxfFl (The Guardian)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20211025201919/https://www.webcitation.org/5Kt3PxfFl (IGN)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200430171022/https://www.webcitation.org/5Kt3PxfFl (Blogspot)
 * They are all different content. Which one is right (or none)? -- Green  C  18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's...weird. Really weird. If you check the [Permalink to this cache] for the IGN and Blogspot archives on IA, they both point to different URLs than what was supposed to be archived. The IGN article should be at, and the Blogspot at . Both of those are the correct WebCite URLs based on what has returned.
 * When you said that it was designed to be difficult/impossible to archive, did WebCite deliberately send wrong results to other archiving websites like IA? If that's the case, you might be able to build a scraping bot that sends a regular browser user agent, instead of whatever IA or archive.today use. Unless they only start sending wrong results after you request X number of archives per second/minute/hour? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A web page is composed of different sub-pages. Wayback checks all the sub-pages by name and if it already has a capture if it, it doesn't recapture. Since WebCite uses frames, the main content page is actually a sub-page. This sub-page is inserted by Wayback into the capture, rather then recapturing it. And it tends to rotate around because every time a new capture of WebCite is done the content of that sub-page changes even though the sub-page name remains the same. I've reported this to IA but there it would require a major rewrite of how the Wayback Machine works it's unlikely to ever be addressed. Archive.today seems able to capture WebCite correctly, but not for every page, like PDFs it has trouble with. I'd like to see someone explore or experiment with capturing WARCS and then we can send those to Wayback for import, potentially. -- Green  C  18:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"does not contain the word gay"
Hello! With regards to your revert to my recent edit, would you please discuss it with me at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act? - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Happily! I've just replied on the article's talk page now. Sorry again for the mix-up in the edit summaries. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thank you very much for discussing this with me! - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Script you might like
I saw that you copied a timestamp to refer to a specific comment. I'm running a script (see the top of m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js, "Blame this on Ed") that turns the timestamps into clickable/paste-able links. There are no guarantees that this will keep working forever, etc., but I like it, and if it sounds useful to you, feel free to copy the code ("Line 2") from my global.js file into your own (either Special:MyPage/common.js if you want it to work only at the English Wikipedia, or m:Special:MyPage/global.js if you want it on all wikis). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Woah! That is indeed super helpful! I've added it now. Thanks :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yoink!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I've discovered when using it, if you're using Firefox as your browser you'll need to disable enhanced tracking protection. Because the script is loading from meta and not locally, it seems to run afoul of it somewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Coolio. FF is my gaming browser; I'm a Chromie on 'Pedia. :-) I have it installed and just tested it out.  Pretty priceless, and unobtrusive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've used this in FF, where the enhanced tracking protection is set to "Standard" (which is presumably the default level). It looks like there is also some sort of exceptions system for that, so maybe it would be possible to tell it to ignore wikimedia.org and wikipedia.org. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, there is an exception system for the tracking protection. I've been messaging ESanders over on meta about the script, trying to narrow down the circumstances that are causing it to break on non-wikimedia.org domains (eg it'll work fine on meta and commons, break on enwiki). Seems it might be something to do with how I had the enhanced tracking protection set up, as I'm using the custom setting for it for stricter tracking cookie protection and changing that specific setting causes it to work without needing to enable the exemption.
 * It's weird though, the script gets loaded as a raw javascript source, so why that's being blocked by Firefox isolating cross-site cookies is not entirely obvious to me. But it's been a few years since I did any real webdev stuff so I'm not entirely up to speed with modern cookie practices. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style
I'll respond to this here, since the whole thread got hatted (probably a good idea). And it provides some leg-room to give a fuller answer than I would over there anyway.

I wonder if this was something that was added to piecemeal, with older parts not being updated as newer parts were added.

Almost certainly. In poring over successive volumes, I've seen lots of similar "palimpsestuous" blunders. The most obvious is that CMoS has a section that basically condemns what we call "logical quotation" (CMoS itself never uses this term), but in other sections either directly recommends it for paricular purposes or admits of its widespread (e.g. in particular academic disciplines) use. One of the outright factual errors I mentioned is that for plant and animal breeds it says to give them in lower case but then provides an uppercased example (that is not an embedded proper name), and – the factual error – then cites completely the wrong scientific nomenclature standard for the kind of organism in question. I reported this error to them, with proof that it was an error, over a decade ago. They've had around 20 years to fix all of these things. A meta-problem of sorts is that both CMoS and Scientific Style and Format have long had the same publisher, with a broadly overlapping audience, but contradict each other frequently. (For MoS's part, we generally side with SSaF when this happens; e.g. WP:MOSNUM is very SSaF-leaning.)

One elided quote there did stand out to me though

If you're wondering, the elided part was more disapproval of constructions like "(s)he" and "(wo)man".

I find it kinda shocking that such a strong genuinely activistic statement bordering on ridicule is in this styleguide.

I would have to look at old editions (which I no longer own – I slimmed down my library from 5,000+ volumes to about 100 after moving out of a huge but dirty and vermin-attracting converted warehouse space into a more manageable small apartment; plus my back at this age just can't handle moving all those books again!). But I suspect this is hold-over wording from the 12th or earlier edition, when it tended to have a lot more strident and shift-resistant, traditionalist wording in it.

It's one thing to say something like "genderless pronouns are unfamiliar to most and should not be used in academic writing", but to say that any attempt at using them won't succeed is very gatekeepery, and to say that any who use them invite credibility problems is the sort of statement that would bring a style guide into disrepute.

I would be semi-surprised if they didn't revise that material in the next edition. The odds of GLAAD, etc., not catching it and giving them hell about it seem slim to me. But they have been very, very slow to move on some things, even after considerable long-term pressure. I'm not sure if this is the fault of Bryan Garner or Rosemary Feal or Carol Saller (if they are all three still editorially involved; I suspect one of the latter, because Garner's Modern English Usage has become increasingly evidence-based and flexible from edition to edition). CMoS 's operations are very opaque, seemingly on purpose, to anyone outside a very small circle of people. (I have a minor inroad to the edges of that circle, from long participation on the American Dialect Society mailing list; but not being an academic, I have no actual reputation, other than perhaps as a sometimes annoying mostly-lurker, in that circle.)

It's a very different sort of statement entirely than saying "when writing about a person, use the pronouns the person uses"

And it's frustrating that so many say something that boils down to that without being clearer; it leaves a lot of interpretation (and agenda-pushing) wiggle room. I stand by the position that because neopronous are pretty much the hottest-debated topic in English-language usage for the last several years, that any modern style guide that did not mention them explicitly didn't just forget and should be interpreted by default as leaving them out as pronouns on purpose, because half of the debate holds that they do not even constitute pronouns or English at all, and there cannot be any style guide authors/editors unaware of this. But this is not 100% certainty; it's that the MLA (or whatever) editor is some language-reform activist who blindly assumes that everyone knows what neopronouns are and accepts (or must be made to accept) them, and therefore just saying "use the pronouns the subject uses" automatically includes neopronouns. But I think that is extremely unlikely. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra detail! I'll give this a look over and respond tomorrow, it's stupidly late where I am and I really should be asleep. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * palimpsestuous Heh, that is a good word!
 * CMoS condemning logical quotations in academic writing seems...like an uphill battle. Maybe it's my academic background (former published computer scientist turned gamedev) but that style is absurdly common to me. It's a shame that CMoS aren't more open to accepting corrections, especially for something that was verifiable and reported twenty years ago, that seems very close minded of them.
 * more disapproval of constructions like... Aah. Disapproving of that sort of construction is fair to me. There was a time in the early-mid 2000s where constructions like "s/he" and "wo/man" were in vogue. I'm glad we've largely moved past that.
 * when it tended to have a lot more strident preservative and shift-resistant, traditionalist wording in it That would make sense. I guess there's an element of linguistic prescription in there too, with CMoS taking an approach like "this is how you should write in academic language", versus a linguistic description approach of "this is how people generally write in academic language". That might be easier to do in a language like French, where you have a body like the Académie Française who set the standard. It seems like that would be a great deal more difficult to do in English, where new words and grammar rules are added or changed as they gain common usage.
 * CMoS's operations are very opaque, seemingly on purpose, to anyone outside a very small circle of people. Wow, I'd have hoped that a publication like CMoS would be more receptive to feedback from the folks who are most likely to be using and referring to it. I'm most familiar with the IEEE style from my own academic writing, which while based on Chicago, is a bit more open to feedback.
 * I stand by the position that because neopronous are... While I certainly disagree with that position, as I don't see them being any more difficult to use when properly explained on the first instance, and I clearly read use the pronouns the person uses as far more permissive than you do, I don't begrudge you holding that opinion. Hopefully the limits (if there are any) of such a sentence will become clearer in the next editions of the relevant guides. I would say though that, in general, opposing change because of the ambiguity of the current style guide guidance is just as activistic as being a proponent for change because of the current ambiguity. And that being a linguistic conservative has just as much activism behind it as being a linguistic reformist or progressive. They're two sides of the same coin after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just made the same two-sides-one-coin argument myself yesterday (at VPPOL, in the "committed suicide" thread, where I ended up reversing my own position, because Garner's now recommends against the phrase). I think the bulk of the opposition to neopronouns being used in WP's own voice is a combination of these factors: that any given neopronoun is unfamiliar to the average reader and there is an ever-growing number of them, many of them unique idiolect; singular-they works well enough for most cases (and we can write around the few exceptions); NPs are not generally accepted (yet?) in formal writing by the sorts of sources MoS is based on, while they now (finally) is; NPs are confusing especially to non-native English users; there is provably a real-world raging dispute (albeit a polarized one that includes some TG/NB/GQ-hostile actors on one far side, and rather extreme language-reformation activists on the other, not just language experts) about whether NPs even qualify as English or pronouns; and we have strong evidence that readers do not read our articles top to bottom (plus tend often to land in the in middle of them to begin with, following sectional redirects). Not meaning to present this as a debate to have with you, just summarizing the points of the debate as we know it. I.e., reliance on a one-sided interpretation of academic organizations' style guide ambiguities isn't a necessary part of oppositioni to WP using NPs. (And the abiguity is probably illusory in more advocacy-leaning cases – if NLGJA or GLAAD says something like "use the pronouns the subject uses" without further elaboration, it almost certainly includes neopronouns because we know from other writing that they support neopronouns.) As for CMoS, I've been patiently awaiting a sea change over there for half my life, and it's not happened. I think it won't until the current lead editors retire and a new generation takes over. But it might not even then; it didn't happen at The New Yorker, which made it clear that they still do old-fashioned things like put a diaerisis in "coöperated" out of a kind of deference to a long-gone editor! (Despite the fact that they admin the number one kind of letter/email they receive from readers is complaints about their style quirks.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Building
I am not an admin, I am just another nobody editor and I dislike having conversations on talk pages. That said, the guidelines state any discussion of editor behavior should take place on user talk pages, and not on article pages, so I am coming to your talk page. I am concerned about your understanding of WP:Consensus. In this exchange, a user added a citation needed flag. You and another editor, within 47 minutes, you and another editor determined you had a consensus. Then again here, you sugtest that you and the same editor have reached another consensus about a citation needed flag:

When we look at policy WP:EDITCONSENSUS, these are things I'd like you to consider. "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." When an editor - even an IP editor, even a new editor - disputes something, it no longer has consensus. Consensus can change: WP:CCC. "Most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position." "If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns." "It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately." Another thing I'd like you to consider is WP:TALKDONTREVERT. "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."

As a third editor in both cases, I have tried to make some suggestions of compromise between the two sides, by suggesting not to expand the lead, but tweak it. The assertation that "two users believe X, therefore, we have consensus" isn't in line with Wikipedia's consensus building process. I'd really like to encourage you to work on consensus building, avoid WP:BITE, and work with other editors to improve the articles, rather than simply maintain the existing article. Denaar (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * (pinging as I don't know if you have my talk page watchlisted, lemme know if you don't want pinged)
 * With respect to the discussion diff on Talk:Gays Against Groomers, as I said in my comment at the time, the descriptors used for that organisation have been discussed endlessly on that talk page. Every prior discussion had lead to the consensus that the "anti-LGBT" and "far-right" descriptors were accurate. With respect to the removal of the fact tag, there are many circumstances where removal of a template is proper. Leaving aside the issue of it being the wrong template, as you must not use fact for reliably sourced content, please see WP:WTRMT#1, #3, #5, and #6, along with the template's documentation note of when not to use this template for why I removed it at the time.
 * With respect to the discussion diff on Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, I would direct you to WTRMT #1, #5, #8, and the template's documentation note of when not to use the template. The statements are more than adequately supported in the article body, as I first said, said when , and I said again on the talk page two days ago. And  a bold edit that replaced the section by narrowing it from its previous form, I  to the long standing version citing the WP:ONUS policy point.
 * Now while consensus can change, consensus through editing is contrasted and complemented by consensus through discussion. When a consensus is developed through discussions over a protracted period of time, as is the case on the GAG article, a bold edit that goes against that consensus will often be reverted as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. This is standard procedure on most articles, and some like Donald Trump and Hunter Biden even have specific sanctions designed around the BRD cycle, where upon an edit being reverted, a discussion must be started and a minimum of 24 hours must have passed from the start of the discussion before the edit can be reinstated. The Trump article takes this a step further by having a 62 item list of the current consensus points, and any edit that substantially deviates from those is immediately reverted, pending a new consensus forming through discussion. It is erroneous to say when an editor...disputes something, it no longer has consensus, as that would invalidate all past discussion based consensuses, especially those that are based on long term discussions and/or RfCs, not to mention go against policy points like WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN.
 * With respect to TALKDONTREVERT, as the histories of both the GAG and ROGD talk pages show, I have been engaging in discussion on those talk pages. Where you have raised points, both other editors and myself have raised specific policies, guidelines, or other relevant information that counter what you have asserted. Likewise I engaged with Swood100 in a more than respectful manner, despite their habit of putting words in other editors mouths, and no biting has taken place.
 * If you are dissatisfied with my response, you are of course more than welcome to raise this at a behavioural noticeboard like WP:ANI or WP:AE. Because both the ROGD and GAG articles are covered by WP:CTOPS, I would generally recommend AE over ANI, as it tends to have better resolutions for this sort of issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your clarification on this edit. I believe I have a hold of what's going on. Tails  Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey . Sorry about having to revert your edit like that. This particular editor has been trying to insert that version of the lead since mid-July and talk page discussions with them have been...interesting... Unfortunately it's one of those articles that straddles multiple CTOPs (gender, American politics), so it attracts all sorts of attention. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Because of the CTOPs, I'll probably stay out of this. And it's alright if you revert my edit! At least I have clarification of what's going on. :) Tails   Wx  (they/them) ⚧ 04:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Resource request
I saw your request for Snow, Mat (December 1990) "Apocalypse Then" from Q Magazine. I have access to Rock's Backpages through the Wikipedia Library. They had 1268 articles from Q Magazine, none titled "Apocalypse Then". However, I did find an article by Mat Snow from December 1990 titled "Led Zeppelin" in Q Magazine (an interview with them), which contained the following verbatim quote: ''Stephen Davis's book Hammer Of The Gods – a catalogue of error and distortion according to its three surviving subjects – details all manner of on-the-road malarkey as alleged by their somewhat discredited former tour manager Richard Cole. Again, in the opinion of John Paul Jones, the excessive behaviour ascribed to Led Zeppelin is very much the consequence of being the most popular yet most mysterious of bands, and therefore assumed to have the most to hide – with our old friend rumour filling in the gaps''. Hope this helps.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 19:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Sorry for not responding sooner, been under the weather the last few days. Another editor just sent me scans from that same magazine, and that does match with what you've quoted from Rock's Backpages. Not sure what the title of the piece should be mind, though I do see why someone would cite it as Apocalypse Then, as that's in big bold text on the opening spread of it.
 * Shall have to ponder what this means for content on Davis' article though, because while it supports that Zeppelin said Hammer of the Gods was inaccurate, it doesn't support the more generalised statements on the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't support the generalized statements either, and I've found no sources to back up those general statements.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archive periods
Hey, regarding this revert, I just wanted ask what your goal is for that talk page? I don’t see any need to archive down to a maximum of two active threads on a page that has relatively little churn. Is there something I’m missing? If there are especially long threads we can always manually archive those to help page readability. I’m just a bit concerned that previous conversations will be too hidden for new readers to the discussion. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary, the issue is that you changed the algorithm from archiving a thread after 120 days of inactivity, to archiving after 500 days of inactivity. Even for a relatively inactive talk page, that's way too long a duration, and in a contentious topic like GENSEX often results in random comments being added many months after a discussion had otherwise ended. Most talk pages in my experience, even those with low activity, are typically archived in 30 to 90 days. Changing minthreads from 2 to 4 is a lesser issue, hence why I didn't comment on it in the edit summary, though I don't really see any harm leaving it at 2 even with it being a relatively inactive talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick scan through the archives, and with a 500 day cut off we’d really only have the last two archived threads back (not that I’m even proposing reversing any archivals), so it’s clearly not much different. A year is a short time on Wikipedia, and two threads is very small for a talk page, at least from my experience.
 * Shall we compromise at 4 threads and 180 days then, just to avoid spending too much more time discussing it? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * why do we need to change it at all? If it's not broke, don't fix it. With the current config, the next new thread will push the birth name discussion into the archives, which seems fine to me as that discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion. If someone wants to bring that up again in the future after it gets archived, well the archives are there and it'd be pretty easy to link to the past discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably my change did not break the page either, and yet you chose to revert it. A compromise allows us to both move on with our day and get on to more important things. Beware the temptation of WP:OWNERSHIP; the goal here is not to “win”, but to make the project better.
 * My perspective in writing Wikipedia, as well as in structuring the ‘back end’, is to make it accessible for new readers. For someone who comes to the talk page to complain about some perceived issue with an article there is quite a big leap to their searching the archives before reigniting some old argument. That, and seeing the conversations people have already had can prepare them for the tone of the page. I am, of course, not opposed to archiving at all, but we archive to clear up space on pages when threads are so ancient that they are no longer relevant, or to save time for readers to load the page. IMO four moderately sized threads is a minimum for any standard article talk page, not some egregiously large hindrance.
 * If your goal is to tidy up or to hide past discussions then you’re thinking about talk pages wrong. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello Sideswipe9th,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello Sideswipe9th:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here There Be Dragons
Clear trolling attempt - I would suggest you disengage, and do not respond to any further emails. (For reference: the page they were referring to was Streisand effect - the phenomenon where if you tell people that something shouldn't be visible, people will flock to view it - and they kept writing in edit summaries that certain information on Streisand shouldn't be visible!). Patient Zerotalk 00:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries. I knew what page they were referring to, they said it in the email, and I had reverted their attempted removal of the image of Streisand's house . I had some suspicions though, so I never replied to them by email, only on their talk page. I wanted to give them just enough rope to see how they responded, and I guess yeah it does look like trolling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good idea not to respond! Thank you for your help. I'll be keeping an eye on the editor in case administrator involvement is required, but the disruption appears to have stopped for now. Do let me know if you get any further emails. Patient Zerotalk 00:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Invisible Barnstar

 * Ooooh, thank you ! I feel kinda like a Wiki-Ninja now! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editnotice for BLPs that include deadnames
How would you feel about using an editnotice like Template:Deadnaming editnotice? I think such a notice would help reduce confusion about why we include deadnames in certain cases and therefore reduce the number of edits removing them. (Reaching out to you as you're quite active in this topic area and have somewhat stricter views on when we should include deadnames than I do, as I want to make sure the notice would be worded fairly.) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * to be honest, I don't know. Most of the time when I see disruption relating to deadnames it's the opposite of what happened on Thorson's page (ie, someone adding a non-notable former name). And I'm not sure that specific editor was confused in this instance, just really determined to remove it (which is understandable, even if it goes against our guideline). For the most common type of disruption I see, an edit notice like that would at best slow down the disruption as you'd need to click again to clear it, but someone persistent would just edit through it regardless. It looks like the issues with showing edit notices to everyone have been resolved though.
 * There is also the issue of getting the edit notices added to the articles, as far as I know that requires admin permissions everywhere outside of each editor's personal user space. You'd maybe have to get a project-wide request to start adding it across the topic area, which could go either way.
 * Sorry, I just don't know. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input here. I'd also support creating an editnotice discouraging people from adding deadnames where they shouldn't do so.
 * About adding them: template editors and page movers can do so in addition to admins, so it's not a huge burden; I'd be happy to add them where necessary if that's what we decide to do. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if it's a template, you could parameterise it and combine both notices in one template. It might be worth starting a discussion at WT:LGBT and/or WT:BIOG on this. At the very least to see how others feel if it's a good idea, if it'd be helpful, and whether or not there is a consensus for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

SEGM edits reverted
Hello @Sideswipe9th.

Just want to clarify. Did you accidentally mix up anything? Did you read my correspondence with Maddy from Celeste and Snokalok regarding this proposed change? Do you think there is consensus that the current wording is just fine? Colaheed777 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I intentionally reverted the changes you made. I did read the talk page discussion, I also asked an editor I trusted for a second opinion on it, and there seems to be a rough consensus against the changes that you have proposed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Colaheed777, sorry to butt in but I have Sideswipe9th and SEGM's page on my watchlist and feel I can offer some notes on problems with the edits.
 * The updated text that SEGM claimed the term conversion therapy is incorrect to use in the context of gender dysphoria is not supported by the RS we cite, it is supported by SEGMs publication. Citing material from that is WP:OR.
 * You argued the current text is not supported by SEGM's paper. Maddy noted the current text summarizes the excerpt from SEGM you provided and supported trimming it to make clear the point "they don't think conversion therapy on trans people exists". Loki noted the RS we cite explicitly supports the current text. Snokalok said they believe the RS we cite and the SEGM paper convey the same message, but supported trimming to make it clear SEGM believes that it's not conversion therapy when you're doing it to try and make trans people be cis. I agreed with them. That makes 4 editors agreeing it's an apt summary, with 3 saying it could made a bit less wordy.
 * Your response to Maddy and Snokalok was that SEGM isn't arguing trans people don't experience conversion therapy because trans people might experience conversion therapy for being gay. You seem to be missing the point that RS and other editors are noting: SEGM believes conversion therapy is only ever "LGB to straight", not "trans to cis", and this is a WP:FRINGE position as medical consensus is that conversion therapy refers to either.
 * While there is a rough consensus to make the gist SEGM argues conversion therapy doesn't apply to trying to turn trans people cis and this is a fringe position clearer (based on the RS we cite), there is no consensus for your proposed wording, which is based on OR, unsupported by RS, and addresses what you considered a problem but consensus didn't. I'd recommend seeking further input and consensus on SEGMs talk page regarding the wording. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Conversion therapy is a notorious and reprehensible practice. But there's a difference between "trying to convince a trans person that they're cis" (although that wouldn't equal conversion therapy either) and assuming that not all 100% of minors who claim to be trans actually have gender dysphoria. My first wife wanted to be a boy at 14 and read details of gender correction surgery on the internet. The surgery was out of her reach financially and that was the only thing that kept her going. Now she could have been one of the retransition cases. Colaheed777 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oooh, shiney! Thanks ! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Sideswipe9th. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for maintenance so that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
 * Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Merry!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ★Trekker (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Tip about Talk header params
Hi, Sideswipe9th; hope you're enjoying the holiday. I noticed the Talk page header you added here, and just wanted to pass along a tip that will save you some typing. Six of those param values are the default, so you don't need to include them. These two lines produce identical Talk header boxes at the top of an article (the top one is your edit at Talk:SEGM): Hope this helps for the next one! Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)