User talk:Technical-restriction-time

Hey it's me, come talk I guess.

Category:Genderless Wikipedians has been nominated for discussion
Category:Genderless Wikipedians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. ''You have been warned several times in edit summaries to stop. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION of the concept of "multisexuality". Do not change sourced material based on personal opinions or insert WP:UNDUE weight by countering scholarly sources with poor sources.'' Crossroads -talk- 23:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the warning. Except multisexuality has been a valid term in both scientific literature and LGBTQ+ discussions since the 1970s. I'm not promoting my own agenda, this is a fairly common term that I though should at least be mentioned in something as large and "comprehensive" as wikipedia. Also, wikipedia has a page for monosexuality and the bi, pan, and poly pages are full of references to "non-monosexuality." Non-monosexuality is literally multisexuality. Multisexuality is not controversial it's just a category. Classifying bi and pan under multisexual also gets rid of some of the discourse caused by wikipedia promoting the "bisexual umbrella" and that pan is just a subset of bi. And adding refereces to multisexuality is historically significant and seems (to me at least) to follow wikipedia's policies. I didn't say "you have to use multisexual instead of bi umbrella!!!" or "I hate the bi umbrella!!!" or "you're required to know what multisexual is!!!" or anything I though broke wikipedia's 'you have to be neutral' policies. I just said stuff like "some people disagree with the term bi umbrella and multisexual/plurisexual exist as alternatives" and "bisexuality is classified under the umbrella term of multisexual".

I don't deny that pan and bi are related and can sometimes overlap. I just wanted to rephrase things to make it clear that bi and pan are separate identities and not synonymous.

I didn't think my sources were "poor" and a few of them came from the pansexuality article actually. But I'm aware that some of them were not from research studies, because most research studies talk strictly about bisexuality.

You said that I've "been warned several times in edit summaries to stop" but I don't look at edit summaries so I didn't notice that sorry. I will go check the summaries now though to see what's happening.

So sorry I guess. But I will continue to develop a multisexual page (in my drafts, where it won't make anyone mad) with better resources and a 'neutral point of view'.

MfD nomination of User:Technical-restriction-time/Userboxes/ASD en-n
User:Technical-restriction-time/Userboxes/ASD en-n, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technical-restriction-time/Userboxes/ASD en-n and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Technical-restriction-time/Userboxes/ASD en-n during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)