User talk:LokiTheLiar

April 2019

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Question: why? I deleted a bunch of references, yes, but those were broken references that the previous editor (who, I want to say, was me before I had created an account) had failed to delete properly. When I viewed the page again I saw a bunch of red "cite errors" so I deleted the errored out references. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feminist views on transgender topics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update to hidden comment

Thanks for this. I've been away from the article, has their been continual problems with this? If so, we could add an edit notice, see for example, Allahabad. To see the notice, click the Edit button to edit the article, and you'll see it. But that's usually not appropriate unless there's been a lot of problems, and discussion about it on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Look at the history. Editing that line is basically the only thing that happens on that page. Loki (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop following me

You showing up here after I edited here is an obvious case of being followed around. This is WP:HOUNDING. Stop following me. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following you. I'm following the list of RfCs, especially the society and culture ones. That you happen to edit in this topic area a lot is a coincidence; if you look at my edit history you'll see that I also comment on plenty of RfCs you're not involved with. Loki (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, hold up. Previous response was quick and on a phone, but now I can see what you actually linked, and I'm confused. You specifically invited people to edit that page on the main Talk:Trans_woman page! And you have to have known I've been watching that page, since you've interacted with me on that page multiple times going back a whole month. Loki (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I know you were already at Trans woman; that's not the reason for complaint. The problem is following me when you see me there to a different topic you never had any interest in before. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason I was at ACAB is that I watchlisted the list of society and culture RfCs, so I saw it as it was posted. Again, take a look at my edit history; there's plenty of RfCs I've commented in where you weren't present. Loki (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 22:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, I was aware that there was discussion ongoing about that line on Feminist views on transgender topics, that's why I reverted the edit. In the absence of consensus, status quo rules, and the status quo was with that line. The article before the discussion started had that line, and the previous editor had removed it while the discussion was ongoing, so I put it back. Loki (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, OK, thanks for letting me know that you realised discussion was ongoing - when I looked at the talk, there was nothing from you, so I assumed you were unaware. Reverting without an edit summary isn't really ideal, it makes collaboration harder. The material is contested on what seem, on the face of it, to be reasonable grounds - I'd suggest discussion before reinstatement would be a good thing, it won't harm our readers much if this assertion is missing from the article for long enough to allow discussion to take place. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd typed an edit summary and I don't know what happened to it. (I'm on a VPN that I have to disable to edit so maybe it got lost in that process.) It was supposed to be something along the lines of "Not a feminist? Margaret Atwood? Really?". I also disagree with that reasoning for leaving it removed: I think that allowing someone to change the status quo without consensus, but not allowing others to change it back until consensus is achieved just creates an easy way to game the system. Loki (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, please see my latest comment on the article talk page, where I'm afraid I botched my ping to you - apologies for that, I'm on mobile... In short, I misread the article history, and accept that my revert was not the best option. Thanks for your explanation about the edit summary - glitches like that happen to us all from time to time. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: At least you can edit via mobile. I can't figure it out. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I do it in 'Desktop' mode, which is the only way I can get my head around. It does result in fat finger problems occasionally though... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi, I noticed you replied in someone else's section. We don't do that. We reply to them in our own section. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed it worked like talk pages. Loki (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yearly awareness

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Your awareness is expiring in a week, so I'm just do a reminder for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

sorry about the revert

i misinterpreted the talk page discussion. sorry about my stupidity JackyTheChemosh (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. Don't worry about it! Loki (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Strike-through

Just FYI, the code is <s>...</s>, not <strike>...</strike> (which hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

SEP

hello, I'm here to ask about something that confused me in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female_(gender). you seemed to indicate that the SEP distinguishes between "female gender" and "woman". I only see that in the lead, it only distinguishes between female sex and woman, which is what it calls gender. In so doing, they distinguished sex (being female or male) from gender (being a woman or a man), although most ordinary language users appear to treat the two interchangeably. [1]

it does talk about a "women's gender", which Wikipedia calls "female gender, the gender of women", but I'm not sure that's what SEP meant—being a woman is the gender, just like being a female is the sex.

further, discussion of Butler's work also doesn't seem to produce this distinction, for the same reasons—her arguments merely seek to deny any essential core of "woman" and do not posit any "female gender".

Butler’s view is that ‘woman’ can never be defined in a way that does not prescribe some “unspoken normative requirements” (like having a feminine personality) that women should conform to (Butler 1999, 9). Butler takes this to be a feature of terms like ‘woman’ that purport to pick out (what she calls) ‘identity categories’. She seems to assume that ‘woman’ can never be used in a non-ideological way (Moi 1999, 43) and that it will always encode conditions that are not satisfied by everyone we think of as women. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Accountability software

FYI, I opened an ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Keithgreenfan_and_Accountability_software about the attempted RFC closure. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

In reply to your question

Why are you asking how I found the TJ article? Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee I recognize you from several other pages, and for those pages (stuff like RFCs or politically controversial articles) I get why you'd be on their talk pages. But for Thomas Jefferson and slavery, you hadn't edited it or its talk page at least any time in the past several years (if ever), and it doesn't have an RFC going on or anything like that which would attract people naturally. Nor does it seem to be in your usual topics of interest. So the only ways I can think of for you to get there are either you're following my contribs list (and if so, please stop), or if you were summoned there by some other editor. Loki (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you might feel that way but no, I didn't find the page through you nor was I asked by another editor. Springee (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Then how did you find it? Loki (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it wasn't by following your edits nor by being asked by another editor (nor do I have any association with the IP)? Springee (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still curious, and I think it's odd that you haven't given me an alternative explanation if you really aren't following me. It should be an easy allegation to refute, no? Loki (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your questions are accusatory and don't AGF. Is it surprising that the result is the editor on the receiving end is less than willing to help out? Let me spin this around, why would you think I was following you? What evidence would you accept? Springee (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you were following my edits, it only stands to reason that you might follow another editor as well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I did follow you to the talk pages of editors who received DS warnings from you for what appears to be little more than disagreeing with your POV. It may not be your intent but you do it frequently and it certainly can come across as trying to intimidate other editors. Can you show an example where you placed one of those notices on the page of someone who agreed with you? Springee (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a tool designed to find such cases, but here's one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Damn! You are so fast!

My note to the leftist wackos from English-speaking countries disappeared within a single minute! How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? Centrum99 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)