User talk:Sideswipe9th

Welcome!

Welcome Sideswipe9th!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 42,055,809 registered editors!

Hello Sideswipe9th. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Daveout, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, - Daveout(talk) 19:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hey I’m sorry about that back there. I didn’t realize I was coming off as doing personal attacks towards you. I must admit I’m still new to Wikipedia and don’t know all the ropes.CycoMa (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks @CycoMa:. It's difficult because sex and gender are a very emotive topic right now, and passions in it run high. Some times it's best to just take a step away, and come back to the discussion later with a clear head. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: speaking of that. It’s best not to say anything at that discussion for a while. Someone reported the discussion to ANI, we should just wait and see what admins think.CycoMa (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: oh? Do you have a link? Just encase it's something we might need to say something about? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[|Right here].CycoMa (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: Cheers. Reading now :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks Oct 2021

Disappointed I have to request you stop WP:NPA again. In what seems to be a new personal attack on me, you recently claimed I attempted to add a "deeply abusive image"[1]. These are pretty damning words, can you refer me to where it is claimed the image was "deeply abusive", or is it your opinion that the simple caricature of Yaniv classifies as this? Please explain. CatCafe (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my Talk page, but I think it is widely understood that that particular caricature of a BLP, originating in an attack site, is in fact deeply abusive. I suppose, CatCafe, you could raise this at WP:AN if you disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatCafe: saying that you were banned is not a personal attack, it is factual and verifiable as is stating the reason for why you received that ban. WP:NPA states quite clearly from the top Comment on content, not on the contributor. Describing the content as "deeply abusive" is not describing you as such. I was commenting on the content that you received a partial ban for, and not you the editor. I did not assign any motive for why you made that edit, nor did I pass judgement on you for making it. As Newimpartial said, if you are unhappy with this explanation you are of course welcome to make a complaint at the relevant noticeboard. But I would kindly remind you to recognise the difference between a description of content and a description of the user providing the content before doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's astonishing to see you try to relitigate your egregious uploading of a harassing image from an extremist anti-woman hate site, CatCafe, unless your aim is to set a record in being re-blocked as rapidly as possible as not actually being interested in building an encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Sideswipe9th, and thanks everyone else for the input. CatCafe (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that CatCafe has been banned for socking. Q.v. you might find ... you get what you need. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I thought maybe they'd just left or were taking a break after the ANI report, I didn't expect them to sockpuppet @Newimpartial:! Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, what we know for sure is that CatCafe was a sockmaster account, continuing to edit as 99g after being blocked (temporarily) for edit-warring. That is what they were perma-blocked for. The history of the account does suggest to me that it wasn't the first one that editor had, but I don't know more than that - and anyway, it doesn't really matter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking thereof, I believe this to be a personal attack, but I am out of simple reverts on that page. If you agree with nt judgment and recert it again, I am prepared to take the blocked user to 3RRN if they continue - and if they stop, then the issue is resolved. :)

As I see it, all the changes since this version are personal attacks removable under WP:TPO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I've been neck deep in some C# code for the last few hours. Catching up now, will read and get back to you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: done. Very obvious personal attack, and one that was clearly retaliatory and only made as a response for commenting on their ban review request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Just to observe that what I take to be a difference between AE and more typical dramaboards (AN and ANI) is that BOOMERANG isn't really a result that emerges directly or often at AE. This is partly due to the word limits, I think, and partly a matter of noticeboard culture; also, the lower frequency of BOOMERANG is both a bad thing and a very good thing as well. What typically matters the most at AE, it seems to me, are the precision of the initial filing and the whims of the fates. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC draft or sandbox

Howdy, options for you, might be to move the RFC-in-question into Draft status or into your sandbox. Again, you'd need such an agreement from the others. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your suggestion here @GoodDay:. I'm assuming you mean if there is consensus to cancel and remake it? In that case, I thought the more obvious solution would be to collapse the closed RfC, then open a new section in the talk page where we can collaboratively hash out the question, and survey options in respective subsections. The question part is a matter of scope, how much of the current lead is being kept vs replaced, and the survey section is what are the proposed replacements. Agreeing both of those things is far less contentious than agreeing what should be said within that, eg I don't have to agree with hypothetical editor X's proposal to agree with them where exactly that proposal might go. That sort of thing would be best done on the article talk page, rather than a user sandbox I'd have thought. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merely giving you other options, seeing as there doesn't seem to be a consensus to shut down the RFC & start a new one later. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of the 15 editors that were notified because they had contributed or voted previously, only 4 have commented thus far. Far too early to tell consensus off the back of that. And this is as I've said, one of the inherent unfairness problems with the RfC as it's currently structured. For anyone contributing a survey option, it either requires them to notify everyone else who has already voted/contributed, or potentially have their contribution ignored because editors have moved on to other things. It's why surveys always have their scope defined before they are opened. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's only two outcomes. The RFC will continue on 'or' be shut down. I have 'no authority' over it. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I have a suggestion for any lead issues not resolved in the current RfC (and I can only foresee two outcomes for that RfC - status quo and "no consensus" - which are the same in their immediate impact and don't resolve very much).

My suggestion is that it might work better to formulate any future RfC as "yes/no" referenda on a series of discrete possible inclusions for the lead section. I don't mean an infinite series, but rather a discrete set of three or four phrases where editors disagree on whether or not they should be included. It might not be perfect, but I think it might be more likely to resolve issues than alternative options that involve half or more of the lead section at once. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking as well @Newimpartial:. There are parts of the current lead that are obviously non-contentious, eg first three sentences. It's only a specific part of it that is contentious and requires the RfC. Rather than being an open ended "give options for what should be in the lead" it'll be "here are the options that involved editors can't agree on. Here's the sourcing for those options. Pick one." Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - American Politics

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @力:. I was trying to figure out if it was appropriate to notify myself about it, as I was going to use the template earlier to notify someone else before I discovered they'd blanked it from their talk page. But this saves me that trouble :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to notify yourself about anything else, use {{ds/aware}}. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll definitely be adding that to the top of my talk page soon. Thanks again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @力:, DenverCoder19 was the user I was going to send the DS notice to, but they had already received one in December 2020 and the 12 month between notices wasn't up. Almost missed it though because like many things, they are pretty fast to remove some content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Puberty blocker, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I'm watching this happen and I don't understand your use of this template. Did you miss Sideswipe9th's edit summary? You can disagree with her reasons for reverting, but we have enough of an issue with unexplained removal that we should reserve this warning for the real deal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was not a "valid reason for the removal". Crossroads ^-talk- 01:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You believe so, and can certainly discuss it at talk. I'd suggest that future use of this template for reversion reasons you disagree with would be frowned upon by the community. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads' heart wants what his heart wants, though. BRD when it's convenient but ONUS when it's convenient - and not based on how long the content has been there or how frequently it's been contested. A narrow reading of article scope when it's convenient, but loose article scope when *that's* convenient. A type of source can be PRIMARY when it's convenient for him or SECONDARY when that is more convenient. Not to mention that one editor agreeing with Crossroads results in consensus on a topic even when other editors have disagreed. That's just what the edit history shows - and you can't argue with edit history. Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read point 1 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS regarding disruptive deletions. Do not remove WP:MEDRS-sourced material based on personal opinion. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That removal was neither of those things, and there was a valid reason in the edit summary. Three separate editors have challenged that now. Take it to the article talk page for why you think it is WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the objections were explained in the edit summaries to be based on misunderstandings of the source. Those challenges have been addressed. I will doubtless be posting on the talk page shortly too. The side that wants to remove it was reverted and is supposed to discuss before trying to remove it again, per WP:BRD. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of sexual orientation

Just wanted to inform you that user Crossroads is engaging in edit waring and may invite you to talk page if he reverts again.Foorgood (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query

My sense is no, and no. I would save that material for a forthcoming implosion - it is always better to have too much, than too little. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WanderingWanda

How's this account going for you? 5.184.76.71 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]