User talk:Tekrmn

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Tekrmn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Soni (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thought terminating clichés

Hey. So about this comment, I often see a bunch of editors use the RGW shortcut almost as a thought terminating cliché. Something that lets them easily dismiss and otherwise avoid engaging with the arguments made by an editor or group of editors. It's amusing though because, despite the name, RGW doesn't actually argue against changes in policy, as by the simple wording of its text, RGW only applies to the article space. It's really funny though when you do have the reliable sources, like in this comment and this comment that I made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

that's such a good point, and it's not even a policy or guideline either which is something I've seen the same handful of editors who cite RGW as a reason to deadname trans people use to dismiss information coming from other essays. I appreciate the insight and hard facts you bring to these discussions, and it would be great to see them actually be taken into account by folks who oppose these policy changes. Tekrmn (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be nice. Alas I think that sort of person, who comes in with a very strong preconceived notion, is not likely to change their mind, short of maybe a Jedi mind trick. But it's important to remember too that you're not just talking with the editor you're directly responding to, you're also "talking to the room". You might not be able to convince the editor you're directly responding to, but you might be able to convince the undecided editor who is still reading the discussion while trying to figure out what option to support or oppose, hence why you'll often see a lot of per User:X type of !votes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi. I've made a bunch of strikes to some of my previous comments that you said were not appropriate ways to to talk to other editors. Another editor has since raised the issue to the level of being a WP:Personal attack. In an effort to quell this illusion thus preventing further argument on the matter, I struck some of the comments, and came here to let you know that there was no offense intended. I have seen that you recently added some more points to the discussion, but I have to agree with you that maybe that part of the discussion should be done. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics (again)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Repeatedly accusing other editors at MoS of "misgendering" when they use singular-they generically is not okay, and transgresses the bounds of two contentious topics simultaneously. And this is not the first time you've been alerted to contentious topics, including gender and human sexuality, so you should already know better. Normally we don't leave multiple alerts about the same contentious topic until after a year has passed "as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware", but you are not demonstrating any actual awareness at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

my response to your comment was in regards to wikipedia's use of they/them pronouns in place of neopronouns (which was the topic at hand), not your personal practices.

whether or not you find it okay to point out, using pronouns for someone that they do not want used is, by definition, misgendering. I understand that you and some other editors feel that singular they/them pronouns apply to everybody, but there are a lot of people who do not want to be referred to that way, so referring to them that way is defined as misgendering. it's not accusatory to discuss this in a conversation about gender pronouns and using pronouns for someone who does not choose to go by those pronouns. Tekrmn (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an extremist activism position the particular aggressive use of which by you is demonizing other editors for simply doing what the consensus of the English-writing world currently is, and what the accepted consensus approach on WP itself is. If you continue pursuing it in a way that implies wrongdoing by all the other editors, then you are headed for a topic ban, like various other editors who could not separate their advocacy zeal from their encyclopedia writing and collegial interaction in the community. In short, branding everyone who does not agree with your exact socio-political language-reform stance as "misgenderers" is grossly offensive to everyone on the receiving end and is by definition assumptive of bad faith, also constitutes aspersion-casting, and arguably is also a personal attack.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation that I have demonized or even implied wrongdoing by other editors. the discussion you're referring to is about altering wikipedia's MoS, which necessarily means that some editors feel the status quo, of using they/them pronouns for subjects who use neopronouns, is inappropriate. expressing that opinion or asserting that using they/them pronouns for someone who does not choose to go by they/them pronouns is misgendering is in no way demonization, a bad faith assumption, casting aspersions, or a personal attack. if you can clarify why you feel it is any of those things I'd be more than happy to consider any insight you might provide.

I also disagree with your characterization that the statement "using pronouns someone has not chosen for themselves is misgendering" (an opinion that is shared by several others on the talk page) is an extreme activist position, and I find it wholly unproductive to be having these discussions rather than actually addressing the topic at hand. Tekrmn (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)