User talk:Banglange

Welcome!

Hello, Banglange, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Conway

I took out the bit you added about what Alice Dreger said, as it was horribly unbalanced, portraying Dreger as some sort of respected figure. You'd need to at least balance that with what people say about Dreger's opinion to make it suitable for inclusion in a bio. See WP:BLP. Perhaps quote some bits from this article that came out reviewing Dreger and the new book. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with adding material from that article. (I cited it before, on the Alice Dreger page.) However, everything in that article does treat Dreger as a respected figure, so I'm not sure which parts you might be referring to. Since anything from that article will strengthen what she says about Conway, I actually think that adding praise for the book would be unfair to Conway. As written, it just says Dreger's conclusion is what it is, and that's that. Adding material from the article you recommend could be mistaken as endorsement of Dreger's view. Banglange (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, instead of portraying her as bioethicist and such, one might mention that she's regarded by many as a torrent-unleashing hatemonger, or a transphobic right-winger, and that she has been accused of engaging in "dishonest health writing." Basically, she's taking sides in a dispute, and must not be represented as an impartial commentator in her criticism of another on a BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom notice on Biographies of Living People

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom notice on 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:James Cantor per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James Cantor. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]