User talk:EmmyPanks

June 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sophie (musician). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you explain what is disruptive about stating the fact of someone's biological sex at birth? EmmyPanks (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID Also, the infobox is not a place for parenthetical commentary. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID does not cover the person's biological sex at birth. What would be the preferred location for this fact? Please assume your response may end up in the press. EmmyPanks (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does: that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biological sex is a matter of fact, not a matter of biography. It holds true no matter how a person identifies- it is genetic. Why can this fact not be indicated on the person’s page? EmmyPanks (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change Wikipedia policies and guideline, you should take up those issues at the relevant policy discussions, not in articles. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression Wikipedia was a place for facts, so did not believe stating facts would be a problem. EmmyPanks (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use biographies of living persons as proxies for culture war arguments. Please read WP:BLP. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are you able to give an on-the-record quote for the press that Wikipedia prohibits stating the fact of someone’s sex at birth? Are you personally able to do that? EmmyPanks (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to use Wikipedia as some kind of breaching experiment, you are likely to lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m asking if you are an official spokesperson for Wikipedia. I don’t know what a ‘breaching experiment’ is. EmmyPanks (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a volunteer administrator. If you want someone to make a pronouncement on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, you'll need to contact the WMF. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmmyPanks! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You have made six edits to Wikipedia articles. All six were obviously intentional vandalism/trolling. In each case you marked them as minor, which they were not. This is not as serious a matter as the other things you have been warned about but it is often indicative of bad faith editing and should not go unnoticed. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for mistaking small for minor. Thank you for indicating that Wikipedia considers stating the fact of a person’s biological sex as a ‘serious’ mistake. Are you a media spokesperson for Wikipedia? EmmyPanks (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A spokesperson? Lol. I'm not even an administrator. Anyway, our policies on this, and other matters, are all published for all to see. You have already had the appropriate one drawn to your attention. You could read it if you actually wanted to. You do not need a spokesperson. You are just trying to waste our time and cause disruption. Stop playing games. This is your final warning. This is an encyclopaedia not a playground. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you immediately assumed bad faith on my part? What is the Wikipedia policy on that? EmmyPanks (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why have the facts of biological sex been banned from this (very serious) ‘encyclopedia’? EmmyPanks (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are done wasting time here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]