User talk:Erpert/Archives/2023/July

Words as words

I've reverted your change (again) at Cisgender because it discusses the word cisgender itself, and the Manual of Style calls for italicization in this case. This has been discussed previously several times at Talk (see the archives) and is long-term stable. I indicated it twice in my rationale in the reverts (though I got the link wrong, the first time.) You shouldn't be too surprised if an edit you make by jumping right into the WP:LEADSENTENCE of a controversial article on a gender-related topic gets undone. If you disagree with the Manual of Style on this topic, please raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting and attempt to get consensus to change the guideline. If you think there's some other reason to alter the lead sentence please take it up at Talk. Also, if you're not sure why something is the way it is, as indicated by your edit summary the first time you tried to change it ("Not sure why everything was in italics") then just ask; no need to change it because you don't understand. Even worse, when you double down after being undone, changing it again with a misleading edit summary ("Oops, system error"; diff) that's well on the way to edit-warring. So please don't do that. Anything can be discussed on the Talk page, and perhaps the Talk page should have a FAQ to deal with questions like this one, because I see that it can be confusing, and the question does crop up from time to time, so the article might benefit from it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To quote Taylor Swift, you need to calm down. Seriously, I am passionate about LGBTQ+ rights, so double-templating me is not the way to go here. In addition, opening a discussion on the talk page is what I suggested, remember? (And as for the talk page archive, forgive me for having a personal life and thus not being able to read that entire archive in a few hours.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)