User talk:Nero Calatrava

Your submission at Articles for creation: Children of Baal (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Children of Baal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Nero Calatrava, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Children of Baal

Hello, Nero Calatrava. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Children of Baal".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Children of Baal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Children of Baal. Thanks! Hegvald (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Children of Baal (January 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hegvald was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Children of Baal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hegvald (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Children of Baal page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Children of Baal concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Children of Baal, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Children of Baal

Hello, Nero Calatrava. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Children of Baal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 18:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Standard notice of ArbCom discretionary sanctions

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) 15:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Your edit to Gender dysphoria has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Firefangledfeathers 16:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at LGB Alliance, you may be blocked from editing. Several other editors have already made you aware of the need for reliable, secondary sources. Politanvm ^talk 18:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Gender Dysphoria

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Just leaving this template here in case you're a newer editor: Please refrain from re-implementing your changes to the Gender dysphoria article until and unless a consensus to do so is reached on the article talk page, as it is against Wikipedia policy to do otherwise too many times and you can get in trouble for it very easily. Instead, please explain your intent on the talk page. I do not know how experienced of an editor you are, but if you didn't know this before, here ya go! (also, I see you got three templates in a row about this, don't feel too intimidated, they're just an easy way to deliver information about rules on here very quickly ^^) --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Nero, you are currently sitting at the 3RR limit on Gender dysphoria. Please don't re-insert any more edits before consensus is reached. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OK I didn't know about this 3RR thing. Thanks for explaining. Nero Calatrava (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

3RR is more complicated than it looks; for example, removing the same word in two different edits counts as reverting even if you try to replace it with two different alternatives.

Also note that edit-warring to alter the lead of an article in accord with your POV, without paying attention to the content of the article that the lead is supposed to summarize, is never a good look or a constructive approach. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hi Nero Calatrava, just a quick note to make sure when summarizing reliable secondary sources, it should be done with a neutral point of view. In other words, Wikipedia should summarize and paraphrase what's written in reliable sources, without editorializing or changing what those sources say.

In this edit on Transphobia, you state in Wikivoice that trans people are definitively at lower risk of homicide in the UK. However, the source cited highly caveats that claim by noting that numbers are "unofficial", that they have "limited data", that this is a "best guess, not a firm conclusion" and that "anyone that tells you this is clear-cut... is wrong." It also notes that based on the unofficial data, trans people are more likely to experience other forms of physical violence, which would also have been relevant to the "Physical violence" section.

Please make sure you aren't arbitrarily choosing the parts of sources to summarize, and that the summaries accurately represent the source. Best, Politanvm ^talk 15:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Politanvm, noted Nero Calatrava (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sport, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Gender identity movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gender identity movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender identity movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: a suggestion

Hi! I've noticed that a large majority of your edits are being reverted, either by me or by others. I'm extending a friendly invitation to discuss the changes you plan on making in the talk pages of the articles before doing so, as it seems you are new to wiki policies and guidelines. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

POV edits to transgender related subjects

I’ve noticed practically all of your edits have been to trans-related subjects, and a large percentage have been reverted by the community as WP:POV, WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. If you are only here to try to edit politically-charged articles so you agree with them more you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I suggest you step away from this topic and edit something less controversial that interests you. Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Dronebogus

Yes, many of my edits in the last *one day* were on trans-related subjects. This is because I noticed a pattern of systematic bias around these topics which did not give adequate voice to gender critical views or which misrepresented those views. I made a few small changes, and most were were reverted in ways that suggested a small but vocal number of gatekeepers were determined to maintain this bias. I will certainly step away from this topic now as you suggest, because it seems that the consensus has already hardened in favour of the biased presentation. For a long term user of wikipedia, this is very disappointing. Nero Calatrava (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nero Calatrava: You have no mainspace edits prior to December 10, 2021. Have you been using a second account without disclosing this? Funcrunch (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I’d assume they mean long time reader of Wikipedia. Politanvm ^talk 02:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Their first sentence implies that they've made earlier edits. Funcrunch (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nero Calatrava: I also observe you have not stepped away from the topic since we last talked. You continued to edit it less than an hour later. “Go edit railroads or something” is what I meant by “less controversial”, not “something in the same category as the problematic edits that you perceive as less controversial”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: It is true that I made another edit on this topic after we talked. This is because I noticed another instance of the same pattern of systematic bias, and I didn't see an equivalent pattern of bias in any of the entries relating to railroads. Nero Calatrava (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The railroads thing was just rhetorical. I don’t care what you edit as long as it has nothing to do with transgender issues, since you seem determined to push a WP:POV the community views as WP:UNDUE about that topic. NPOV does not mean teach the controversy or golden mean fallacy. If something goes against broad scholarly consensus in the area it doesn’t get the same level of coverage as the more popular scholarly consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I understand what NPOV means, and I understand what UNDUE means. However, I respectfully disagree that either of these applies to the edits I made. On the contrary, I believe my edits more accurately reflected the degree of scholarly consensus than the versions they replaced, which gave an exaggerated weight to negative views of gender critical feminism. Nero Calatrava (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If it’s been reverted once but you still disagree take it to the talk page. See: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dronebogus (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

However, "gender critical feminism" is a perspective adopted by a small minority of feminist activists and an even smaller minority of scholars world-wide; it is an example of what WP policy calls a WP:FRINGE perspective, and presenting it as though it were mainstream would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even in the UK, where it is strongest, it is the view of a small minority. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I agree that "gender critical feminism" is a minority perspective within feminism. I wasn't claiming it was mainstream, nor was I trying to present it as such. However, nor is it strictly a WP:FRINGE perspective, like, for example, climate denialism. It is a respectable minority view, and I was simply trying to give it the degree of coverage that it merits as such. I feel that, at the moment, it is not given even the small space it deserves. However, I will try to make this case on talk pages in future, rather than through direct edits. Thank you for your comment. Nero Calatrava (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That it is a respectable minority view would need to be demonstrated. It is certainly not "respectable" on many university campuses in the US, Canada and the UK, where speakers or lecturers endorsing this perspective have been "cancelled". Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nero Calatrava, many of your contributions are being reverted not because of their ideology, but because they go against clear Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as:

• WP:RS: Content should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Some of your contributions are wholly unsourced, or sourced to primary/self-published materials that aren't typically considered reliable.
• WP:NPOV: Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, without editorializing. Several of your edits make claims that aren't found in the sources you're citing.

If you cite reliable secondary sources and accurately paraphrase what they say, your contributions are less likely to be reverted. If there are no reliable secondary sources that support the statements you're hoping to add to Wikipedia, that's an indicator that the claims do not belong on Wikipedia. Politanvm ^talk 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: There's a difference between a respectable view and a respected view. Gender critical feminism is a respectable minority view, as evidenced by the fact that some of its proponents hold positions at leading universities, and have published works on the topic that have received positive reviews in the mainstream media. A few of its proponents have been intimidated at one or two universities, but they have also received support from university authorities, who have criticised the intimidation. The mere existence of such intimidation does not demonstrate that this is not a respectable view. Nero Calatrava (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that some of its proponents hold positions at leading universities, and have published works on the topic that have received positive reviews in the mainstream media. A couple of fawning reviews for Material Girls or Trans in the UK are not suffucient to make "gender-critical feminism" respectable in any view except that of a small minority. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Sophie Allen is a lecturer at Keele University, Holly Lawford-Smith is a researcher, author and Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne. Mary Leng is a professor at the University of York, Rebecca Reilly-Cooper is a lecturer at the University of Warwick.Nero Calatrava (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You would need RS to establish that the UK's plateglass universities qualify as leading institutions; otherwise you are left with University of Melbourne. And the reaction at that institution to Lawford-Smith's work doesn't really support your assertion that it is respectable. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, "gender-critical feminism" aka trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) is not widely considered "a respectable minority view", it's widely considered a very non-respectable WP:FRINGE view, it's often enough compared to fascism and described as a hateful and extreme ideology, its proponents are disinvited or fired or forced to leave their jobs (as they constantly complain about themselves). The people you refer to are a handful of fringe figures who have met massive protests and sanctions from students, academics and the wider society. That applies to the University of Melbourne as well.[1] --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are referring to TERF here. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Gender-critical feminism" and trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) refer to the same thing. At least, that's how I and many others/sources use those terms,[2] and how it's portrayed in Wikipedia's own coverage of that phenomenon as well. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I think it's indisputable that the University of York and the University of Warwick are leading universities, as evidenced by their positions in the world university rankings. Nero Calatrava (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly disputable. While it's true that THE has a surprisingly high ranking for Warwick, it is still saddled between UC Santa Barbara, UNSW Sydney, and McMaster, none of which are "indisputably" leading universities. And York is in the territory of Essex, Indiana and Tufts. No further comment. :p Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant: I think it's going too far to claim that gender-critical feminism is a WP:FRINGE view, since it is nothing like the examples that WP gives of such views. True, some critics have made the most extreme accusations against it, but there are plenty of people who think those claims are hyperbole. The people I refer to are certainly *not* a "handful of fringe figures" - and while they have met some protests (not "massive") from *some* students and academics, such criticisms have certainly not come from "the wider society", which is largely oblivious to both sides of the debate. The article you cite about the University of Melbourne does *not* in fact, say that any sanctions were levied on Professor Lawford-Smith. And it states that only 100-150 students gathered in a demonstration against her. In an institution with 48,000 students, that hardly counts as "massive". So I think you are guilty of hyperbole, like some of the other critics of gender-critical feminism. Nero Calatrava (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the demographics of student protests in 2021 might be, you certainly are referring to a "handful of fringe figures". That you do not realize this is somewhat troubling, as competence is required, and WP editors must always pursue BALANCE and NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Nero Calatrava: I’ve given you the opportunity to say your piece out of good faith, but at the end of the day it comes down to this:

“Wikipedia describes reality as reliable sources do, and reliable sources describe LGBT people as normal variations of human behavior/gender expression. The end.” user:NorthBySouthBaranof — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Loves_Pride&diff=966735851&oldid=966731877

Basically WP regards anti-LGBT views of any kind as being bigoted WP:FRINGE views. If you are trying to convince people they’re not then you’re facing a Sisyphean uphill battle. Either you drop the boulder and slowly back away from the giant hill or you inevitably get blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Dronebogus:

I completely agree that LGBT people are normal variations of human behavior/gender expression. I have never said anything to the contrary. I think you're being unfair to me here when you imply that I was saying anything to the contrary. Note that I have not written anything about LGB people, so your reference to LGBT is mischievous amplification. I have commented on trans issues specifically, and nothing I have written denies that trans people are normal variations of human behaviour/gender expression. If you disagree, please cite evidence.

I too regard anti-LGBT views as being bigoted WP:FRINGE views. First, as before, I have not written anything about LGB people, so your reference to LGBT is mischievous amplification. I *have* commented on trans issues but nothing I have written is "anti" trans in any way. Again, if you disagree, please cite evidence.

I'm slightly puzzled by your comment, since I have now accepted all the reverts made now, and I thanked @Sideswipe9th: for correcting my last edit at 23:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC). If you can find any edits I've made since then that show I haven't "stepped away", please let me know. Otherwise, I think it would be helpful to de-escalate, as I'm trying to do.Nero Calatrava (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to slow down, and take proposed changes one at a time. While there is always going to be room for improvement in how Wikipedia covers a controversial topic like transgender identity and related matters, that needs to be attempted with the utmost care. Adding unsourced information, or changing sourced information without adding new sources (with the exception of matching the source's idea more closely), has to be avoided, and you don't need me to also tell you that persisting in it will not end well for your editing here. The most WP:Reliable sources can be approximated as academic research and then the mainstream media. Wikipedia reflects their perspectives with WP:Due weight. And when it does come to adding well-documented ideas and claims by whatever social movement, generous use of WP:In-text attribution is necessary. If you don't, people will think you're POV pushing. The best way to get used to editing is to learn from more experienced editors, and the sort of edits and arguments they make. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Crossroads:. Your points are well taken. Will spend some time looking at edits more experienced editors have made. Nero Calatrava (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nero, joining the chorus that is telling you to slow down, and step back. To that I would add, as a new user you may find that jumping into a controversial topic is very difficult. It's already difficult enough to learn the ropes around here as a new user, if you compound that by picking such a controversial topic, well, I see that almost everything you have attempted has been reverted, and that can't be any fun for you, and in addition, you're getting far more attention, observations, and warnings on your Talk page than is common or desirable for a new user.

Do you enjoy sports, video games, history, cuisine, art, museums, travel, science, or any other topic areas where you could try some edits in a non-controversial article, and get them to stick? Even there, you may get reverted for minor mistakes, and that is to be expected—it's how you learn, after all—but you won't run into the problems you are having attempting to edit trans topics.

Finally, one other thing: I noticed this comment of yours near the top of this section:

...and most were were reverted in ways that suggested a small but vocal number of gatekeepers were determined to maintain this bias.

That is a red flag, and goes against various behavioral guidelines here, the chief one of which in this case is probably WP:Assume good faith. As a new user, about the *last* thing you want to do, is come to Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and decide that other editors who disagree with you about content in an article, are therefore part of a WP:CABAL who are either out to get you, or zealously guarding some article or series of articles that they have WP:OWNERSHIP over through improper means based on their innate bias. If you demonstrate a pattern of behavior based on that attitude, it is about as quick a way to get yourself blocked, as any. A way to avoid this, is really take WP:AGF on board and follow its recommendations. That is a lot easier to do if you are writing about medieval peasant wars in Catalonia (yes, I really did) or a military police force in Ancien Regime France (just created one) than if you are writing about transgender-anything, pretty much all of which are hot-button issues.

I strongly recommend you take a self-imposed break from the topic, pick something you enjoy, or something you'd like to learn more about and write about that for a while, so you can learn about editing at Wikipedia in a less charged environment, and get some successful editing under your belt before attempting the much more difficult task of writing about transgender or other highly sensitive topics.

In the meantime, you're welcome to ask me questions on my Talk page, or at the WP:Tea house, or WP:Help desk. Best of luck, and I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for the friendly advice. I apologise for my comment

...and most were were reverted in ways that suggested a small but vocal number of gatekeepers were determined to maintain this bias.

which I now understand is completely at odds with good practice here. I will try editing some articles on other topics to learn about editing. I have made a suggestion (on the talk page, not by editing the page itself) that we include an H2 section about definitions on the gender identity page, and I hope that does not count against me. That was supported by another user, so I hope you recognise that I am learning and acting in good faith. Your advice is very helpful, and I appreciate the tone in which it was offered. Nero Calatrava (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, and your comments at Talk:Gender identity are no problem; it won't "count against you" in any way, so don't worry. I very much do see that you are acting in good faith as well, so just keep asking questions and learning; making mistakes and finding out about them and fixing them is just part of it, and there's no real shortcuts to that. It's just an easier road away from controversial topics, but ultimately, this is a volunteer project and nobody can tell you what articles to edit (or not to edit), the choice is yours. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Impending block

Just a heads-up, at this rate you'll end up blocked within the week. Your behaviour is clearly disruptive, and you're not showing any signs of slowing it down. Multiple people have now warned you to take it to the talk pages before making changes. Every change you've made to an article so far has ended up reverted. This seems like a clear indication that something is going horribly wrong. To the other editors on this page: I think we need to draw a line here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

BADHAND account

Would you say you're a WP:BADHAND account? I won't say why I'm sure you are...because WP:BEANS. 174.255.131.239 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Says the ipuser (lol). No need to shun the user regardless of their edits. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And an IP with only one edit too... seems to be an WP:LOUTSOCK. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Should I report this at WP:SPI? Will it even be worth doing that when the CheckUser can be circumvented so easily? It's good to have an ally, but I warn against a person letting excitement for an ally blind them. Nero Calatrava is a brand of the Xurizuri/Sideswipe9th pack of socks. For example, Xurizuri starts editing at 10:22, 12 December 2021. This is after they've just edited as Nero Calatrava at 10:15, 12 December 2021 and at 09:29, 12 December 2021 before that. When Nero Calatrava's previous last edit was at 11:22, 12 December 2021, Xurizuri had come out to edit at 11:21, 12 December 2021 after their previous last edit was at 10:22, 12 December 2021.

Nero Calatrava is mostly revealed as a BADHAND account of Sideswipe9th (who in turn is, well...) by coming on to make this[3] talk page edit at 23:03, 13 December 2021, when they'd never edited at this time before and Sideswipe9th was busy in a dispute at the sex differences in medicine ‎article. Nero Calatrava was created simply to move Sideswipe9th into a certain area more easily. Why Sideswipe9th wouldn't just do that as Sideswipe9th is because it's easier to do as a supposed new, disruptive editor who just needs to be "guided" by the more experienced crowd and will be trusted by the "other" side. Wikionego is also them or a meatpuppet of them, and this was also realized by another editor.[4] You'll observe that this brand of socks may use an account that has previously only made one or two edits years ago or hasn't edited in a few years or longer than that. Look at the Sideswipe9th's, Nero Calatrava's, and Wikionego's registration dates and first edits.

My question on Nero Calatrava's talk page slowed them down a little, from heading straight to a page they really want to go to (and that I won't name here). Nero Calatrava didn't respond to this query on their talk page because they know what they're doing. They might respond now, but that would be for appearances. Sideswipe9th is also shown to be Nero Calatrava by logging on to comment at 14:36, 14 December 2021, after first logging back on to comment as Nero Calatrava at 14:28, 14 December 2021 to thank Dronebogus for their advice, and then going on to post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement at 14:40, 14 December 2021. Sideswipe9th took a break again and then responded in full at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement at 17:26, 14 December 2021. Nero Calatrava, who took the same hours-length break, comes back to post on their talk own page at 17:36, 14 December 2021 to thank Crossroads. Ahem. Meanwhile, Xurizuri was active again, coming back to edit at 14:16, 14 December 2021. They hadn't edited since the 12th. Ahem.

Even today, right after posting as Nero Calatrava,[5] they post as as Xurizuri.[6] Ahem. Xurizuri is usually up and about editing at the 10-13 mark, but they weren't doing that today, as they had some business to do today as Nero Calatrava. All of this is connected to a long-time account that this sockmaster has been using today, but just switched from to make an edit to another's talk page.[7] They may edit at different times now, or continue to edit the way they always have because they know they won't be caught by a CheckUser.

I expect that my analysis will be ignored, or dismissed, but now that I've said it, no one can say they weren't tipped off and warned. 174.255.131.162 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious but completely erroneous speculation by ipuser User:174.255.131.162. Nero Calatrava (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The only socks I have are the socks in my sock drawer. I've got far better things to do on Wikipedia than argue with myself! But it's interesting to see how the sock accusations against me have changed from one editor to another. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is generally pretty funny to watch socks accusing others of being socks. It has been since the glorious stock farming boom of 2010. Some socks spot socks better than other socks spot socks.

Frankly, I wish I could stock sock stalk sock stocks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: how about the sock stank market? Ruby toes, to the asteroids, all that jazz! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sock stank stock thoughts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

continued POV edits

Nero, It looked like you'd agreed to stop doing this for a moment there. But you appear to have started again. You completely changed the tone of the lead and the main text of the article here, and while your sources seem to be at least slightly in order to me this time, it's still best to take it to the talk page first. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Licks-rocks I didn't think this was a POV edit, which is why I did it. I just added a few words saying that these drugs were not approved by the FDA for this purpose, which doesn't "completely change the tone" of the lead, as you rather exaggeratedly claim. But I will take it to the talk page anyway, as you suggest. Thanks though for acknowledging that I have responded to previous criticisms by improving the quality of my sources. Nero Calatrava (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)