User talk:Newimpartial

Welcome!

Thank you for putting some work into RPG articles, as this is an area that doesn't seem to get enough attention anymore. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can add anything to any of the pages at User:BOZ/Draft pages, it would be much appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm supposed to put this here, but thanks, and I'll take a look at the Grabowski and Marsh pages soon. Some of the others already show much more knowledge than I have about those authors, so I can't really help -- indeed some look ready to publish!

Anything at all you can do to help would be great. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me longer than projected, but I have edited the Grabowski and Marsh pages. I feel that the Grabowski page is pretty much ready for submission, and if you were content for the Marsh page to be more of a stub, it could be launched soon too by trimming some of the unruly content you included. :). I bow to your superior wiki-fu, but as far as content goes I am comfortable now with both articles.

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Laws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hell on Earth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp

Hi there! I see that you created User:Newimpartial/Ethan Skemp as a sort of placeholder. I restored Draft:Ethan Skemp, which had been deleted, so you can work on it if you want to. :) BOZ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a placeholder exactly. I didn't see the old draft. I have been going through the White Wolf authors tonight, and Ethan is an obviously notable one who was deleted in one of the purges you will remember. :) If there are any red links to him, or to Geoff Grabowski, Bruce Baugh, or Robert Hatch, those are the designers I am likely to put into article space soonest, at least in stub form.Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I will see tomorrow if there is anything I can do for those others.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave a start to most of the placeholder drafts that you created, using Designers & Dragons as a source. I left Luke Crane for you, as the Evil Hat edition of the book gives quite a bit of info about him, and I just don't have the free time to go through that much at the moment.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will go over some of them this week and see how many I can release from my userspace by the weekend. I'll take a look at my Evil Hat Designers & Dragons Vol. 4 and write something up for Crane - no worries.

By the way, I wanted to let you in on my thinking about something. As far as I can tell, by WP:CREATIVE criterion 3, any game designer who has created a "well-known" work with at least two WP:INDEPENDENT reviews automatically meets WP:NBIO. Which means in practice that no article on a game designer that has a link to Designers & Dragons (a RS that they existed) and a link to a Wikipedia article on a game that they created, which in turn has at least two reviews, should ever be subject to deletion, at least not for WP:N. My upcoming editing of these designer drafts and userspace placeholders will be based on this perspective, which dawned on me over the weekend. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. You can use the same philosophy on anything I put in Draftspace, if you want to move those to article space. As for Robert Hatch, you had a draft under Rob Hatch so that is what I edited. BOZ (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK; maybe I created two drafts. Anyway, I'll figure it out. Thanks.

Paul Drye

Do you have anything you could use to improve Draft:Paul Drye? BOZ (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not offhand, and I am persona non grata at MfD at the moment (my own fault). But if you could find an independent source for his date of birth and place of residence, I could strengthen his notability language as an author. IDK why they go through non-stale drafts like that. :( Newimpartial (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ. You can get this one back if it's MfDed, can't you? I think the draftspace delete is completely out of line, but I also think this isn't a case worth fighting right now. The argument for potential notability would be based on GT:IW, which is a notable work, but the rest of his bibliography is so thin that I wouldn't want to be fighting that battle right now, in the absence of a personal mention in a RS. Does that make sense? Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people just like to clear out what they think is junk. One man's trash, you know. If you have any sources that address Interstellar Wars and mention his name, please feel free to add them directly to the draft. :) You don't have to edit the MfD page, just edit the draft. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ Please take a look at the bottom of my talk page and at the top of ANI: I think even my editing the page would be toxic, and in any case doesn't suggest any net gain. If you do want to drag this one out of MfD, my advice is to make the article more like a well-referenced stub: get rid of the link to the subject's personal page, edit out biographical detail, and change the lede to something like "Paul Drye is a role-playing game writer and developer known primarily for his work on GURPS:TRAVELLER, particularly as author of GURPS TRAVELLER:INTERSTELLAR WARS and Sword Worlds." Thrown in a link to Appelcline on GTIW and a link to the actual GTIW for the author credit - I could find his author blurb for that if truly necessary. But the real argument at XfD, IMO, is that you are working on the draft so it is premature to delete it, which would be in line with last year's RFCs about draft space (which the MfD nominator studiously ignores). Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom thing

You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Omar Khadr

Things make a bit more sense now after the CU blocks. I have to admit that even though I have experience with the master I didn't see that one coming. Meters (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have made a couple of edits to the lede, taking on the two rational points in the sock's ranting, and also reorged the last section of the article so that it reads chronologically, which makes sense to me in that location. The article as a whole is still a many-headed mess, but I'd say the lede now tells the story fairly accurately and succintly. Any pruning you wanted to do, though, would probably help, especially in the messy parts of the article below the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP warning -- Faith Goldy

It is completely unacceptable to go to the page of someone you despise and add 'notability' in the lead for something that you don't like them doing.

Read WP:BLP.

--Nanite (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nanite, I have, in fact, read BLP. The BLP in question mostly read as a non-notable resume, with the subject's notable acts - the ones that actually might merit a WP page - left out or buried at the end. I was adding appropriate material to the lead, as already called for in templates placed by others on the article. This has nothing to do with what I "like". Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to apologise for the tone above -- I saw the inserted self-published youtube citation in the lead and figured it was just a drive-by WP:UNDUE attack. However as you say it is also mentioned in the body, so it's arguably notable. Sorry for assuming bad faith! --Nanite (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries; your tone above was a bit off, but I did understand that your heart was in the right place, as your subsequent edits to the page showed. It is just funny to me to look back on my edit you quasi-reverted, which I made before the subject was fired from The Rebel. At the time the "White Genocide" video was arguably the most notable thing she had done, but she is now clearly more famous for being fired after Charlotteville (and arguably for live-streaming the alleged vehicular homicide that took place). There was quite the edit war over my use of the (sourced) term "sympathetic", although the recent semi-protection should inhibit any more of that.

Anyway, I did get around to removing her rowing captaincy and undergraduate scholarship from the article, at least. Perhaps ironically, it read more like a CV before she was fired ....

As I say, no worries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Global news

Sorry, got that confused with a fringe site. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

American Jews

Please feel free to join the discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you think this fringe viewpoint needs to be featured so prominently. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The answer is, because it isn't fringe. A very casual search on my part turns up at least half a dozen recent, scholarly sources making this point. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Would like to know your thoughts

Dear User:Newimpartial,

I would like to discuss with you further about the discussion you joined regarding American Jews, but perhaps, if possible, in a more private vein. Please let me know if this may be possible and I hope you are well.

Sincerely,

jeffgr9

Hi, Jeff. I don't know that I have anything to say privately, but what I have to say in front of my handful of talk page stalkers ;) is that the part of your position I find absurd is your inclination to try to determine how other Jews should define their identities vis-a-vis racial categories. As far as I am concerned, you can define your own identity as you choose, and you have made some observations that bring out definite and real historical resonances. But from a WP standpoint, at least, a lot of that is in effect POV-pushing, and even from a more general perspective it seems to me that trying to convince some American Jews for example that they should change the way they identify in terms of racial categories is not really an approach that is likely to go very well. Arguing that a group of Jews "are not really" white strikes me as pretty much as pointless as arguing that they "are". Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply User:Newimpartial,

As far as POV, I do not make unsourced/uncited edits to articles, and when I do make a statement in an article, I make sure I present it within the context of a source. In terms of my own personal views, I will share some of those views (and will distinguish them from facts) on Talk-pages, but also present sources and contexts that back my statements. If you look at other debates in which I have participated on similar Talk pages, such as Category:American people of Jewish descent, Category:People of Jewish descent, Category:Middle-Eastern Americans, Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, you will see I have shown continuity with my editing in addition to my thought process/personal feelings on this issue.

As to your concern as to whether Jews would not want to "identify in terms of racial categories," my personal view is that our historical oppressors—from European empires to Arab/Muslim empires—have enslaved, exiled, dispersed, ghettoized, and genocided our People regardless of how we personally feel about our identity. Only some of us escape and/or "pass" for dominant hostland populations, but for the most part, most Jews have "Semitic" physical features—from facial structure, to hair tone/type, to skin tone/type, to body type, to psychological traits, to vocal tones, etc. and to deny that fact (even among Jews who have light skin, light/straight hair, etc.) is literally Anti-Semitic, as doing so denies our Ethnocultural origins. It will indeed be a hard truth for many Jews to accept, especially those still suffering trauma from the Holocaust, as well as other racist Anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe and the Levant, but denying the truth only furthers the trauma (being made to feel guilty/shameful for being "non-white").

In my view, Jews are a People of Color, have fought for the rights of other/intersecting Peoples of Color, and have been often treated as People of Color, so labeling Jews as "white" just seems like a modern form of Ethnocultural erasure of Jews, both within and outside the Jewish community, as well as for a variety of intentions, both malicious and unaware.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you again and I hope you are well,

Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: Congratulations on your quotes getting into Ha'Aretz! :D (Although unfortunately, it seems the author made some misquotes/incomplete quotes that changes some of the context and may make the conversation look more confusing than it was.)

P.P.S.: I have debated on Wikipedia with Bus stop before, and, as I noted in this debate, Bus stop often derails the conversation or tries to claim that others are going "off-topic," when really Bus stop just does not want to get pinned down into discussing anything with which Bus stop disagrees. Also, I just realized that Bus stop made an argument earlier in the conversation that tries to suppose that a "person from Mars" would consider Jews "white," which is ridiculous because—if there were a "person from Mars:" What language would they speak? What frame of reference would they have to "race?" Not even all humans agree on "race." Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me I just have to wonder what on earth individuals are doing clogging up AfD's when comments should be made on personal user talk pages. I also have to question motivations behind people measuring seconds between when a save page button was pressed, and not realising that show preview has been used. I have to wonder if there is any real way of questioning disruptive users, all the while being told to basically fuck off, by people not reading things, and then creating non-issues, to avoid discussing legitimate concerns.

There is a level of exasperation of the E.M. Gregory gets to shit all over the AfD process and refuse to engage on talk pages, and do so with impunity. Apologies for my colourful language but if I had my way E.M. Gregory would have been thrown off terrorism articles an awfully long time ago, they are nothing but a blanket hysteria-monger of everything from chip pan fires, to fender benders. They are a menace and as such should be shown up for being such.

I will though walk away from this kind of puerile minutiae rubbish relating to the pressing of a save changes button and the defending a hysteria-monger and bludgeoner.

I take you comments on board but please double standards stink and E.M. Gregory is playing the system and should be had up for it. Sport and politics (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, I have no sympathy for scare-mongering on terrorist topics, but I also have no sympathy for pre-emptive template spam, which is what the diffs in question are largely in reaction to. If you create numerous AfDs through multiple tabs, include the same template in several of them (erroneously), and save them in rapid succession, you are going to get push-back on the template spam, and I see no reason why that feedback should not be left in every case to which it applies. If I see an editor doing something contra policy, like AfD noms that inappropriately cite GARAGEBAND, for example, I am going to comment on it every time it applies, just because. And I understand getting fed up with people, but that's the time to walk away, not to run back into ANI ...

Once again, people reporting incidents don't get to decide what the "legitimate concern" really is. That's the beauty of ANI, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Suite Antique

Hi, I see you were working on a draft for Suite Antique. As I've always liked this work, I've decided to write a quick article on it and it's live now. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to look at it or had any things you wanted to add. I'm planning to add a bit more description when I next get time though. Blythwood (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Statesmen

Your reverts were entirely unnecessary and imprudent. The term "politician" is an inarguably WP:POV term to describe someone involved with politics, which is exactly why respected politicians that are still alive such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are described as such instead of "stateswoman" and "statesman" respectively. However, as WP:BLPSTYLE does not apply to politicians who are long gone, the term is fine insofar as the term has been used by historians to describe said politician. Basically, the term "statesman" is something that is only used to refer to deceased politicians of significant importance, not for contemporary politicians still living. I hope you will understand this and reconsider your edits.--Nevé–selbert 20:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on the Colin Powell talk page; I would also question whether you understand the policies you are citing, since there is nothing in BLPSTYLE counterindicating the use of the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" when reliable sources describe a person's role as such, and there is very good indication NOT to make up a description for a person based on an ideosyncratic point of view, such as referring to people who, in electoral democracies, have never sought electoral office as "politicians" because you read in Harry Truman that statesmen are dead people. I suggest you not magnify your mistakes using automated tools, in future...Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Jews

Please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the message at the top of every talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I have, and I did again before reverting your revert. We are having a disagreement about the application of that policy, you and I: I am not acting in ignorance of it.Newimpartial (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Monica Valentinelli BLPPROD

Let's help you with your reading comprehension:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references [emphasis mine] are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material.

Please note that adding reliable sources [emphasis mine] is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source [emphasis original], you may remove this tag [emphasis mine].

This is not even slightly difficult. So don't edit war over things you're wrong about. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Calton You might wanna back off the hounding with this. BLPPROD specifically states To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag. There were sources originally (reliability is definitely debatable) and have been throughout every revision, therefor BLPPROD doesn't apply in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize, as it was my fault, as the script penetrated my Wikipedia editing. I've reverted myself and have fixed the problem. I am notifying The Gnome of this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

{{Ivm|2=This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm just giving you this notice as I've seen that, while the editor you're in a dispute in has received this notice, you yourself have not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The other editor is clearly afoul of 4.1.7 of the final decision. Do you really think that "chromosome supremacist" puts me afoul of 4.1.8? I have since explain that what I literally meant was more "chromosome reductionist" but I was trying to be clever. I can absolutely strikethrough if you are offended. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: American Renaissance and the term "White Nationalist" vs "White Supremacist"

Greetings, I figured I'd talk to you first before risking creating a new trash fire on the American Renaissance Talk Page. Thus, I'm here to ask you, what makes you think that Am Ren should be labeled "White Supremacist" instead of "White Nationalist"?

Personally, my reasoning for having it labeled as "White Nationalist" instead of "White Supremacist" is as follows (I admit, copied right from my own user page): When writing or editing articles on political figures, I am very picky (and somewhat strange, I admit) in what sources I'll cite. This is because the vast majority of reputable sources, whether they be big mainstream publications, or smaller publications, are still over saturated by their bias. Thus, I've found it best to cite directly from the political figures themselves when defining their political views. After all, who can better assess what a person's views and beliefs are than the person themselves? Outside forces can interpret and judge something all they want. But none can ever really know if their assessments are true unless directly confirmed or rejected by the thing being judged.

I don't know what your political views are. Nor do I know if they influence you when labeling it as "white supremacist". But hopefully we can be civil and come to a mutual agreement here. And not have to create more drama on the talk page if necessary.

Cheers, Da secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)da_secret_agentDa secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Da secret agent. As you might have guessed, I have been busy off-wiki.

Basically, my answer is that the reliable sources regard "White nationalist" as a euphemism for "White supremacist", AFAICT, so WP should do likewise. And WP does not privilege what sources say about themselves over what reliable sources say about them; quite the opposite.

Also, the only way to get the kind of terminology changed as you want for this article is to produce a new consensus, either on the article page alone or in a wider RfC or similar process. There really is no short cut. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Apology kitten

Thank you for pointing out my error and doing so calmly. That was a mistake on my part and deserves a WP:TROUT. Please accept my sincere apologies.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean... you're right...

With regard to how discussions of "transracial" people are used in discussion of transgender rights, you're completely right. I think it's important though to keep hammering home the irrelevance of that comparison to the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter how Wikipedia handles "transracial" people when we have explicit style guide instructions for how to handle transgendered people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling User:Chetsford a "clueless editor" who "believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are 'designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego' [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion."

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "clueless editor" comment was unnecessary, and would be happy to strike it on each occasion if you would prefer. The remainder of my comment, however, seems to me to be perfectly germane for each occasion I included it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that maybe best. Chetsford? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Re this edit please give Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice a read and consider its advice. That edit very likely has changed the character of the ANI discussion from a topic ban limited in both time and scope to the possibility of a long term block or, should you continue to make attacks, an indefinite community ban. I think that would be a shame. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Lest I forget. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]

Also NB [11]Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And this andalso this. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I closed the ANI report you filed, which obviously got heated and stressful for the participants. Don't wish to repeat all that was said at the discussion but will second the advice you received to make your comments on wikipedia more concise and less personal. That way you can make your points more effectively, without inducing an angry/hurt reaction from others. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for putting my horse out of its misery. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Lynching

Hi! I've re-added the G12 tag – all the existing text was added by the blocked editor subject of the CCI, and all needs to be removed for that reason. If you want to work on a replacement version of the page, I suggest you either (a) make a note of the references or (b) say so here, in which case I will blank the page and list it at WP:CP instead. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. You can blank it and I'll work on it over the weekend. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I've removed the body text but left the quotations; obviously they are now an unduly large part of the article, but I imagine you'll balance that out. Thanks for taking this on, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought it would be obvious that you can't use the text that I've removed, but clearly it wasn't. Just to avoid any further misunderstanding: no part of the text that has been removed can be added back to the article; you're very welcome to create a new article at that page, but it must all be your own work, entirely in your own words (the quotes I've left can be retained, of course). I do apologise for not making this completely clear earlier. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please look again at the section I have done. Every sentence is re-worked; only the quotations are retained verbatim. I will add other original text, but do I have to paraphrase the quotations right away, as well? Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, you reverted my edit as COPYVIO, which I take pretty seriously. What copyright do you understand to have been violated? The reviews, or something else? Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the actual revert, I am even more confused. What you reverted was only my new lede, where most of the "COPYVIO" consists of wiki links; I don't think there is more than four words together of non-wikilinked text that corresponds to the other version. How could I write a new lede without using the same, relevant Wikilinks? That makes no sense to me. Please explain. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I could have expressed that better, I think. The text you added with this edit was in my opinion unduly close to the previous lead, which was substantially copied from elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Newimpartial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be interpeted as a misleading username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I know you've been here for a while, but I just wanted to let you know that your username could be interpreted as one violating username policy as a misleading username. No risk of UAA from me, just letting you know others might not be so generous. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, any username with "new" in it could be seen as misleading after ten years, but I don't think that should raise any questions of policy compliance so, no, I don't think it is an"misleading username" in the sense of the policy Newimpartial (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... there's no violation here. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your AE request

Hello Newimpartial, I have just closed your request because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the edit you reported was not a violation. Userwoman is topic banned from "gender issues" and, while Kavanaugh is currently embroiled in what could be described as a "gender-related controversy" under the GamerGate decision, the article itself is not about gender issues and the edit in question is not about that either. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. I appreciate the close.

My own interpretation of that polling is, perhaps needless to say, somewhat different, based on my own reading on the topic. However, I value the work of administrators in adjudicating what must be a very unruly body of sanctions and requests for action. You're doing an important (and thankless) job. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I said on her talk page, her edit skirted close to the line, although it did not cross it. Probably her topic ban was not formulated in the most accurate way in the first place, since, under the GamerGate sanctions, people can also be topic banned from "people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy", but we have to enforce the topic ban as it has been written

Trans man talk page comment deletion

Hello, I'm wondering specifically how my comment violated the NOTFORUM rule. I provided a brief comment in an ongoing thread, directly on-point, with a specific editing suggestion, backed up with a source. What more do I need to do, exactly, to have my comments NOT deleted? It seems to me that I am simply not allowed to participate, as editors are deleting every single one of my comments, even when I follow what they say. I see comments all over these talk pages that are forum-esque discussion without sources (for example, I saw a very long rant on the trans woman talk page, about 5 paragraphs, that was all just POV without a single source cited; I deleted it, and an editor reverted it, but did not revert my comment, which was also very brief, specifically about a point of editing, with a source). Why am I being singled out? And again, what exactly do I need to do to not have my comments deleted? Thank you very much. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a magic formula for relevant comments, but here are some pointers:

DONT use the Talk page to object to the premise of a sourced article, EVEN IF you have one or two sources yourself. If you want to propose changes to an article in that situation, propose specific changes on the basis of BALANCE instead.

DO use Talk pages to propose specific changes to the article in draft form, not to debate the article's underlying assumptions (which is perhaps the main kind of NOTFORUM violation I run into).

DONT append new comments to old topics that are several months stale, ESPECIALLY to launch into new tangents on those topics. It is better to add new sections in this situation.

DO review the Talk page and its archives to see whether issues like yours have been raised before; in your particular case (people who think that science has produced one definitive definition of "biological sex" which should then also be used in place of, or to define, gender) that position has been discussed to death, on article Talk pages and in community discussions (NPOV noticeboard) and has not met with much support; it is essentially regarded as a FRINGE position. In particular,

DONT make an argument about an article's content that is based in a personal conviction where many other editors have already made similar arguments based on the same personal conviction, or at least recognize in your framing of your intervention that you are raising one more time a point that has previously been made - the onus for quality sources is especially important in this situation.

I really do hope this helps! Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me. It's much appreciated, even though we disagree on the topic at issue. I take your points, but still wonder about the appropriateness of simply deleting comments like mine outright, rather than either ignoring them or responding to them on the talk page with something like what you just wrote. Obviously it makes sense to be strict about actual pages, since that's what people are reading, the finished product. But talk pages are for, well, talking, and while I don't think it should be a total free-for-all, I don't really see why the guidelines shouldn't be pretty liberally applied, since there isn't a limit on real estate and few people (compared to Wikipedia readership) looks at them anyway. It really seems like the general guidelines cited as the basis for deleting them can easily be weaponized by editors with status in the community to censor comments they disagree with--not actually based on the egregiousness of the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but based on a strong dislike of the view expressed. This is demonstrated by the existence of comments like the one I cited--if it were really just about the guidelines, that rant would have been deleted. The fact that my deletion of it was reverted, on the grounds that my motivation of 'making a point' was improper, is just astounding. It is of course true that I wanted to see whether this would happen, but it's also true that the comment was plainly in violation of NOTAFORUM--so regardless of my motivation, shouldn't it be deleted? Isn't it making a point to me to revert it? I've been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I always had a good opinion of it, but this experience of seeing what actually happens behind the scenes, at least on controversial topics, has left me really doubting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a truly reliable 'neutral' source (if such a thing is even possible). Of course I recognize that you don't represent Wikipedia as a whole, but since you seem to be a regular editor, I don't know of anyone better to express this to than you. I'm new here on the editing side, but it really would not occur to me to simply delete a comment on a talk page outright just because I strongly disagree with the view expressed, unless it was egregiously in violation of the rules. To do so just smacks of censorship and political revenge, and most of all, pettiness. Do you get where I'm coming from? --45.48.238.252 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. I mean, editors do not delete comments on Talk pages that they disagree with - that is quite strictly frowned upon - but they do delete comments that are not useful, including POINTey edits and NOTFORUM violations. Article talk pages are in fact not intended to be a free-for-all, and they work best when the discussion is quite tightly tied to specific proposals to amend the article.

And BTW, your tit for tat deletion of what you called a "rant" is an absolutely textbook example of POINTey behaviour, so it was procedurally correct to revert your deletion even if the content you deleted was a NOTFORUM violation. But in fact, looking back on the intervention you deleted, I don't think it is such a violation. It is long and rambly and argumentative, and it doesn't give its sources, but it is eminently source-able (without relying on FRINGE figures) and offers a clear logical structure that advances a particular discussion. This is as opposed to your original Trans-woman Talk comment, for example, which used a stale discussion, COATRACK-sryle, to talk about something that was bothering you without offering any particular contribution to the article.

I would also point out that editors watching the articles on gender identities tend (understandably) to become irritated when people that know little or nothing about the field of gender identity arrive to edit these articles or their talk pages, just as I imagine that editors that watch biology or physics articles would be annoyed when people who know little about their subject matter arrive to edit them, or arrive on Talk to clumsily re-open topics that have been done to death in the recent past. So if you want to make a constructive contribution, don't regard Talk pages as "free-for-all" and try to come up with specific, sourced, non-FRINGE proposals that would improve the content of articles, and be prepared to discuss these proposals in a non-confrontational way, preferably with some humility. And if you care too much about a particular topic to observe the expectations of the WP environment, move to a topic you care less about and contribute there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to address one more thing. I'm still mystified by the procedural correctness of reverting that edit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a NOTAFORUM violation that I'd deleted - wouldn't reverting it, based solely on my improper motive, be an example of the reverting editor simply making a point (to me) as well? It seems very weird that a comment violating NOTAFORUM policy (again, assuming this for the sake of argument) would be allowed to stand just to privately punish an editor for his motive in deleting it. Isn't this just making the community suffer, or lowering the quality of the talk page, to sanction an individual editor? I would think that a sanction directed solely at the editor (me), while still deleting the NOTAFORUM comment simply because it's in violation of the guidelines, would make more sense. Is my understanding of this correct, that a comment in violation of the rules can be immunized against deletion if an editor has deleted it because of some improper motive? Thanks. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT, as it describes this situation almost exactly. And while you're at it, read WP:COATRACK and try to think laterally about how it might apply to talk pages (since that discussion is framed for articles).

Wikipedia is governed largely by procedural rules - deleting or restoring a page against a consensus ruling is always wrong, even if that ruling was itself incorrect. Exceeding a revert limit is always wrong (except for COPYVIO or BLP violations) even if the article version an editor reverts to is manifestly better than the one reverted from. Without procedure, there would be chaos and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you could contribute usefully to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey C. Grabowski

It took some time and work, but Geoffrey C. Grabowski has passed AFC and is in article space again. :) BOZ (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that, and some of the other orphan children back as well. You do good work. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I also spend lots of time on projects like this one! BOZ (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Re "Hebrew Bible"

Hi. I noticed you reverted my clarification of "Hebrew Bible", citing "unsourced POV". I'm afraid I don't follow, as my edit is less of a Point of View change, and more of recognising the theological differences between and making the article more theologically neutral instead of the previous Christian-centric terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I also refer you to the opening paragraph of this well-written article: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The merger of the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh articles was discussed extensively before consensus was reached. Please read those discussions and start a new Talk page discussion before essaying the change again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have read The Misunderstood Jew, so I am quite familiar with Levine's argument. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I briefly skimmed over that discussion earlier and I've just had a full-read of it now, and I'm still in support of renaming the page. It looks as though no real consensus was reached to me, not to mention that very few actual references were included in this discussion in relation to WP:COMMONNAME; every reference that I've ever seen to the Tanakh has referenced exactly that, the "Tanakh" (or variations) not the "Hebrew Bible". I've expanded on this under my note here - I'd appreciate your thoughts over there :) 220.244.73.64 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin

Your most recent revert on the Carl Benjamin article is a 3RR violation. You might want to revert your revert so as not to run afoul of WP rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, LedRush, but my first revert and my fourth revert were nearly 48 hours apart. The relevant period for 3RR, as I understand it, is 24 hours. Please advise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve edited on an article this contentious and I thought the rule was more strict than it was. I’m sorry I took up your time.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Henry Morgentaler

Waiting for you to chime in: Talk:Andrew_Scheer#Definition of Henry Morgentaler Shemtovca (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm waiting for a consensus to develop. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

misgender

My argument was not that "one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities" it was that you can only do it if you call some one by a gender descriptor that is substantively different from the gender identity you have asked to be used. Hence why I asked how are guys descriptors different from Fae's. Fae's choice (as far as I can tell) in gender neutral, if Guys ones are also gender neutral he is not misgenderimng them, as they are still being referred to as gender neutral. he is (as I said more then once) being rude and inconsiderate, but that is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is what I referred to as a "sophomoric analytical philosophy argument". In lay terms, you are allowing three values for gender: masculine, feminine, and "gender neutral", and you are saying that no values in the latter category are "substantively different" from one another. This argument is simply bollocks and, followed to its logical conclusion, would posit that editors using "it" for other editors who prefer "they" are not misgendering the latter.

In real life, people whose gender identity is "genderqueer" hold a different gender identity than those whose identity is "neuter", just as those whose identity is "genderfluid" have a different gender identity from those who identify as "nonbinary" or "third gender". If you impose a linear, three-value scale on other people's gender identities you are misgendering them, which is why the contemporary turn has been to allow people to choose their own pronouns rather than dragging, say, zie out of the rhetorical attic as a "gender neutral" third person singular. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And if it was clear which of those "they" referred to you might have a point. The problem is it is not clear, in fact it is not even (as far as I know) yet really recognized as even a gender pronoun, and when it is used it is a gender neutral, I.E. not referring to a specific gender.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we are having a terminological misunderstanding with respect to "misgender". From a grammatical standpoint, we might understand English as having three genders, in which case using "they" for "it" or "zie" is not "misgendering". But the current ethics around pronoun choice is not about grammatical gender - if you were to refer as a trans woman as "he", nobody would be offended on the assumption that you made a grammatical mistake. The point is social msigendering - refusal to accept a person's gender identity. And substituting one non-masculine, non-feminine pronoun for a person's chosen one is every bit as much an act of social misgendering as substituting "he" for "she". Gender identities are simply not indifferent and interchangeable in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No we are having a policy one. We are not here to enforce any social polices from off wiki, we are here (well at ANI) to enforce only Wikipedias polices.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA includes gender identity in the list of attributes that Wikipedians are not to attack each other over, just as it is protected in human rights law where I live. In all of the discussions I have seen on Wikipedia since the large MOS:GENDERID RfC, respect for the gender identity of editors has been understood to be covered by CIVIL and other related policies and norms. Treating other editors with respect is a WP principle, not a "social policy from off-site", and respect for gender identity is an inherent aspect of 21st-century respect. If we can see this clearly for content policies, I don't see why it is occasionally difficult for contributors to see it for conduct policies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

How was this an attack on their gender ID? Unless it was deliberating mocking the fact they have asked to be regarded as gender...well what gender? It may be the case, or it may not be, it is down to you to show it was used mockingly (rather then just childishly). Maybe it cannot be clearly seen, because it is not really there (well was not meant to be applied in this way) to (paraphrase?) quote another users if you think this should be in policy make the suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that, if an editor refuses to use another editor's preferred pronouns because the latter editor has asked for certain pronouns to be used, as is Guy's account of his own actions[12] then this is a clear violation of CIVIL, NPA and possibly HARASS. "Childishness of intent" is not really a defense for such behavior - we are all responsible for what we actually do, not simply for what we intend. And I do not find Guy's retrenchment and BATTLEGROUNDiness on this matter at all reassuring.

I do agree that, after the dust has settled from this and from SMcCandlish's previous contretemps, it might be best to further clarify that gender ID is not an allowable pretext to mess with other editors, any more than using the noun "bitch" or casting antisemetic aspersions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Formal"

Many of use do use a rather formal register of English in many discussions here, most especially at noticeboards. If you can't tell that Guy Macon was using one (note, for example, the almost total lack of contractions), then nothing I can say will be very instructive for you, since I lack any magical ability to increase your observational acuity. It was not a non sequitur, and you were not in a position to try to police him for this imaginary fault.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I was commenting, not policing.

Second, while contractions are a personal choice, the Chicago Manual is clearly not intending for its recommendations about "formal" register to be applied in the context of wiki talk pages; its recommendations about formal usage are simply not relevant, regardless of individual picadillos.

Third, the matter under discussion was whether there are contemporary authorities (not op-eds or curmudgeons) that hold that the singular "they" is incorrect grammar or usage. There simply aren't, and the CMOS preference re: formal usage is not a relevant exception.

Finally, as much as I respect people's willingness to defend the rights of others to say things that one would not, oneself, say, I think Floq's close was correct and your own defense of Macron's choices - at odds as it was with his own self-explanation - was ill-advised if, from a certain perspective, valiant. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting

This was interesting [[13]]. Checkuser blocked. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring on Talk:TERF

Please don't remove comments simply because you don't agree with them. This was an improper removal. The comment contained no slurs or personal attacks, was not made by an SPA, and is focused on the state of the Wikipedia article rather than the subject itself. It doesn't violate any talk page guidelines. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 12:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, User:Bilorv. I actually reread the article and guidelines before reverting the comment, and the comment did not in any way relate to the article I read. I was referring for compliance, not agreement or disagreement - please AGF for my stated edit summary, at least.

Specifically concerning the talk page guidelines, the comment did not follow - in fact, it ran directly counter to - the key bullets in WP:TALK#USE, q.v.:

Be positive

Stay objective

Deal with facts

Share material

Discuss edits

I will not re-revert this, but I have spent a fair amount of time on the Trans-related pages, and the wasted time, energy, and likely trolling and brigading that will follow any discussion consequent to the post in question will be your responsibility, not mine. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Meghan Murphy article

Hello, I seem to have encountered an issue on the Meghan Murphy artcile wherein someone has been adding POV language with no justification given in their edit messages. This has happened several times now and as a new editor I'm wondering what recourse I have besides waiting this out if they decide to violate 3RR? LittleFrozenRoses (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the options in a case like this are limited when dealing with an IP editor. Note that is not always necessary to wait until 3RR is violated to make a report, especially when an account has a history of gaming 3RR as part of an EW.

Aside from account-level sanctions, Admins (which I am not) have the ability to impose page protection (usually of the extended-confirmed variety), which at least prevents IPs and brand-new accounts from

unconstructive edits, at least temporarily.

It is worth bearing in mind that others are watching the Meghan Murphy page, beside yourself, so no single editor's POV crusade is likely to do lasting damage to the page.

Happy editing! Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fefil14

I found this edit by him.[14]. WP:NONAZIS applied. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

MSNBC

Hello. I see that you reinserted the text about a brief and inconsequential offshoot of MSNBC. You cited wp:NOTTEMPORARY, but that refers to notability, i.e. whether there should be a Wikipedia article about a subject. The applicable guideline for content within an article is WP:WEIGHT. The MSNBC2 product was one of countless initiatives that were tried and rejected when they did not meet expectations. Any business has loads of those. It is of no enduring significance to the topic of the article nor has it had a significant impact on present-day MSNBC. As such, it's UNDUE and should be removed. Please consider and undo your reinsertion. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you thoughtfully considered why I cited NOTTEMPORARY. Notability is not temporary and, indeed, MSNBC2 has its own article. As a reader and knowledge practictioner, I really prefer when these notable topics (especially past failures) are integrated into and linked from the parent articles. Excessive presentism in determining what is DUE is a bane. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying something

I responded to your comment on the talk page the way I did as I believed you were accusing me of being the same IP as 72.191.224.147 and sockpuppeting, but after re-reading and assuming good faith of you, and looking at it with calmer eyes I think I may have misunderstood your sentence.

First, you were not "revising" my edits, Toothpick, you were - against BRD policy - revert warring to restore the IP edit which was identical to yours. That means you were edit-warring against a long-range stable version without consensus.

When I said revision, I did not mean revise. I meant revert. I should have used the word 'reversion' instead of 'revision', if I did that's my mistake.

Reading your comment the first time, when you said "the IP edit which was identical to yours" I thought you were saying that 72.191.224.147's IP was identical to my IP which is clearly a baseless accusation. But reading it a second time I think you meant to say that my revert had the same content as 72.191.224.147's edit before it. In that case, yes I agree and see what you mean.

The fact is that, if your initial edit had not apparently taken the side of Shepherd in the dispute with Twitter, and obscured why the ban was placed, I would not have reverted in the first place.

When you said "if your initial edit", I thought you meant that my initial edit was 72.191.224.147's edit and you were accusing me of being the same person. Reading it over, I think maybe you were you referring to my revert of your revert of 72.191.224.147's edit, as the initial edit.

We can discuss BRD policy later, but I want to be clear about this. You were not accusing me of sockpuppetry, and you were not accusing me of being the same person as that IP edit, correct? SprayCanToothpick (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. And I recognize that "your initial edit" was sloppy language on my part, and potentially misleading. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I believe there was a lot of misunderstandings, and will try to correct my response.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Kerberos Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Kerberos Club 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/The Kerberos Club 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. Chetsford (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

A discussion of your recent edits has been started at WP:AN#User:Newimpartial. You are invited to comment there. Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of policy

You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy about how the original names of trans people are handled. It does not – as you seem to believe – state that those names should be censored completely from the article if the person was not notable under their birth name. The policy says that those names are not included in the lede under those circumstances. Removing their original name altogether from the article makes it look as if the subject was given the name they later chose at birth, by their parents, which is untrue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a basis for this assertion in policy or RfC (aside from NOTCENSORED, which has been amply contextualized against no-harm principles in the many RfCs on the subject)? Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for yours? MOS:GENDERID says that when they were notable we should, but doesn't say (as you seem to believe) that when they were not that we shouldn't. In fact, the very next sentence if official hands-off on the subject: "MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names". Furthermore, WP:DEADNAME clarifies that the guideline about notability is specifically about the lede, not the entirety of the article.

An article about a trans person that does not acknowledge anywhere in any way that they were given a different name at birth, and lived with it for however long they did, is presenting a misleading picture of their life. Someone reading this new version of Candis Cayne, for example, might get the impression that she was named Candis by her parents, and infer that this is why she identifies as female. Knowing that she was instead given a boy's name is important to understanding her choice to transition, and its importance to her life story. Wikipedia's first duty is to our readers, to inform them and help them understand the subjects they're reading about. Telling them that is a woman who lived with the name Brendan for her entire childhood and adolescence serves that purpose. An Orwellian article that suggests that she has never had any name but Candis does not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

These issues have been discussed at length in the repeated RfCs that gave rise to MOS:GGENDERID, and the consensus is most definitely not "birth names are not censored". The principal of not doing harm to living people has been specifically recognized in this context, and the harm that can result from provision of dead names has been recognized. The argument you are making, that non-notable deadnames are nevertheless needed to inform WP readers, has been acknowledged and set aside. So do I have to do the necessary searches to point you to those RfCs, or are you able to do it yourself? Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Random RfCs are not conclusive, and MOS:GENDERID is just a style guide. I would love to see a policy that addressed this, so we wouldn't have to deal with this kind round-and-round nonsense every time another drive-by editor gets people wound up about it one way or the other. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about "random RfCs"; I am talking about widely-participated discussions on the issue of deadnaming on WP in general. And this is primarily a matter of how articles are written, so it seems to me that the MOS was precisely the place to document the main findings of those discussions. OTOH, there have been some issues raised about deadnaming and pronoun choice outside the MOS context, such as CIVILity issues, so I wouldn't object to a wider policy as well, to complement the MOS guidance about deadnames and pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry.

Thought I had a better feeling for which of the "proud member of" were inside quotations. :( Thank you for the catch.Naraht (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanx for the catch Naraht (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to CIVIL template

No, you and your buddy do not get to call me vile insults like transphobe and bigot and deliberately use a term for me that I repeatedly asked you to stop using as I do not identify with it and find it personally offensive, and then delete my response as "not civil" if I call you bigots back while leaving up all the insults to me.

You can delete the offensive attacks on me as well, delete the entire section, or leave it all up. Your choice. But you don't get to decide that only insulting and bullying women is allowed but women aren't allowed to talk back. No.. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Before archiving this section, Lilipo, I want you to understand some basic Witiquette. In this comment alone, you accuse me of calling you "vile insults like transphobe and bigot" and of "using a term for [you] that [you] asked [me] to stop using". I didn't do any of these things. On Wikipedia, editors regardless of gender identification are not allowed to make spurious claims about each other; any actual concern about another editor's conduct is to be presented with accompanying diffs, as in this edit called me a "bigot" and a "bully", in violation of NPA and without a shred of supporting evidence. If you want to participate in contentious issues on WP, you are going to have to learn basic CIVILity and stop the personal attacks. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only did you NOT delete Sam's personal attack calling me "bigot" and "transphobe" when you deleted my reply, you chuckled along with and encouraged similar responses through several exchanges from Sam. If it's not civil for me to say "bigot" and "misogynist" in reply, why isn't it wrong for Sam to call me "bigot" and "transphobe" first?

I have been writing articles and editing contentious articles for some time, but I have never been ganged up on and bullied by two people like you and Sam before. If you can't edit fairly and delete Sam's repeated attacks on me, leave it all up. Alternatively, delete everything from Sam entering the conversation onward, as nothing from that point forward changes the article; it's just a lot of bullying, calling me names and telling me I have no right to talk back or decide what I may be called or how I can identify. You can leave up our debate about the article. But you can't simply leave up Sam's personal attacks on me and lecture me that I can't respond in kind. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Now you say that I have been "bullying" you and "chuckling along with" Sam, again without evidence. Also, you say that Sam has been "telling [you] that [you] have no right to talk back or decide what you may be called or how [you] can identify" - I don't see any sense in which that is true, having read the entire exchange more than once. You seem to object for some unspecified reason to the term "cis", which has become the standard (relatively uncontoversial) term for non-trans people among those who employ binary terminology. I haven't, myself, heard any reasoned or recent objection to "cis" except for those who object to gender binaries on principle. But whatever "cis" is, it is not a label like "bully" or "bigot" that represents a clear violation of civility, and your refusal to recognize Sam's gender here is a damned sight more serious a civility violation than anything they have done in this discussion. I have seen people permanently blocked from Wikipedia when they did not back down from a line in the sand (on Trans inclusion) very similar to the one you were drawing there, so I would urge you to learn WP's expectations about Civility rather than pretending you already know everything required and that anyone pointing out policy or norms to you is "bullying" or "lecturing" you. We need more feminists on Wikipedia, not fewer, but that is not an excuse for editors to read carelessly, cast aspersions, and fail to internalize basic Wikiquette. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Refusal to recognize Sam's gender? I assume Sam is a trans man due to a combination of the male name and the fact that Sam announced "I am transgender". Nonetheless, I have carefully avoided pronouns bc I don't know for certain what Sam uses. Neither of you showed me the same 'civility'. It is not up to you to decide that I should be okay with being called cis. I specifically told both of you repeatedly that I do not identify that way and do not want to be called that. You know nothing more about me, but made a point of calling me that over and over, when there was no need at all to do so, and telling me too bad, you like the word so I don't get to decide how I identify. It is my choice to identify as I wish and not yours to determine that I do not get that choice. I don't even need to give you a "reasoned objection" because it's my identity and not yours. That was bullying and nothing less.

You say to me here that a "label like 'bigot' is a clear violation of civility' and yet you REPEATEDLY refused to remove Sam's comments calling ME that first, while deleting my reply saying it back and calling that a violation of civility. And you think that you are not bullying me? You leave up the very attack on me that you claim violates Wikipedia rules but won't allow me to respond.

The reason there are so few women editors on Wikipedia, and fewer all the time, is exactly this. Articles are heavily biased against women, and when women try to make them even slightly less so, we are immediately ganged up on and called bigots and reverted and deleted and mocked and dismissed until we give up. The people doing the bullying refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong, slap hands and congratulate themselves on getting rid of another troublesome female viewpoint. Every woman I know who has ever edited on Wikipedia tells other women not to even try because it's a boy's club that hates women. And they're right. It just wears you down, even trying.

You're going to put Sam's attack on me back up and delete my reply again and again. And you'll never even admit that it's unfair. Every woman I know was right. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

None of what you say is true, Lilipo. I am not "going to put Sam's attack on you back up and delete your reply again" (!?), you did not "try to make" the Vancouver Rape Crisis article "less biased against women" (you reinserted an offensive term in Wikivoice), you assert that by not doing something you could do for yourself (deleting Sam's comment, which you found uncivil) I am "ganging up" on you (since you assume that I am "male", imagine if I had done that on your behalf? Quel horreur misogyniste!). You have assumed Sam's gender and pronouns for reasons I cannot fathom, and AFAICT got them wrong. I did not "congratulate myself on getting rid of you" - in fact, even though your viewpoint differs from my (feminist) one, I have actively encouraged you to stay and given you tools that will help you survive here, if you choose to use them. And, most fundamentally, I never once called you "cis". If you continue to fail basic reading comprehension, and insist on jumping up and down on the corpse of the fundamental policy WP:AGF, then you will have an unnecessarily hard time on WP and will continue to blame others for your own mistakes of judgement. I hope that, once you have calmed down a bit, you will be able to perceive situations here more accurately and stop jumping to conclusions without evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing comments.

YOu need to be more careful in removing comments. There is no guideline anywhere stating [[15]] was an appropriate removal. The same thing with the IP post, you can bring them to task for commenting on the contributer and the content but to remove everything because of that is likewise not going to fly. It simply isn't egregious enough, you can ask them to strike it and follow dispute resolution though... Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Hell in a Bucket? The discussion from which I removed this comment was formally closed in October of 2019. It was an entirely appropriate removal. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Really? Where does the talkpage guidelines give you that authority? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right; I was supposed to move the comments out of the archived section, not delete them, per WP:TPG (although what I did was what I have seen done before, so I assumed it was correct). I have now done the right thing. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a huge deal and I appreciate it. Think about what I said about that Ip, if it were worse I'd agree but there is a lot of policy blah blah in it to so it's easier to warn ignore and report if it persists or worsens. That is a tough page to moderate I've been watching for a minute now Hell in a Bucket ([[User talk:Hell in a

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States

If you "Don't see reason for tag", why did you restore it in your last edit? By accident, perhaps? (It got confusing: I removed it, then realized that by doing so I had violated 1RR, so I reverted myself, re-adding the tag. O3000 then reverted me, thereby deleting the tsag. You, by reverting O3000, restored the tag.) If your intent was to remove the tag, you can revert your own edit and not be gulty of violating 1RR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I already did that, but thanks for the msg. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Important notice re White genocide conspiracy theory

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Template:Z33 (I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors on that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chasing my edits

Ok now you appear to be chasing my edits... and reverting "textual errors" that don't exist? There were no textual edits made in Olmecs, what on earth are you talking about? I *fixed* textual errors and you *reverted* the textual errors. What are you doing? Ogress 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You are under the impression that ritually deposited at the shrine at shrine El Manatí is somehow not an error? Or that Nile, Indus, and Yellow river valleys is an improvement on Nile, Indus, and Yellow River valleys. And AFAICT, one of the main reasons 'contribs' links exist is so when someone has made an edit against policy or common sense, other editors can check their work elsewhere to see whether they have done the same - as, indeed, you had. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You felt that you should roll back a large edit instead of just telling me there's an error? It feels hostile. I do make mistakes, I won't lie. Just tell me so I can fix them instead of rolling back all the work, I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you hit ROLLBACK, now do I, and it's frustrating. Now I can fix that problem. I'm American and being forced to move tomorrow during a pandemic and I'll be the first to admit I'm liable to make errors, but mashing "NO" isn't helpful on someone who is legitimately trying to edit an article rather than being a troll. You can just tell someone they made a mistake (assuming you don't want to correct it, which is 100% valid). It's not good faith, I've been an editor forever and I have bad days like everyone else. Ogress 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, you need to be more careful. I still see no advantage in your changes to the Anthropocene article, and in Olmecs I see a lot of inexplicable overlinking of dates and "stylistic" changes that don't result in clear improvements to the text, and then I see edit summaries like "grammar". I am aware that there are different approaches to editing, but my approach is that every change to an article in main space should reflect WP's consensus on the article's topic and should represent a clear improvement, rather than just an alternative or one person's stylistic preference (and also that the area of improvement should be clearly indicated in the edit summary). What I saw in those two edits (not talking about your edits in general) did not meet one or the other of those criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are under a one way interaction ban with Lilipo25, indefinitely, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned in response to evidence in this thread.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 20:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)