Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:07, 24 February 2023

Edit war warning

This is a warning. You have been slow-motion edit warring for days at the article Amber Heard. You have not exactly violated 3RR, but you could still be blocked if you continue this pattern. Note that multiple different people are reverting your position; that means that you must get consensus at the talk page before adding it again. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Alerts

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 Misplaced Pages'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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages'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.

Crossroads 23:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Urgent warning

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. El_C 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it defamatory to literally just post the essay someone wrote on a subject in a section detailing their thoughts on the subject? Snokalok (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I included citation with a link to the actual essay that he wrote and posted under his own name. How is that defamation? Snokalok (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Because of the challenge that this claim on your part —in which he details sexual relationships he had with transgender patients whose access to healthcare he had full control over— is not in the source provided. That's what makes it potentially defamatory (egregiously so). If you wish to quote the pertinent passage in full (including page number), go for it. Ping Crossroads. El_C 18:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If I do, and I can prove that I was telling the truth and that that is what he really does in the book, does this warning become null and void or is it still considered defamation even if it’s true? Snokalok (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's what defamation is basically about. Making stuff up (false statements). I'm not sure about the specifics regarding this particular source, it's WP:WEIGHT, etc., but one step at a time, I suppose. El_C 18:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: In that case challenge accepted. I would also like to note while I’m here thar Crossroads made a longggg number of edits deleting relevant scientific sources and facts that were supported by MEDRS citation and just happened to be against Blanchard’s typology, so I wouldn’t consider them impartial either, but as you said, one step at a time, and this isn’t the place for that conversation either way.

I’ll ping you when I have the page numbers. Enjoy your weekend! Snokalok (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:

Here we go. Buckle up.

On page 141, Bailey describes meeting a trans woman named Kim and discussed at length his intense sexual attraction to her and how “exotic” and “sexy” she was, and how he saw her both as a potential research subject and as someone he wanted to engage in a sexual relationship with.

On pages 147-156, he delves into talking in explicit detail about an trans girl patient of his named Cher’s sexual habits to the point of describing individual acts step by step, with eroticized descriptions the way one might write a piece of smut. It is important to note that Cher is mentioned in the book’s dedication. (If you remember nothing else from this, remember this one.)

On page 182, he then talks about directly enlisting the aforementioned Kim as a psychological research subject, and reiterated his attraction to her. He then described having a conversation with his assistant as part of this research about how they both wanted to have sex with her.

He then talked about discussing with her the desire to have reassignment surgery, a conversation that very firmly falls within the domain of patient interactions, and which he encouraged her to get based solely on his aforementioned attraction to her (see: he literally said she was “exotic”).

On 183, he then talks about how he believes the difference between “homosexual transsexuals” (trans women attracted to men), and “autogynephilic transsexuals” (trans people who are not into men, including asexuals, and whom he spends the entire book painting as sex perverts transitioning as part of their sexual fetish, hence the term) is that the former group care about whether they’re seen as attractive to straight men like himself, whereas the latter group do not.

On page 185, he talks about another experimental analysis conducted on trans sex workers, whom he categorized for data purposes based on his attraction to them (and for which he found a correlation between the ones he found the most attractive and those that worked as call girls).

On page 193, he states that part of his criteria for whether or not he decides whether a patient belongs to the category of trans people he considers valid, and whom he will thus allow to have treatment, or if they’re part of the group he considers perverts whom he’ll brand with a paper diagnosis that’ll make it impossible for them to receive treatment (see: full control over their access to affirming care) is the following:

(As a point in their favor):

-If in they’re into certain types of men -if they find men “very sexually exciting” -if their ideal partner is “a straight man” -If they’re under 25 (see: young and attractive) -if he finds them attractive (This is something he talks about at length. See pages 147-156) -if they work as a prostitute

(As a point against them):

-if they’re over 40 (see: old and gross) -if he does not find them attractive

On the next page he then, as he does many times throughout the book, talks about his suspicions that trans people lie about their answers to these criteria (said criteria, to reiterate, including that they’re into a certain type of straight men and that they’re willing to have sex with men who pay them) so that he won’t deny them treatment.

This criteria for diagnoses and treatment on its own is remarkably damning and, in light of the aforementioned case by case discussions of individual trans people he treated and studied and how a large part of his research data was just him talking about how he wanted to have sex with them.

But it gets better.

Lastly, as the cherry on top, after the book came out, a trans woman who was a research subject discussed in the book filed a sexual misconduct complaint with Northwestern talking about his relationship to her as her doctor who had control over whether she received a letter for surgery (and who did eventually grant one), and about engaging in intercourse with him.

Northwestern began an investigation into his featuring her without her consent, but refused to investigate any sexual misconduct allegations. He soon after stepped down as chair of the department for what were claimed to be unrelated reasons.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2004/01/05/archive-manual/bailey-accused-of-having-sex-with-research-subject/

Lastly, keep in mind that J Michael Bailey was, at the time, one of a very finite number of channels by which trans people could medically transition, and was simultaneously one of the most respected psychiatrists in the field as the chair of psychology at Northwestern. (And definitely keep Cher and Kim in mind, along with his stated criteria for care). Snokalok (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok, I was hoping for, as I said, the "pertinent passage," this is pretty long. Plus, I don't have the book. In any case, I'll let Crossroads give his take before doing anything else. But please note that WP:BLPCRIME's threshold is quite high in that it usually involves convictions. El_C 22:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Northwestern has a PDF online. Regardless, does what I said still meet the standard of defamation, in light of the above? Snokalok (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. There are no quotes. I asked for you to (and I quote) "quote," I didn't ask for summaries. And, again, the entire thing, itself, is poorly summarized (i.e. long). Maybe aim for less is more if you want to see this resolved faster...? El_C 00:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Apologies, I was genuinely working under the assumption that you’d be reading whatever pages I sent your way. I’ll give you quotes tomorrow. Tonight, I sleep. Snokalok (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: (see above) Snokalok (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'll try to keep this brief. If you are really interested you can download a PDF of the whole book from the publisher here and see for yourself that those summaries are heavily embellished at best. Suffice to say that the lengthy WP:Original research above does not verify Snokalok's claim in this now-redacted diff. We know that the book itself never says that because that claim only appeared after the book was published as part of the ensuing controversy discussed at The Man Who Would Be Queen. Historian Alice Dreger wrote a lengthy paper about that whole saga, and she concluded the claim was false; you can view the paper here and use your browser's 'find' to skip to where it says, "Did J. Michael Bailey have sexual relations with a woman who was his research subject at the time?" You can also take a look at "was Bailey illegally practicing clinical psychology without a license when he provided letters in support of a few local transwomen’s requests for SRS?" The fact that this editor thinks that such inflammatory and discredited claims can be not only stated as fact in a Misplaced Pages article but cited to that book itself rather than the people making the claims is deeply concerning. These diffs likewise claim that Ray Blanchard wrote a Medium blog post that was unequivocally not written by Blanchard but by someone calling themselves SocialJusticeWizard who refers to Blanchard in the third person. The one WP:MEDRS source (i.e. academic literature review) that was cited by Snokalok had to have its summary rewritten, as seen here. You can see the quote in the ref note and read the abstract of the paper to see that their summary of it when they added it was not accurate. It's certainly possible there were pre-existing flaws in the Misplaced Pages article, but adding all of this material that misrepresents its sources and engages in serious BLP violations and continuing to insist it was all okay looks to me like there is a WP:CIR problem here. Crossroads 03:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: paragraph breaks = friend. El_C 09:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:

I’ve narrowed it down to ten quotes on three specific topics I consider relevant. Please go into this with the understanding that any attempt to reduce what is gradually articulated over an entire book to a few quotes will inevitably prove to be an exercise in reductionism, and that all that can really be displayed with a few quotes is that J Mike is a certifiable creep who should not be in a position of power. Nonetheless, I have done my best.

Cher:

“When she gets sexually aroused, she still masturbates simulating intercourse with a dildo while looking in a mirror; now the dildo penetrates her vagina rather than her anus.” (Bailey 156)

Kim:

“I see Kim for the first time, on the stairs, dancing, posing. She is spectacular, exotic (I find out later that she is from Belize), and sexy.” (Bailey 141)

“It is difficult to avoid viewing Kim from two perspectives: as a researcher but also as a single, heterosexual man.” (Bailey 141)

“When she came to my laboratory, my initial impression was recon- firmed. She was stunning. (Afterwards, my avowedly heterosexual male research assistant told me that he would gladly have had sex with her, even knowing that Kim still possessed a penis).” (Bailey 182)

Criteria:

“If the sum gets to +3, stop; the transsexual you’re talking to is autogynephilic. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.” (Bailey 192)

“If you didn’t already know that this person was a transsexual, would you still have suspected that she was not a natural-born woman?

+1 if your answer is “Yes” (if you would have suspected) -1 if your answer is “No”” (Bailey 193)

“-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female imper- sonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?” (Bailey 193)

“-1 Is your ideal partner a straight man?” (Bailey 193)

“Keep in mind that people don’t always tell the truth.This inter- view could be invalid if the transsexual is actually autogynephilic but is either (a) worried that you will think badly of her or deny her a sex change if you know the truth, or (b) obsessed with being a “real” woman.” (Bailey 194) Snokalok (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's a super-inappropriate thing for a clinician to say, but how do you get from that to in which he details sexual relationships he had with transgender patients whose access to healthcare he had full control over? I'm just not seeing where in your series of quotes was that expressly stated. El_C 11:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I was talking about the Kim erotic non-fiction — I don't really understand the relevance of the other quotes to, well, anything. El_C 11:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As I said, working with a few individual quotes is an exercise in reductionism.

Consider however, his immediate criteria for care: The passibility rating has long been a measure of how attractive one finds someone, since if you’re looming for “trans features” in anyone, you’ll probably find them (there are entire conspiracy blogs dedicated to doing this with celebrities).

Thus, the only real metric this measures is if one finds them pretty.

Then, consider that his other criteria include a specific attraction to straight men (something he takes care, as can be seen in the Kim quote, to repeatedly identify himself as), a willingness to sell their bodies, and (per this quote) a healthy libido.

“-1 Does this describe you? “I find the idea of having sex with men very sexually exciting“ (Bailey 193)

Then, may I reiterate, that Bailey - as one of the only channels for trans healthcare in existence at the time and as one of the most respected psychiatrists in the field, someone whose determination carries tremendous weight - explicitly said this was his criteria for issuing an on paper determination whether someone was a real trans person or just a pervert living a fantasy.

Finally, as any trans person will tell you, your psych has full control over your access to healthcare to begin with, and paper diagnoses follow you. Bailey’s position of power is undeniable, and he’s already (per Kim) expressed a willingness to engage sexually with subjects, and in his criteria, he shows that a consensual willingness to engage sexually on his patients’ part is a critical part of him allowing them to receive care. Snokalok (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok, the point is that this is your WP:SYNTHESIS. You may well be right, but the only relevant metric, here, on the English Misplaced Pages, is WP:BLPCRIME or similar derivatives. El_C 11:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough then, I made a mistake in synthesis and the standards for BLPCRIME. I accept that.

I still do not think though, based on the above, that what I said can be considered a malicious falsehood the way a claim of defamation would require. Snokalok (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Malice on your part was never inferred nor implied, Snokalok, at least by me. I was asked to look at a narrow set of evidence (unprompted), and after doing so, took immediate steps to ensure compliance with policy. Nothing more. Hope that makes sense. Regards, El_C 13:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: In that case, would it be at all possible to have the claim of defamation stricken and replaced with a lesser BLPCRIME or synthesis or something to that effect?

Yours, Snokalok. Snokalok (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, duly struck. Best wishes, El_C 13:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine § Gender dysphoria primary study

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine § Gender dysphoria primary study. There is significant overlap between your recent edits at Gender dysphoria in children and this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct use of url parameter in CS1/2 citations

Hey. Just wanted to let you know that in your last few edits, example diff, you've been putting an archive url into the |url= parameter on a CS1 derived template. The |url= parameter is for the original URL of the source, and not the archive URL. For the archive URL you want to use |archive-url=.

You also should look at the source specific cite variants like {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, as {{cite web}} is the fallback template for when content isn't suited for the other templates. In the case of the example above, you'd want to use {{cite news}} as PinkNews is a news organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That's really helpful! Snokalok (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries. You might also be interested in Citer and IABot.

Citer is a tool that can usually extract author names, titles, dates, etc. from a URL. It won't work if the URL is a direct link to a PDF, and it can sometimes produce strange results particularly with dates depending on how they are set in the source's metadata, so you'll want to double check the results before copy/pasting into an article. It'll also suggest {{cite web}} for most URLs, so if you're citing a news or magazine source you'll need to change that bit manually. But it's really useful for getting most parameters for a citation really quickly. Where it excels though is when you're citing a source by DOI, ISBN, PMID, or OCLC, as it will lookup the metadata on PubMed, Crossref, or Worldcat.

IABot is a fantastic resource for automatically finding and adding archive URLs to citations. It doesn't work on bare citations, eg <ref></ref>, but for any CS1 or 2 template it will automatically search through a few archival websites to try and find an archived version. If it can't find an archive, and if the page is still live and you're running the tool with the Add archives to all non-dead references option, it will automatically archive the page on web.archive.org for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews is listed as a reliable source in the reliable sources list Snokalok (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is, however no citation to a specific PinkNews article was made in this edit. Per the BLP policy because there was no citation, that edit was removed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OMG THAT'S EMBARASSING Snokalok (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and copyright

Hello Snokalok! Your additions to Blanchard's transsexualism typology have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Misplaced Pages, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Misplaced Pages. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Misplaced Pages articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Misplaced Pages project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

BRD

We clearly have a different understanding of how WP:BRD operates. User:Sideswipe9th Boldly added the musician tweets with this edit . Then I Reverted that bold edit here . Next step was Discuss. But you reverted me here . So you took it to BRR. Just to reiterate, per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WWGB (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You removed the musical tweets, I restored them, you largely removed them again with slight alterations, without discussing to my knowledge. That’s your violation of the BRD cycle. I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit long in case I missed soemthing, but by my account of events, you just deleted something, it was reverted, then you deleted it again just a little less.

Again though, I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit log. User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said, you re-added the tweets without discussing. That's your violation of the BRD cycle. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because in the absence of a consensus, the status quo wins out. That’s your violation by re-removing it. Therefore, your violation of the BRD cycle. Snokalok (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging again because I have no idea if you get notifs for this or not User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your wonderful efforts documenting trans right and history, particularly your efforts to Transgender rights in the United States!

Hey @Snokalok, just wanted to leave you this and thank you for the work you do! I've seen your contributions to that article on my watch-list often and am always very thankful for them, and checking your contributions your work is even more impressive!

A sidenote, I recently started WP:USALGBT to try and help divvy up the workload covering LGBT rights across different U.S. states, so please feel free to join if you're interested! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is so nice of you, thank you! Of course I’ll join! Snokalok (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

NY Times

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read. You can ask any Admin for further information

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

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

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

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

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

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

SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)