User talk:Masquewand

December 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to re-emphasise what MrOllie says here. Your edit requests, revivals of old threads and subsequent digressions into opinion and advocacy are, at best, unhelpful and, if they continue, might come to be interpreted as intentionally disruptive. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing text that is directly quoted from sources. You must stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing it, sex has always referred to biological sex when discussing sexual orientation and gender has always referred to the roles a society has based on those sexes. Blending them just creates confusion and hate to trans people and everyone. Masquewand (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are baselessly deleting parts of the articles, and altering text (including direct quotations) so it no longer matches the cited sources. That is vandalism. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing every word that has gender switched with sex back to sex. I'm not a coder so it might be a little sloppy, but it can be fixed by someone that knows how to code. Masquewand (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not. If you try it you will get blocked. This is your last chance to stop vandalising Wikipedia. One more intentionally bad edit and you will be blocked for good. You have already wasted more than enough of our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masquewand, that is absolutely not true. The concepts we call "sex" and "gender" are much less sharply defined than that, and indeed for hundreds of years only "sex" has had any real currency. cf Lady Macbeth's "unsex me here", the "feminine sex", etc etc. -- asilvering (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying what I was; sex refers to male, female, and intersex while gender refers to the roles a society places on them. It was like that in Shakespeare's time, Ancient Greece/Rome, Ancient Egypt, and is still like that. Every single source I found said the same thing on both terms so its just widely accepted at this point. Masquewand (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not correct. "Gender" in the way you are using it is a relatively new sense, from the mid-20th century onwards. See the OED, for example [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to grammatical gender which is different from natural gender which is different from gender identity. Its extremely pedantic but not specifying makes complications and confusion, especially for trans and gay people. Masquewand (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that all of the sources are 5 years old and outdated. With something that is constantly being updated the sources need to be updated with it or people will stop using Wikipedia for the topic. Then it will spiral out to other topics and Wikipedia could be shut down. I may be exaggerating a little at the end but you understand what I mean. Masquewand (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also not being accurate TO the sources. The entire page needs to be reworked, maybe even the entirety of ALL the sexual orientation pages. Masquewand (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masquewand, you're welcome to add new, updated sources to articles at any time. But you can't "update the sources" the way you were doing, by replacing one word in a direct quote with a different word. That's a misrepresentation of the sources; that kind of thing does much more damage to Wikipedia and our information ecosystem at large than having some outdated information around the place. Now that your block is expired, I strongly suggest that you do not return to making that kind of edit. Our articles are made by consensus, often over a long period of time and many extended discussions.

I was not referring to grammatical gender. I was referring to the word "gender" broadly. The use of it that is synonymous with "gender identity" did not appear before we had come up with the concept of "gender identity" in the first place. This is, in the scheme of things, quite a recent development. It is therefore extremely incorrect to state that gender has always referred to the roles a society has based on those sexes. And whether it "always" referred to that or not, that would not justify editing quotes to change the use of the word from one to the other. -- asilvering (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times change, you need to change with it. Masquewand (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The broad definition isn't used anymore and using it that way DOES do damage. Masquewand (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, quotes do not change with the times. They're quotes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What quotes? I didn't mention any. Masquewand (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
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.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruptive editing, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Sexual orientation, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Adakiko (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we go for a visit WP:ARBGENDER#Enforcement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adakiko (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gender-related arbitration issue?. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Masquewand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I gave the reason why I edited when I edited and didn't edit where it didn't apply; using words not in the source article is confusing and inaccurateMasquewand (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request and your edits suggest to me it would be a bad idea to allow you to resume editing about gender related topics. I personally see no pathway forward without a topic ban from that contentious topics area. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.