Someeditor7

Reminder

Regarding your edit special:diff/1244682565: I'm reminding you again that Wikipedians should treat each other with respect. It seems like you are trying to defend your point with a reason that would not fit common sense, instead seemingly discriminate the editor's characteristics and trying to slient them. Please do not continue this behaviour. Thank you. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you, COI doesn't prevent people from discussing the topics. Please take a look at the COI policies before citing them, as COI doesn't actually apply in this case at all. Thank you. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not discriminating, I am pointing out there is a conflict of interest. Your accusation of discrimination is completely uncalled for.

And the page you linked to clearly states COI editing is strongly discouraged and Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.

You are proving my point. The conflict of interest I am pointing out does not only affect the discussion page, but directly affects the article, which the COI-involved user edited and is trying to make one of its sources, inconvenient to his interest, get marked as unreliable. Someeditor7 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep it short: you didn't address that COI applies here. Remember that COI doesn't mean biased. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In the message [1] where I first mentioned the conflict of interest:

"I believe you have no right in editing this article concerning these topics, as your use of pronouns shows you have a conflict of interest"

So yes, I did address it affects the article, from the very beginning. Someeditor7 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why the use of pronouns violate COI for our purposes. Otherwise, everyone in the world has COI for our purposes, which wouldn't make sense. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that I have called you out, and you have no retort, you turn to pretending not to understand the situation as a way to "argue". Does this fall under Straw man argument? Someeditor7 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

No, because all they asked from you is to explain your reasoning as to how having personal pronouns equates to having a conflict of interest. That is far from a "Straw man argument". Jurta ^talk/_he/they 17:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine what an English-language encyclopaedia that didn't use pronouns would look like. The mind boggles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning

I'm now warning instead of reminding. Tagging a reply as "childish" and "meaningless" is just unacceptable, by common sense. And yet, you have done so. Also, this is the final time I'm going to repeat: COI is not bias. You have failed to prove that usage of pronouns = COI. You may be blocked by continuing. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In the game at the basis of this discussion, characters' preferred pronouns are displayed, a practice that has been criticized as politically-charged and held against the game. The game's flop can (and has been) be partially attributed to this politically-charged feature. Knowing this information can lead others to omit such a feature from their product, and a user who displays his preferred pronouns is deleting information about it. Someeditor7 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, my best advice to you would be to walk away from this conflict with your dignity intact. You are going get absolutely nowhere on Wikipedia making such facile arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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

If you think 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) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)