Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Crossroads: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Personal attack by User:Oldperson on article talk page.
Line 44: Line 44:
I don't understand what you mean: what isn't possible? You can warn a user on their talk page before bringing the discussion to the noticeboard. The only difference between the two cases, is how many reverts before you warn them, right? Then, if it's ignored, you go to [[WP:AN3]]. At least, that's how I've always interpreted "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" in the AN3 template, i.e., they're asking you for a diff of the User talk page where you left them a {{tl|uw-3rr}} or {{tl|uw-1rr}} message. If it weren't possible to do so for 1RR, then {{tl|uw-1rr}} would have no utility at all, right? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean: what isn't possible? You can warn a user on their talk page before bringing the discussion to the noticeboard. The only difference between the two cases, is how many reverts before you warn them, right? Then, if it's ignored, you go to [[WP:AN3]]. At least, that's how I've always interpreted "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" in the AN3 template, i.e., they're asking you for a diff of the User talk page where you left them a {{tl|uw-3rr}} or {{tl|uw-1rr}} message. If it weren't possible to do so for 1RR, then {{tl|uw-1rr}} would have no utility at all, right? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks; I've (hopefully) clarified my report in that regard, as it now says, {{tq|Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below.}} I didn't know uw-1rr existed, but it actually does appear to me to have no utility. Unless you wanted to not report someone even though you could, and warn them only, I suppose. But my experience with this editor tells me it's time for an admin to evaluate. [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks; I've (hopefully) clarified my report in that regard, as it now says, {{tq|Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below.}} I didn't know uw-1rr existed, but it actually does appear to me to have no utility. Unless you wanted to not report someone even though you could, and warn them only, I suppose. But my experience with this editor tells me it's time for an admin to evaluate. [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

==Personal attack against you on Talk:TERF==
For your information, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOldperson&type=revision&diff=933827547&oldid=933823587 warned] editor [[User:Oldperson|Oldperson]] regarding his personal attack in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATERF&type=revision&diff=933788171&oldid=933764337 "Unjustified revert"] discussion ("...your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV.") [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 06:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:51, 3 January 2020

Asian sexual fetishism

Hello. I've noticed that you've made some edits to the article "Asian sexual fetishism" and have left some comments there. In my opinion, the entire article is written horribly, the premise of the article is deeply flawed, and the article is also heavily biased. Previously, the article was titled "Asian fetish", but I changed it to "Asian sexual fetishism" in order to align it with the article "Sexual fetishism". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Asian sexual fetishism has a deeply flawed premise and displays heavy bias since it begins by asserting that Asian sexual fetishism is a bad thing. Furthermore, it doesn't properly define Asian sexual fetishism. Prior to my own edits to the introduction, the article implied that any White man who is attracted to Asian women is a sexual predator. Furthermore, the article's introduction previously implied that an attraction to Asian culture (e.g. food, language, customs, etc.) by White men inevitably leads to the sexual predation of Asian women by White men. Also, the sources cited throughout the article aren't of the highest quality. Many sources include things like magazines and novels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jargo Nautilus. I wouldn't condemn the article in as strong of terms as you do here. The concept does appear legitimate, keeping in mind that "fetishism" is being used in an informal, cultural sense and not the medical sense. If a source can be found, perhaps the article should state this. That said, there are problems with the article. Some sources are indeed poor (e.g. a LinkedIn page, what appears to be a paper by an undergraduate, etc.) and some of the opinions presented should have in-text attribution. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's generally quite difficult to back up many of the claims made in the article. For example, this one: "Western fetish for Asian things developed out of a European tradition of fascination with the East, and a history of othering the inhabitants of those regions." This claim is very vague and there are no sources supporting it. Furthermore, this comment, "An Asian fetish places a psychological burden on Asian women", is also very generalised and cannot realistically be supported by evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is not how we understand evidence, but what the reliable sources say. The first quote above could just be removed as it is unsourced and likely OR. The second appears supported, but feel free to check the source and adjust the phrasing if it goes beyond what the source says. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources in the article have been cherry-picked. The article presents a very biased viewpoint by excluding all opinions to the contrary and by presenting various people's opinions as facts. I believe that the entire article needs to be rewritten or revised. For example, I have changed "Origins" to "Speculated origins". I personally find it hard to believe that there is very much credible evidence of Orientalism in the Middle East dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, so I've just removed that comment entirely. The rest of the comments on the West's fascination with China, Japan, and Korea are also unsourced, but I've decided to leave them since I think there is credible evidence to back up some of these claims, such as the existence of sexualised postcards featuring Asian women. Still, sources need to be provided. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just some personal conjecture here; I won't add any of this to the article, at least not without supporting evidence... Personally, although I believe that an "Asian fetish" or "Yellow Fever" is a real thing and also a bad thing (in cases where genuine bigotry and hate exist), I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong about a White man who is more attracted to Asian women than to females from other ethnicities. However, this article seems to push the idea that all White men who have an exclusive sexual preference for Asian women have an "Asian fetish" or "Yellow Fever". In my opinion, this is a very slippery slope. If an Asian man were to have an exclusive sexual preference for White women, would that be labeled as a "White fetish"? No. It would be labeled as "Progressivism". In the same way, I don't see anything inherently wrong with White men who have an exclusive sexual preference for Asian women. Sexual abuse and racism are both horrible things, but I believe that it's unfair to assume that all White men who have an exclusive sexual preference for Asian women are sex offenders and racists. One common instance where a White man may be exclusively attracted to Asian women without necessarily being a sex offender or a racist is a situation where a White man has spent his entire life growing up around Asian people (including women). This can happen not only when a White man grows up in an Asian country (which, I think, is relatively rare) but also when a White man grows up in an Asian enclave within a Western country. For example, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (where I live), the vast majority of academically selective high schools (of which there are around 50) are populated mostly by Asians. Over 80% of students in most of these 50 or so high schools originate from a Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE) (most LBOTE people in Sydney are Asian). When growing up in a community where over 80% of his peers are Asians, it is natural for a White student to become attracted to that particular demographic. This can result in a life-long attraction to Asian women, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a brief article on The Conversation by researcher Christina Ho on the current socio-economic and ethnic demographics of academically selective high schools in Sydney. https://theconversation.com/selective-schools-mainly-select-advantage-so-another-one-wont-ease-sydneys-growing-pains-118449 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On noticeboards, pings, and the meaning of life.

Yup...that guy needs to go away. He's clearly a POV pusher. I watchdog some controversial articles strictly to try to get people to talk through the issues rather than edit war. That's one. I have 0 evidence I can offer, a quick glance would have easily shown I have no ongoing roll in the content there...so why did you ping me to a noticeboard? I wouldn't expect you'd know, but I participate at ANI with some regularity. If you link a username in a properly signed message, no matter how you mechanically link it...a ping is generated. I was not needed there. There was no need whatsoever to ping me. If you for whatever reason (there's really not a valid one), feel compelled to identify to the highly experienced editors at ANI the participants in the diff you just gave them, use Template:noping. Don't know about your neighborhood, but in mine, getting called into court is NOT a way to win friends. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, and won't ping you again in the future if a similar situation occurs. Even though you said you have no evidence to offer, your testimony that he is a POV pusher would still be valuable at ANI. But anyway, I know that I myself would greatly appreciate such a ping. And in other such cases, editors who have interacted with the problem user have appreciated the pings, or at least simply ignored them. I wouldn't take it as getting 'called into court'. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this, the material in question was not removed for the rationale you have given, and it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times to restore uncontroversial content. The fact that this material has not been in the less up to now is not policy compliant evidence for it being UNDUE, and neither is the argument in tour edit rationale. Most sources on the topic don't refer to chromosomes, either, but you don't seem to have any problem with those lede elements. The arguments that have been brought to bear justifying the inclusion of gender identity and boundary issues on Woman apply equally here, and your brusque dismissal of all this content without examination screams IDONTLIKETHAT. And your comment that "you already have" articles on "trans, intersex, and 'gender expression'" - as if those were not also aspects of the topic Man - just about scream prejudice and exclusion. Check your privilege, maybe? Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know people were still saying "check your privilege" unironically. And you appear to have assumed that I am cisgender and not intersex. As for it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times to restore uncontroversial content, that is not correct. WP:3RR states, The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Bolding in source. Also, the fact it was being removed refutes that it is "uncontroversial". The argument against that lead content is already given here; the pre-existing lead content is another matter. The Woman article likewise does not contain such exposition nor should it. "You already have" means that Wikipedia well covers these topics; these are not major aspects of "Man", according to the sources, such that these aspects should be so focused on in the lead. This is not a slight towards these men. It is simply a matter of due weight. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that weight shifts over time, as you well know from Woman; you may not remember those discussions clearly. but the fact that you have recently been defending the retention of material that you previously tried to remove (on Woman) shows that you implicitly recognize that fact. If you are intersex, you have employed a truly bizarre and self-abnegating treatment of the interaction between intersex status and gender identity, for reasons about which I cannot speculate; in any case, I prefer to use Occam's razor, here as elsewhere.
As far as your "entitlement" argument is concerned, I can only assume that you are still miffed at misconstruing 3RR in the past and being (politely) called out on it, or you would not be so quick to elide "right" to entitlement. Also, if you had followed the sequence of events accurately, you would have observed that Springee only launched the talk page discussion after having run out of 3RR room themselves. Finally, the nonsense spouted by editors who revert material that they claim is "controversial" and cite as evidence for controversy the fact that they have reverted it is a brand of foolishness up with which I will not put. We can have the DUE argument all that you like, but applying the "controversial" label to uncontested factual statements is just not on. Newimpartial (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, my talk page comments made it pretty clear what was "contested" about the disputed material. Why would you claim that the disputed material is an "uncontested factual statement" when it has been contested? That's like hiding your head under the bed at noon and insisting that it's dark outside. If you think this material is worth arguing about (at great length), why don't you consider it worthwhile to actually work on it and address other editors' concerns? I don't see a lot of willingness on your part to collaborate. Actually, I don't see any. I'm sure we could all do without your condescending tone as well. SunCrow (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any evidence at all, SunCrow, that any of the three key factual claims are contested:
* that men have various sexual orientations
* that some AMAB people do not identify as men
* that some non-AMAB people do identify as men.
I could claim to contest that the sky is blue, but unless I provide some reasoning or evidence behind that assertion, "the sky is blue" would still count for WP as an uncontested statement. You have so far provided nothing but POV.
I have pointed to numerous, sourced, articles and discussions of these topics elsewhere on WP. If you won't read those, why should I provide more? Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying users for 1RR vios

I noticed the noticeboard discussion you raised about another editor, but this comment confused me:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not really possible under 1RR, as once edit warring begins it's already a violation,...

I don't understand what you mean: what isn't possible? You can warn a user on their talk page before bringing the discussion to the noticeboard. The only difference between the two cases, is how many reverts before you warn them, right? Then, if it's ignored, you go to WP:AN3. At least, that's how I've always interpreted "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" in the AN3 template, i.e., they're asking you for a diff of the User talk page where you left them a {{uw-3rr}} or {{uw-1rr}} message. If it weren't possible to do so for 1RR, then {{uw-1rr}} would have no utility at all, right? Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've (hopefully) clarified my report in that regard, as it now says, Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. I didn't know uw-1rr existed, but it actually does appear to me to have no utility. Unless you wanted to not report someone even though you could, and warn them only, I suppose. But my experience with this editor tells me it's time for an admin to evaluate. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack against you on Talk:TERF

For your information, I have warned editor Oldperson regarding his personal attack in the "Unjustified revert" discussion ("...your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV.") Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]