User talk:AGIwithTheBraids
Time to rein it in....[edit]
....with the edit warring, and personal attacks on article Talk. I suspect that you and and I have a lot of the same intuitions about the topic and perhaps also about the motivations of some of the voices who seem determined to push a fringe POV, but at this rate you're headed for trouble. Please be aware that this is a contentious topic area, where discretionary sanctions apply. I'll add the standard template below, which is not an accusation of wrongdoing.
Wikipedia is a funny place: it's very common to find yourself having to argue civilly with the people with whom you disagree most about the subjects you're most passionate about. But that's exactly why civility is a core policy. Without it we wouldn't be able to function. Hit me up anytime if you have questions about navigating this place, or just want to commiserate about how frustrating it can be :) Generalrelative (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- we have to resolve this issue with "gender symmetry" on that page and on many others. It clearly meets the criteria for Fringe topics -- that user has a history of creating/editing articles to create a false impression that men are persecuted...
- whatever is the best systematic way to do that... AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you that it's fringe, but according to the WP:FRINGE guideline there are degrees of fringe. It's not pseudoscience but rather an alternative theoretical framework. As EvergreenFir rightly pointed out, any academic treatment would mention e.g. Straus and Gelles, and therefore so should we, while also showing how and why mainstream scholarship rejects their view. The issue is really pretty simple: it's one of definition. If you define IPV in an overly broad way, there is symmetry, but if you actually look at severity, it's clear that women are overwhelmingly victimized. And of course that kind of definitional issue is all too often an invitation for endless, inane debate and Wikilawyering. Generalrelative (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- see my proposal on the talk page. allows for consolidation and acknowledgement of this "subissue" AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you that it's fringe, but according to the WP:FRINGE guideline there are degrees of fringe. It's not pseudoscience but rather an alternative theoretical framework. As EvergreenFir rightly pointed out, any academic treatment would mention e.g. Straus and Gelles, and therefore so should we, while also showing how and why mainstream scholarship rejects their view. The issue is really pretty simple: it's one of definition. If you define IPV in an overly broad way, there is symmetry, but if you actually look at severity, it's clear that women are overwhelmingly victimized. And of course that kind of definitional issue is all too often an invitation for endless, inane debate and Wikilawyering. Generalrelative (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. 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, 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.
Generalrelative (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit summaries[edit]
Hello, I'm Panamitsu. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- That banner needs to be discussed on the articles talk page AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)