User talk:Crossroads/2021, 3rd quarter

What do you mean

Hey I saw [this diff], I don’t understand what you mean. Was this a typo?CycoMa (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, that was a run-on sentence and I had to add a semicolon to make it grammatically correct. There's been other times where I copyedited after you as well. I was just saying to take more time to double check your material for correct grammar and punctuation to save time for others. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a point

I suppose you have a point. The commons section is enough for educational purposes. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sex as phenotype

I keep noticing you keep mentioning that sex is defined by phenotype. That's technically true but technically false. It's defined by what type of gamete an organism’s produces.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, some individual organisms don't produce the gamete, whether due to disease or not having matured yet, so I was trying to get at that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way when sources say male and female are defined by gamete type they aren’t saying being infertility means neither.

They basically mean it’s by reproductive role. A good analogy is that a toaster is defined as a machine that makes toast but it would still be classified as a toaster even if it is not functioning. CycoMa (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Greetings. Since you participated in a related discussion on the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation talk page, I wanted to solicit your opinion on the most recent edits. Thanks. 2001:569:7D8E:5300:B424:5415:D993:802E (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page. 2001:569:7D8E:5300:4D0D:6AB3:D37:22B4 (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Great job on Trans

Thanks for your Summary of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Your hard work is much appreciated. I think we should include Joyce's acknowledged errors, such as overstating Soros's contribution by $100M, but I'd prefer to consider your thoughts before proceeding. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. If reliable sources cover it, or she herself stated it, then yes that would be appropriate. I would suggest bringing it up on the article talk page if you want to discuss further. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Foreign sources

You mentioned them at ROGD; depends which, but if you want to collaborate with some of that, ping me here, or my UTP; see my UP for which ones I can help with. Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I need your help

At the article sex and gender distinction a user added like 20 sources by WP:SYN. I need your help to read every single source and see if it actually aligns with the definition that’s in that sentence.CycoMa (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you need to change the wording of the sentence ever-so-slightly, so that it summarizes what those, like, twenty sources say more accurately. Tewdar (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, why not just *ask me* for the definitions you want, instead of coming here and asking Crossroads, who is probably sleeping or working right now? Tewdar (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

You may be interested in a new sockpuppet I think I have found, in a case which you have dealt with before. I am not very experienced in reporting sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiang09. Thanks. --Glennznl (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Commented, thanks. Seems like enough for a CU and CU always gets them so far. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		Here’s a barnstar for all your hard work on sex and gender related articles. CycoMa (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

Wikipedia:Don't template anyone you’re probably unfamiliar with policies so it always helps to look up. BestFreepsbane (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the difference between an essay and a policy. Those templates exist for a reason. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it’s technically not banned but is considered tendentious. That said you mean well so all is fine.Freepsbane (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. [1] You were edit warring and got blocked. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Terrible Mutant Hamster and EvgFakka

Do you think they might be the same person? Both of them make the same types of arguments and edits at sex difference pages, I think they favor the same sources (although I have to look deeper into that and we all might use the same sources sometimes), and say that English is not their native language. The Terrible Mutant Hamster says on their user page that English is their second language, and EvgFakka says on a talk page (in their final paragraph)[2] that English is not their native language. I think EvgFakka has also said it before. They also both reappeared on September 3rd to make edits to the sex difference pages. The Terrible Mutant Hamster hadn't edited since June (until editing their sandbox) and EvgFakka hadn't edited since that very long post at that talk page on August 1st. EvgFakka also once said, "I'm disappointed with the flawed rules of Wikipedia and editors, but if I suddenly have a desire, then I'll come back, and at least block it. I will create thousands of accounts. There is no difficulty in this."[3] On the flip side, The Terrible Mutant Hamster seems to use clearer language when they talk. Maybe? The Terrible Mutant Hamster has a more diverse contribution history and it seems they haven't made extremely long posts like EvgFakka has. Maybe they're related in another way? One certain thing is that EvgFakka isn't going to stop using primary resources. If they're different people, I hope The Terrible Mutant Hamster is easier to work with. GBFEE (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

GBFEE, I suspected the same thing. That is very annoying of them. I haven't pursued it since there are just too many other things I deal with on this site and I can't bring myself to sink yet more time on this. Not yet, at least. However, if you or a talk page watcher wants to, you can file a report at WP:SPI (sockpuppet investigations). I'd support you there at least. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't analyze things very closely, but there's a very good chance there's not enough evidence to open a report. They might also be one of the smarter multiple-account users I've read about. They use multiple accounts, but they know how to avoid a technical match. So even if we had an airtight behavioral report, we'd probably get shooed away. Again, comparing the two, The Terrible Mutant Hamster mostly looks different. And I don't know EvgFakka's gender identification (although I've assumed they're male because of how they edit on sex difference pages and things they've said), but The Terrible Mutant Hamster is in the female Wikipedian's category on their user page.

Thanks, anyway. And happy Labor Day. GBFEE (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about

I’m sorry how I came off at sexual orientation and sexual fluidity back there. I’m just trying my best to stick to Wikipedia’s policy on no original research.CycoMa (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It can be a learning experience for you, anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Just commenting this down to make things extra clear I personally don’t think sexual orientation is a choice.CycoMa (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Very old" sources

And yet, John Money is also very old. So why do we include him in the article? For historical perspective, probably. Before your revert, it said something like *have been* also *on occasion* applied to non-human animals. So, it simply points out that, *historically*, and *rarely*, the biologist is not quite telling the whole story, although obviously this is the overwhelming consensus. I find your unilateral reverts frequently ridiculous. Also, the "most scholars agree..." thing, from an Ass Prof historian, may well be correct, but the phrasing is almost word for word from the book and unattributed. Remove the reference and rephrase. Tewdar (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Gender - 483 page watchers, 67 recent edits viewers... and only you revert! Hey, here's a mad idea... perhaps nobody else agrees with you...just a thought. Tewdar (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Continued here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

AN comment

Hi Crossroads, I realized the whole AN/AE appeal venue thing and removed my AN comment. As I was doing so, I now see you replied to me to state the same thing. With my removal, your comment makes less sense. Strictly, I should probably restore my comment, as it was "replied to". Would you be ok with removing your comment instead, or would you prefer I restore mine? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to restore, strike, and comment briefly below it. I want mine to stay as a placeholder. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply speed

I’m just gonna say this, you reply a little too quickly at times. I don’t consider it disruptive or anything but, it does at times come off like you are trying to rush a discussion.

Sure rushing a discussion is good at times but in some situations it’s best to go slowly with the process.CycoMa (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, we just happen to be online at the same time. And by the time I work my way to the end of my watchlist there's often something you have said recently, so I happen to get my comment in right after. I'm not stopping anyone else from weighing in hours from now. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: just gonna wanna throw out this detail I work on a lot of articles lately, I have like over 20 drafts, I get 2 articles accepted by reviewers peer day, and I having been expand on random people’s stub articles. So yeah I have a lot of stuff to do. I’m not the same CycoMa months ago who would spend a lot of his time and energy on a single article and wait hours for other users to reply.

I kind of get tons of changes on my watchlist, so it’s not easy to see if you responded to my comment. If you are gonna reply to my comments I’m talk pages can you at least tag me like this @CycoMa: so I can get notified easier?CycoMa (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Polyamory page about Girlfriend, Girlfriend

That was definitely the right call to remove that. That same user added something similar to the list of polyamorous characters and I tagged it with a "citations needed" tag, but I'm guessing that they won't come back and add a source, so ultimately that will probably be removed. The series itself does look mildly interesting, and there is a summer preview review of it from ANN (which I was guessing there might be), with every single reviewer talking about poly relationships, along with some more information noted here on the links off the ANN Encyclopedia (obviously, that can't be cited as a reliable source, but it is helpful in that all the links of a show are collected together), noting there are reviews on ANN of episodes 1-12. There's also a CBR listicle and mention in another one, but of course, that isn't really enough to show it is a "significant depiction" yet. So I'd say, having something about it having to be a "significant depiction" is important, as that media section could really get too large with examples, if there isn't a limit. I'll probably add some hidden text about that, saying the same although who knows if people will even follow that. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes it should be verifiably significant. I'm sure you've seen it more than me, but that sort of drive-by addition can be a common issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens all the time. I just had someone add an entry for One Piece today, another case of drive-by addition. The LGBTQ pages are often prone to these drive-by additions, unfortunately. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Psychology Today as source.

Regarding Crossroad's revert of my removal of the Psych Today blog: My understanding is that blogs count as SPSs and RSs according to the author. As far as I can tell, Turban appears still to be in training rather than being an established expert. So, I don't think it's a contradiction to have Psych Today in other articles, but not in this one. No?Banglange (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Banglange: I think you need to take this to the article instead of here.CycoMa (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you, yes.Banglange (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)