User talk:Crossroads/2023, 1st half

Revert on Kenneth Zucker

Hey. Could I convince you to undo this revert on Kenneth Zucker? While the site does use Wordpress, it is not a blog. The author of the cited piece, Zinnia Jones, is a trans researcher and subject matter expert, who has also written for Huffington Post and Xtra Magazine. For comparison Zinnia's blog is on a different domain. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether she is a subject matter expert is beside the point because, per WP:SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So this hinges purely on whether this is an SPS or not. Per their About Us, Jones is the creator and Creative Director of the site; this clearly is a group blog, a type of site specifically proscribed by WP:BLPSPS. Unlike a published source, there is no reason to think there is any review independent of the author. You are welcome to ask for 3rd opinions at the BLP noticeboard. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Petty squabbles

This. Don't do that. That summary was neutral. There was no consensus on that article talk page about what language style to use, so we didn't change it. Your edit summary cited WP:INVOLVED, which is an example of WP:UPPERCASE. You thought it was relevant because of the shortcut name, but it isn't relevant if you follow the link. The linked topic is part of Wikipedia:Administrators and on administrative actions. You weren't disputing the closure, which is a non-admin action anyway. The whole thing comes across as needlessly quarrelsome and petty, and just making diffs for people to cite. . -- Colin°^Talk 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You claimed There is no consensus on what language style to use, note to use, which is quite different from what was said by the editor there suggesting closure, that there was no consensus to alter content. This is an important distinction per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and the procedure at WP:NOCON to retain the status quo. It also spoke in a very general sense, and was not clear it was limited to this specific article, which (regardless of intention) could advance your contention - disputed by others - that there is no consensus site-wide on this matter. The principle at WP:INVOLVED clearly applies to closures by non-admins that purport to summarize a discussion they have a bias regarding. (The alternative is that non-admins are exempt from needing to be uninvolved when closing discussions - obviously absurd.) In fact, I just found WP:NACINV which is linked from there. I was in fact disputing your summary of the discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the discussion on that talk page I am uninvolved. I would have closed it the same way Colin did, as the discussion was about altering the language style used in the article. There being no consensus for a change inherently means that there was no consensus on what language style to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I'd add that reverting a closure like that is pretty improper. The first action should always be to ask the closer to discuss the matter with the closer first, asking them to self-revert if you think it necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads, I'm unclear why, if Colin is subject to WP:INVOLVED, that you would not be? I think it's fair if you want to endorse the close below their comments with your own text, as an additional closing summary.... (as sometimes happens but is uncommon), but overturning theirs, deleting it, and instituting your own verbiage instead was clearly not in line with policy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think closure would be contentious because (a) the person who opened the post had already thanked everyone for their replies and had not continued their request and (b) Sandy had a point about the discussion passing the point of being productive. I also thought my closure was neutral, which others here agree with. Crossroads, the relevant page you should have linked to is Wikipedia:Closing discussions, which is just an information page, but does advise that closure should be by uninvolved parties (which neither of us are). The problem with citing the WP:WRONG SHORTCUT is that although that admin guidance seems somewhat related, it is very much written with the idea that admins are doing adminy things that need to be seen to be completely right and have big consequences when wrong.

I didn't think some random person was going to come along to close that discussion at a relatively obscure page, and there wasn't any need to close it with any kind of statement of consensus that would require a great wise impartial editor. So, if I hadn't, then likely we'd still be waiting for closure for many days. Who knows, but I accept that the official advice would be that I didn't close it. That you made an issue of this, without even disputing the closure and without any sensible reason why my closing comments were wrong, is, as I said, petty. -- Colin°^Talk 20:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the closure purported to summarize whether a consensus was reached, and was inappropriately general, as I explained above. I also invited people to revert my closure (not "restore another involved closure") if they felt it inappropriate. However, let's try no closure text. My concern is that the INVOLVED closure could be invoked in the future to claim the matter generally is one of "no consensus". Sandy's summary at the bottom works quite well and I agree with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to close as I read it as someone who did not participate, and does not particularly care about these issues. My read is that there was no consensus in favor of any change or proper terminology that should be applied to the article. As such, status quo is defaulted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current (Shibbolethink) closure. I sure hope we haven't all managed to convince Graham Beards to give up at a Featured article ... perhaps some pats on the back for him would be nice at this stage ??  :( :( Do we need to add a contentious topic template per gender-related to that page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads, now you are edit warring over a petty issue. Really, did you decide that this Friday you had nothing better to do that collect diffs for an eventual topic ban? Sandy, no we shouldn't tag every single medical topic. Editors involved in that issue know the score, especially dedicated ones. -- Colin°^Talk 20:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Breast binding – article splitting

Hi. I'm going to do the general topic vs. trans-specific split-off. Do you have any suggestions for it? Thanks! Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 04:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Demographics of sexual orientation

The article already discussed studies of protestants and catholics under Brazil and France so why are you disallowing my edit? Rote1234 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Those appear to be about the distribution of sexual orientation within those religions, but what you added was the other way around. You might find a more relevant article from Christianity and homosexuality or Religion and LGBT people. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dyson sphere

Dyson sphere has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

About menustration in trans people + sourcing and reverted edits

So, it looks like you have reverted my edit on Culture and menstruation. I was trying to add information that Trans women can have menstrual symptoms and the packaging of menstrual hygiene products being exclusively to cisgender women. All I wanted to do was to add extra information, but what you did was revert my edit. Also, why did you remove the link text for vaginal penetration? That was very important information for people who don't know what vaginal penetration is. And I also added sources, just like the French article. LilGoober4u (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So regarding this, I restored the wikilink now since I didn't really notice that. However, the first paragraph added cites sources that do not appear to be WP:MEDRS, despite making a biomedical claim. The French article seems to have the same issue, and other-language Wikipedias do not necessarily serve as good examples for the same reason that other English Wikipedia articles are not usable as sources - they may not be reviewed well enough to ensure they are up to standard. (Additionally, though I am less certain on this point, other Wikipedias might differ in their sourcing requirements.) The second paragraph didn't cite any sources at all, and as such can be challenged per WP:BURDEN. You would need to cite reliable sources that specifically make the point being made there, and even then WP:In-text attribution would probably be a good idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Clitoris

An article that you have edited or that may interest you, (Clitoris), has content that I have proposed to be removed and moved to another article, (Human clitoris). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Culture and menstruation

Why do you keep on removing the paragraph about trans women and transfeminine not getting their period even though they get symptoms similar to PMS? I just wanted to educate others about that topic being said before! And you keep on making the useful sources claimed as "non-WP:MEDRS" even though they seem to include a medical topic? If this continues, I might tell an admin to ban you. LilGoober4u (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed this because it makes biomedical claims, but is not supported by reliable medical sources (MEDRS). This is a stricter standard than most topics. Also, even so, this source is clear that trans women cannot have PMDD. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But still, sources that make biomedical claims can be useful, too. I just wanted to make information about why trans women and transfeminine people do not get their periods. Again, if you continue to claim biomedical claims as useless, I might tell an admin to block you. LilGoober4u (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A favor for an edit-correction

Can I ask you to correct a mistake? The article about Middle age says that middle-age starts today at around 40-45, while most sources, even in the same article, prove that middle-age starts today at around 45, 40 is simply too young. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/middle+age) (https://web.archive.org/web/20141014211143/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/middle-age) Could you correct it, please? Thank you. 151.38.7.154 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations

I am very proud of my contributions to Wikipedia over the past year (under both this account and the last one) and I would never hide the work I do under a sock puppet. I reverted your edits because it felt like you weren't giving the other user a fair shake, but I do feel now as though I got in the middle of that discussion and that I should have left it between the two of you.

I am as surprised as you that someone saw a tag that said "overly detailed" and decided to edit it the next day - I have never encountered it before. But I can understand why my excitement about that could be seen as sock puppeting. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)