Linemap

Linemap, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Linemap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

WP

Regarding this and this, five years ago whatever. What I stated back then about WP:Edit warring and making your case on the article talk page still stands. You made a WP:Bold edit and were reverted. WP:Bold, revert, discuss is your next option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And to be clearer, since you don't discuss on the talk page, your wording will confuse readers because you are stating "lesbians who have sex with men." And this bit comes before the next paragraph that makes it clear that sexual identity and sexual behavior do not always match and therefore a woman who identifies as a lesbian may have sex with men. A number of researchers/sources are careful to state "lesbian-identified women" instead of "lesbian women" in that case. The source doesn't even state "lesbians who have sex with men." It states "women" and "currently," and is clearly keeping the sexual identity and women who have sex with women aspects in mind. There is no valid reason whatsoever to state "lesbians who have sex with men" rather than "lesbians who have had sex with men" for the sentence in question, especially since women who identify as lesbians and are currently having sex with men are often called bisexual rather than lesbian in the lesbian community. The source clearly addresses the lesbian identity debates. I ask that you either take your case on this matter to the article talk page (even though I don't see that this piece is something that you should dwell on) or move on. Do not keep edit warring. If I don't revert you, someone else will. And when it's more than one person reverting you, as it was years ago, there will be a stronger case made for you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard and a WP:Block will likely be the result. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you are the only person edit-warring on this issue. Don't mean to sound rude but I literally was just trying to make a correction to a poorly-worded sentence that doesn't seem to make any sense. Does this syntax make any sense to you "One point of contention are lesbians who have had have sex with men"? The word "or" needs to be added after the word "had" so the structure of the sentence makes sense. Because I edited in a biased and dumb way five years ago doesn't mean I am doing the same thing now. Linemap (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. Like I stated above, you made a WP:Bold edit and I reverted. So this is where WP:Bold, revert, discuss comes in. As for your biased editing five years ago, five years ago you were hellbent on making it seem like most lesbians have sex with men (not just "had," but "have"). Your current edit pushes along a similar line. I fail to see how the structure of the sentence does not make sense as is, or how the solution is to word it so that it's stating that some out lesbians have sex with men rather than some lesbian-identified women have sex with men. I don't see why the present tense of "have" is needed. I will ping an editor who is good with grammar at the talk page about this, however, since you've taken the matter to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And regarding this, in the future, per WP:TALK, it's best that you don't mess with my heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, I missed the typo (the second "have"). My brain just kept overlooking it; so I didn't know what you meant by "doesn't seem to make any sense." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)