92.0.35.8

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (92.0.35.8) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your unsourced interpretation is not appropriate for the article. Please cease and desist. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is, and have left a comment on the Lawrence Of Arabia talk page stating why. Please reply to my comments there rather than talking to me here. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy link: Talk:Lawrence of Arabia (film).   Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Andethyst. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Louisa May Alcott—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Andethyst (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Louisa May Alcott. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andethyst (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is not vandalism. This historian found evidence that Louis Alcott was actually a trans man - and thus I have edited a lot of the article so it says his actual pronouns. I am not trying to be unconstructive and troll. Please read the thread to understand what I was talking about. It is here: https://twitter.com/peytonology/status/1516612189687324673 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@92.0.35.8: Peyton entirely made those claims up; I fell for it too. Guy has a history of making up some absolutely batshit claims; see here. Please don't add this stuff back in; Twitter is not considered a reliable resource for a claim like this.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 20:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm extremely sorry! I know Twitter is not a reliable source - so I only edited the article/brought attention to it on the talk page cos I thought he'd sourced it with historical evidence. I will absolutely not add it back in 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joanna Cherry, you may be blocked from editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just want to say thank you for your help in adding articles to these new categories. Much appreciated. All the best. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome :D All the best to you too! 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, 92.0.35.8. You have new messages at Firefangledfeathers's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Crisp did not say he was a transwoman, he said he was transgender. He also did not ever use she/her pronouns. Making those assumptions is an act of misgendering. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here is the source used for the article, in which Crisp herself says she was a transgender woman. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is not the same as transgender. He could be gender fluid, as he also said that he dressed as a man. There is no source that he used she/her pronouns. ... discospinster _talk 02:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Before I amended it, the article had a quote of Crisp herself saying that she was a woman: "At the age of 90 Crisp wrote that she had accepted that she was transgender. In The Last Word, published posthumously, Crisp wrote, "Having labeled myself homosexual and having been labeled as such by the wider world, I have effectively lived a 'gay' life for most of my years. Consequently, I can relate to gay men because I have more or less been one for so long in spite of my actual fate being that of a woman trapped in a man's body. I refer to myself as homosexual without thinking because of how I have lived my life. If you are reading this and are gay, think of me as one of your own even though you now know the truth. If it’s confusing for you, think how confusing it has been for me these past ninety years." It comes at the end of the article. Furthermore, it already said that Crisp realised that she was a trans woman - not a gay man. And in accordance with WP:MOS:DEADNAME, she/her pronouns are appropriate for trans women. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Discospinster. BilCat (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't do that! I removed vandalism from their page. Someone just randomly posted a section about assault rifles, so I removed it as it was clearly spam. They weren't replying to Discospinster about an edit on that subject, or proposing a new edit etc. It was basically a copypasta. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't random, it wasn't vandalism, and it wasn't spam. The IP user made this edit to the Assault rifle article, and User:Discospinster reverted them. Their comment was an objection to that revert. You could have found that out by looking at Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:E27F:D9D0:0:0:0:E2FC before you removed the comment. In general, it not a good idea to police the talk pages of other users except for cases of very obvious vandalism, which this was not. Some users don't want any comments removed from their own talk pages at all, or they want to do it theirself. So please be sure to fully investigate the matter first, and if there's any doubt at all that it's vandalism, leave it alone. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is clear vandalism which occurred on Discospinster's talk page today, and is the type of stuff you can and should remove. BilCat (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you very much. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. BilCat (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at User talk:92.0.35.8. Please don't be crass. BilCat (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is my own talk page. I was personalizing it. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Besides, all I said was that Thatcher was dead. That is not a WP:BLP violation. It is historically true. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Hi Bilcat, was this a misclick? Which living person did they add unsourced controversial information about on this page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I replied to Bilcat above answering your question. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Someone named Thatcher. No indication of which one Thatcher was made, so they could have died recently. It's still an inappropriate use of ones talk page, even if they did revert it, and I've reported them to the previous blocking admin. BilCat (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about Margaret Thatcher. You told me that people sometimes don't like their talk pages being edited without permission and it is hypocritical of you to do this to me. For all you know, someone with that name could have died recently who I personally knew - and I may have wanted to celebrate their page because of how they were when they were alive. People personalize their user page with things like that all the time - and the talk page is no different - since in this case it's my own talk page. I can edit however I like. And if someone reverts someone and you give them a warning then it is completely hasty to report them to the blocking admin anyway. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It shows your judgement is lacking, when taken with all the other missteps you've made, in my opinion. The admin will make their own decision, and if they do block you, you can appeal then. BilCat (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

If my judgement is lacking then it would have been because I thought the talk page functioned the same way as the user page. And you are being completely unfair here by saying "all the other missteps" when I've literally only been warned once before and that was because I genuinely thought that person's page got vandalised, as we discussed above. THAT is defamatory itself. That was not me vandalising the page but me misunderstanding Wikipedia etiquette. If I've misunderstood how the pages work, you should tell me that to try and help me - not warn me like I've done something wrong. @Firefangledfeathers I feel like how I'm being treated is absolutely unjustified. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll stop watching your talk page then and won't post here anymore, which was only because I had warned you before about removing non-vandalism. But if I see you make a problematic edit elsewhere, I will probably report you to ANI, and that does require notification on your talk page. BilCat (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

92, some of the edits you've made and comments you've posted have been frustrating and disruptive. From what I can tell, you've been making a good faith effort to improve. I wouldn't have posted your obvious Margaret Thatcher reference, but I don't believe it broke any rules. I wouldn't push back too hard if I were you. Reaction is not likely to help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have been making a good faith effort to improve. I appreciate that. You have helped me out a lot and have been very nice to me. Thank you for your advice about pushing back. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Elemimele. You reverted a talk-page comment by Pictureprize at Talk:Attraction_to_transgender_people with the edit-summary "Vandalism". Please be aware that vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. It should only be used for obviously deliberate attempts to do things that no sane person could conceivably believe are useful to the encyclopaedia (for example typing gibberish). It shouldn't be used for talk-page discussions where people hold different views to your own. I cannot pretend to understand the discussion on that talk-page, but I do not think it was correct to stop Pictureprize from taking part. Thank you! Elemimele (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know that it shouldn't be used to delete constructive dissenting views. I would not have made the edit if they were making a constructive dissenting review. But they were not, and I have explained why in my revert. They can take part if they decide to be constructive. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am deeply concerned at this. You must remember that this may not look like good behaviour on your part. They are dissenting from your viewpoint, but it really doesn't look like obvious trolling to me. I strongly recommend that you re-revert yourself and permit Pictureprize's comment to stand. Otherwise it looks like you're not playing fair in the discussion, and merely trying to suppress those with whom you disagree, which in the long run doesn't strengthen your case. Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's not what I'm doing. Other people have constructively dissented on the page and I did not remove their comments. However, Pictureprize's comment was phrased in a rhetorical and aggressive manner that is very obviously concern trolling to me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for decently putting it back! If they're concern-trolling, everyone else will recognise it too, and you've drawn attention to your concerns. Thanks! Elemimele (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and Willondon's point goes to the heart of it; it doesn't matter what any of us think we are, we can't use ourselves as examples. Sources are everything! Elemimele (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know.

I'd like to say a couple of things about this.

Firstly, thank you for congratulating me on putting it back. Somebody had already put it back when I got on the page - so I didn't put it back. But, I appreciate the sentiment. And, either way I decided not to revert their edits again so other editors could weigh in.

Secondly, I'd like to elaborate on why I thought they were concern trolling. Most people say things like "I am [X]" or "I identify as [X]". The phrase 'SELF-identify' is null and void, and looks to me like a dogwhistle by a bigot who does not know and does not care about correct terminology - mocking marginalised people. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but I don't suspect these edits. And this kind of fits in with some words of wisdom I'm currently working on related to other recent WP activity I've been involved in. It's something like: "Beware of calling out the troll. You can never tell, so it's better to just concentrate on whether edits are good or bad. Calling out a troll usually gives them their strange, masochistic reward: being thought useless and annoying with good intentions, then revealed as useless and annoying with bad intentions. I don't claim to understand it, either." Again, this has nothing to do with the editor that brought up this discussion. But I am inspired to expand my advice (don't call out a troll) to address the "concern troll". Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good point. How do you alternatively suggest we deal with concern trolls/trolls in general in the future? Thank you for being so helpful and nice by the way :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, I really don't think this editor is concern-trolling, and has no intent to disrupt discussion. But that goes to the heart of my thesis on trolls: especially with the best of them, you can never quite tell. To deal with it, I'm usually careful to just focus on the edits themselves, and not the editor's intentions. Even to an extreme. I've reverted a lot of vandalism with the edit summary "unsourced", and a vandalism notice on their talk page, when they changed the principal of a high school to "Kanye West". Then, you don't have to risk an argument about "innocent" intentions and whether I can disprove that KW isn't the principal, or disprove the editor wasn't a vandal, just under a mistaken impression. That's the way I deal with it, though it may seem ridiculous. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This was an edit-conflict with Willondon, and I agree with every word they wrote. But here's my answer too: Yes, that's a valid question. My personal take on it is that genuine trolls revel in being made a martyr; it gives them the moral high-ground. So if you encounter a troll, my advice is let them have their say, and then simply and calmly state your case. If your case is right, it will prevail. Willondon's straightforward statement that they'll need a couple of good sources to back up their point of view places the ball firmly in their court: if they can't produce any sources, their case crumbles. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much both of you @Willondon . I've done that now and will do this in the future. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply