User talk:Newimpartial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thank you for putting some work into RPG articles, as this is an area that doesn't seem to get enough attention anymore. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can add anything to any of the pages at User:BOZ/Draft pages, it would be much appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm supposed to put this here, but thanks, and I'll take a look at the Grabowski and Marsh pages soon. Some of the others already show much more knowledge than I have about those authors, so I can't really help -- indeed some look ready to publish!

Anything at all you can do to help would be great. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me longer than projected, but I have edited the Grabowski and Marsh pages. I feel that the Grabowski page is pretty much ready for submission, and if you were content for the Marsh page to be more of a stub, it could be launched soon too by trimming some of the unruly content you included. :). I bow to your superior wiki-fu, but as far as content goes I am comfortable now with both articles.

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Laws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hell on Earth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp[edit]

Hi there! I see that you created User:Newimpartial/Ethan Skemp as a sort of placeholder. I restored Draft:Ethan Skemp, which had been deleted, so you can work on it if you want to. :) BOZ (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a placeholder exactly. I didn't see the old draft. I have been going through the White Wolf authors tonight, and Ethan is an obviously notable one who was deleted in one of the purges you will remember. :) If there are any red links to him, or to Geoff Grabowski, Bruce Baugh, or Robert Hatch, those are the designers I am likely to put into article space soonest, at least in stub form.Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, I will see tomorrow if there is anything I can do for those others. :) BOZ (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave a start to most of the placeholder drafts that you created, using Designers & Dragons as a source. I left Luke Crane for you, as the Evil Hat edition of the book gives quite a bit of info about him, and I just don't have the free time to go through that much at the moment. :) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will go over some of them this week and see how many I can release from my userspace by the weekend. I'll take a look at my Evil Hat Designers & Dragons Vol. 4 and write something up for Crane - no worries.
By the way, I wanted to let you in on my thinking about something. As far as I can tell, by WP:CREATIVE criterion 3, any game designer who has created a "well-known" work with at least two WP:INDEPENDENT reviews automatically meets WP:NBIO. Which means in practice that no article on a game designer that has a link to Designers & Dragons (a RS that they existed) and a link to a Wikipedia article on a game that they created, which in turn has at least two reviews, should ever be subject to deletion, at least not for WP:N. My upcoming editing of these designer drafts and userspace placeholders will be based on this perspective, which dawned on me over the weekend. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. You can use the same philosophy on anything I put in Draftspace, if you want to move those to article space. As for Robert Hatch, you had a draft under Rob Hatch so that is what I edited. BOZ (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
OK; maybe I created two drafts. Anyway, I'll figure it out. Thanks.

Paul Drye[edit]

Do you have anything you could use to improve Draft:Paul Drye? BOZ (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not offhand, and I am persona non grata at MfD at the moment (my own fault). But if you could find an independent source for his date of birth and place of residence, I could strengthen his notability language as an author. IDK why they go through non-stale drafts like that. :( Newimpartial (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ. You can get this one back if it's MfDed, can't you? I think the draftspace delete is completely out of line, but I also think this isn't a case worth fighting right now. The argument for potential notability would be based on GT:IW, which is a notable work, but the rest of his bibliography is so thin that I wouldn't want to be fighting that battle right now, in the absence of a personal mention in a RS. Does that make sense? Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Some people just like to clear out what they think is junk. One man's trash, you know. If you have any sources that address Interstellar Wars and mention his name, please feel free to add them directly to the draft. :) You don't have to edit the MfD page, just edit the draft. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, BOZ Please take a look at the bottom of my talk page and at the top of ANI: I think even my editing the page would be toxic, and in any case doesn't suggest any net gain. If you do want to drag this one out of MfD, my advice is to make the article more like a well-referenced stub: get rid of the link to the subject's personal page, edit out biographical detail, and change the lede to something like "Paul Drye is a role-playing game writer and developer known primarily for his work on GURPS:TRAVELLER, particularly as author of GURPS TRAVELLER:INTERSTELLAR WARS and Sword Worlds." Thrown in a link to Appelcline on GTIW and a link to the actual GTIW for the author credit - I could find his author blurb for that if truly necessary. But the real argument at XfD, IMO, is that you are working on the draft so it is premature to delete it, which would be in line with last year's RFCs about draft space (which the MfD nominator studiously ignores). Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom thing[edit]

You and I haven't always seen eye to eye about things, but I wanted to tell you that I was impressed by your post on the ArbCom case. It was measured, well-worded, and respectful of both parties, even when you disagreed with their actions. I really respect that. ♠PMC(talk) 22:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity[edit]

Were you under a voluntary self-TBAN or something? I was monitoring ANI on-and-off during my own voluntary self-PBAN, and I recall you saying something to the effect As this ANI has proceeded, I have continued to stay away from XfD, as I offered to do, and have also left Legacypac completely alone on all pages except ANI. Your recent comments on the Chang AFD (not just your responses to me; your first comment as well) suggest that maybe your self-imposed exile ended slightly before you "had a clue" regarding our deletion policy: have you considered maybe reinstating it? Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was voluntary, and I have returned to AfD (but generally not MfD) discussions since. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Omar Khadr[edit]

Things make a bit more sense now after the CU blocks. I have to admit that even though I have experience with the master I didn't see that one coming. Meters (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have made a couple of edits to the lede, taking on the two rational points in the sock's ranting, and also reorged the last section of the article so that it reads chronologically, which makes sense to me in that location. The article as a whole is still a many-headed mess, but I'd say the lede now tells the story fairly accurately and succintly. Any pruning you wanted to do, though, would probably help, especially in the messy parts of the article below the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP warning -- Faith Goldy[edit]

It is completely unacceptable to go to the page of someone you despise and add 'notability' in the lead for something that you don't like them doing.

Read WP:BLP.

--Nanite (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nanite, I have, in fact, read BLP. The BLP in question mostly read as a non-notable resume, with the subject's notable acts - the ones that actually might merit a WP page - left out or buried at the end. I was adding appropriate material to the lead, as already called for in templates placed by others on the article. This has nothing to do with what I "like". Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to apologise for the tone above -- I saw the inserted self-published youtube citation in the lead and figured it was just a drive-by WP:UNDUE attack. However as you say it is also mentioned in the body, so it's arguably notable. Sorry for assuming bad faith! --Nanite (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries; your tone above was a bit off, but I did understand that your heart was in the right place, as your subsequent edits to the page showed. It is just funny to me to look back on my edit you quasi-reverted, which I made before the subject was fired from The Rebel. At the time the "White Genocide" video was arguably the most notable thing she had done, but she is now clearly more famous for being fired after Charlotteville (and arguably for live-streaming the alleged vehicular homicide that took place). There was quite the edit war over my use of the (sourced) term "sympathetic", although the recent semi-protection should inhibit any more of that.
Anyway, I did get around from removing her rowing captaincy and undergraduate scholarship from the article, at least. Perhaps ironically, it read more like a CV before she was fired ....
As I say, no worries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Global news[edit]

Sorry, got that confused with a fringe site. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

American Jews[edit]

Please feel free to join the discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you think this fringe viewpoint needs to be featured so prominently. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The answer is, because it isn't fringe. A very casual search on my part turns up at least half a dozen recent, scholarly sources making this point. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Would like to know your thoughts[edit]

Dear User:Newimpartial,

I would like to discuss with you further about the discussion you joined regarding American Jews, but perhaps, if possible, in a more private vein. Please let me know if this may be possible and I hope you are well.



Hi, Jeff. I don't know that I have anything to say privately, but what I have to say in front of my handful of talk page stalkers ;) is that the part of your position I find absurd is your inclination to try to determine how other Jews should define their identities vis-a-vis racial categories. As far as I am concerned, you can define your own identity as you choose, and you have made some observations that bring out definite and real historical resonances. But from a WP standpoint, at least, a lot of that is in effect POV-pushing, and even from a more general perspective it seems to me that trying to convince some American Jews for example that they should change the way they identify in terms of racial categories is not really an approach that is likely to go very well. Arguing that a group of Jews "are not really" white strikes me as pretty much as pointless as arguing that they "are". Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply User:Newimpartial,
As far as POV, I do not make unsourced/uncited edits to articles, and when I do make a statement in an article, I make sure I present it within the context of a source. In terms of my own personal views, I will share some of those views (and will distinguish them from facts) on Talk-pages, but also present sources and contexts that back my statements. If you look at other debates in which I have participated on similar Talk pages, such as Category:American people of Jewish descent, Category:People of Jewish descent, Category:Middle-Eastern Americans, Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, you will see I have shown continuity with my editing in addition to my thought process/personal feelings on this issue.
As to your concern as to whether Jews would not want to "identify in terms of racial categories," my personal view is that our historical oppressors—from European empires to Arab/Muslim empires—have enslaved, exiled, dispersed, ghettoized, and genocided our People regardless of how we personally feel about our identity. Only some of us escape and/or "pass" for dominant hostland populations, but for the most part, most Jews have "Semitic" physical features—from facial structure, to hair tone/type, to skin tone/type, to body type, to psychological traits, to vocal tones, etc. and to deny that fact (even among Jews who have light skin, light/straight hair, etc.) is literally Anti-Semitic, as doing so denies our Ethnocultural origins. It will indeed be a hard truth for many Jews to accept, especially those still suffering trauma from the Holocaust, as well as other racist Anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe and the Levant, but denying the truth only furthers the trauma (being made to feel guilty/shameful for being "non-white").
In my view, Jews are a People of Color, have fought for the rights of other/intersecting Peoples of Color, and have been often treated as People of Color, so labeling Jews as "white" just seems like a modern form of Ethnocultural erasure of Jews, both within and outside the Jewish community, as well as for a variety of intentions, both malicious and unaware.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you again and I hope you are well,
Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: Congratulations on your quotes getting into Ha'Aretz! :D (Although unfortunately, it seems the author made some misquotes/incomplete quotes that changes some of the context and may make the conversation look more confusing than it was.)
P.P.S.: I have debated on Wikipedia with Bus stop before, and, as I noted in this debate, Bus stop often derails the conversation or tries to claim that others are going "off-topic," when really Bus stop just does not want to get pinned down into discussing anything with which Bus stop disagrees. Also, I just realized that Bus stop made an argument earlier in the conversation that tries to suppose that a "person from Mars" would consider Jews "white," which is ridiculous because—if there were a "person from Mars:" What language would they speak? What frame of reference would they have to "race?" Not even all humans agree on "race." Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


I have no issues with people disagreeing with me I just have to wonder what on earth individuals are doing clogging up AfD's when comments should be made on personal user talk pages. I also have to question motivations behind people measuring seconds between when a save page button was pressed, and not realising that show preview has been used. I have to wonder if there is any real way of questioning disruptive users, all the while being told to basically fuck off, by people not reading things, and then creating non-issues, to avoid discussing legitimate concerns.

There is a level of exasperation of the E.M. Gregory gets to shit all over the AfD process and refuse to engage on talk pages, and do so with impunity. Apologies for my colourful language but if I had my way E.M. Gregory would have been thrown off terrorism articles an awfully long time ago, they are nothing but a blanket hysteria-monger of everything from chip pan fires, to fender benders. They are a menace and as such should be shown up for being such.

I will though walk away from this kind of puerile minutiae rubbish relating to the pressing of a save changes button and the defending a hysteria-monger and bludgeoner.

I take you comments on board but please double standards stink and E.M. Gregory is playing the system and should be had up for it. Sport and politics (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, I have no sympathy for scare-mongering on terrorist topics, but I also have no sympathy for pre-emptive template spam, which is what the diffs in question are largely in reaction to. If you create numerous AfDs through multiple tabs, include the same template in several of them (erroneously), and save them in rapid succession, you are going to get push-back on the template spam, and I see no reason why that feedback should not be left in every case to which it applies. If I see an editor doing something contra policy, like AfD noms that inappropriately cite GARAGEBAND, for example, I am going to comment on it every time it applies, just because. And I understand getting fed up with people, but that's the time to walk away, not to run back into ANI ...
Once again, people reporting incidents don't get to decide what the "legitimate concern" really is. That's the beauty of ANI, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Anne Stokes[edit]

Hi there, would you be able to check to see if you have any sources to add to Anne Stokes? Thanks! BOZ (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Suite Antique[edit]

Hi, I see you were working on a draft for Suite Antique. As I've always liked this work, I've decided to write a quick article on it and it's live now. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to look at it or had any things you wanted to add. I'm planning to add a bit more description when I next get time though. Blythwood (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


Your reverts were entirely unnecessary and imprudent. The term "politician" is an inarguably WP:POV term to describe someone involved with politics, which is exactly why respected politicians that are still alive such as Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are described as such instead of "stateswoman" and "statesman" respectively. However, as WP:BLPSTYLE does not apply to politicians who are long gone, the term is fine insofar as the term has been used by historians to describe said politician. Basically, the term "statesman" is something that is only used to refer to deceased politicians of significant importance, not for contemporary politicians still living. I hope you will understand this and reconsider your edits.--Nevéselbert 20:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on the Colin Powell talk page; I would also question whether you understand the policies you are citing, since there is nothing in BLPSTYLE counterindicating the use of the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" when reliable sources describe a person's role as such, and there is very good indication NOT to make up a description for a person based on an ideosyncratic point of view, such as referring to people who, in electoral democracies, have never sought electoral office as "politicians" because you read in Harry Truman that statesmen are dead people. I suggest you not magnify your mistakes using automated tools, in future...Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:BLP[edit]

Hi. I'd like to add a subsection to the WP:BLP page, and would like to solicit the opinions of editors who have been involved with it. Can you offer your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Suite Antique[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Suite Antique, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects by Onel5969[edit]

You are now in violation of WP:3RR, might I suggest you self-revert before this is reported? Please engage on talk pages and stop edit-warring. Onel5969 TT me 21:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. Self-reverted, and talk page comment added. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, User:onel5969, re: Raiden V, please note that your redirect had been in place for a day at most: it was by no means a stable version. Please abide by policy and stop edit warring. I don't know why you feel that your redirects of articles that meet WP:N are okay, because IDONTLIKEIT or because of poor English or whatever, but the appropriate doctrine is FIXIT, not imposing vandal redirects. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Newimpartial. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Jews[edit]

Please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the message at the top of every talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I have, and I did again before reverting your revert. We are having a disagreement about the application of that policy, you and I: I am not acting in ignorance of it.Newimpartial (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Monica Valentinelli BLPPROD[edit]

Let's help you with your reading comprehension:

This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references [emphasis mine] are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material.

Please note that adding reliable sources [emphasis mine] is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article. For help on inserting references, see referencing for beginners or ask at the help desk. Once the article has at least one reliable source [emphasis original], you may remove this tag [emphasis mine].

This is not even slightly difficult. So don't edit war over things you're wrong about. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Calton You might wanna back off the hounding with this. BLPPROD specifically states To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag. There were sources originally (reliability is definitely debatable) and have been throughout every revision, therefor BLPPROD doesn't apply in this case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize[edit]

I apologize, as it was my fault, as the script penetrated my Wikipedia editing. I've reverted myself and have fixed the problem. I am notifying The Gnome of this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

{{Ivm|2=This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm just giving you this notice as I've seen that, while the editor you're in a dispute in has received this notice, you yourself have not. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The other editor is clearly afoul of 4.1.7 of the final decision. Do you really think that "chromosome supremacist" puts me afoul of 4.1.8? I have since explain that what I literally meant was more "chromosome reductionist" but I was trying to be clever. I can absolutely strikethrough if you are offended. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: American Renaissance and the term "White Nationalist" vs "White Supremacist"[edit]

Greetings, I figured I'd talk to you first before risking creating a new trash fire on the American Renaissance Talk Page. Thus, I'm here to ask you, what makes you think that Am Ren should be labeled "White Supremacist" instead of "White Nationalist"?

Personally, my reasoning for having it labeled as "White Nationalist" instead of "White Supremacist" is as follows (I admit, copied right from my own user page): When writing or editing articles on political figures, I am very picky (and somewhat strange, I admit) in what sources I'll cite. This is because the vast majority of reputable sources, whether they be big mainstream publications, or smaller publications, are still over saturated by their bias. Thus, I've found it best to cite directly from the political figures themselves when defining their political views. After all, who can better assess what a person's views and beliefs are than the person themselves? Outside forces can interpret and judge something all they want. But none can ever really know if their assessments are true unless directly confirmed or rejected by the thing being judged.

I don't know what your political views are. Nor do I know if they influence you when labeling it as "white supremacist". But hopefully we can be civil and come to a mutual agreement here. And not have to create more drama on the talk page if necessary.

Cheers, Da secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)da_secret_agentDa secret agent (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Da secret agent. As you might have guessed, I have been busy off-wiki.
Basically, my answer is that the reliable sources regard "White nationalist" as a euphemism for "White supremacist", AFAICT, so WP should do likewise. And WP does not privilege what sources say about themselves over what reliable sources say about them; quite the opposite.
Also, the only way to get the kind of terminology changed as you want for this article is to produce a new consensus, either on the article page alone or in a wider RfC or similar process. There really is no short cut. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Apology kitten[edit]


Thank you for pointing out my error and doing so calmly. That was a mistake on my part and deserves a WP:TROUT. Please accept my sincere apologies.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean... you're right...[edit]

With regard to how discussions of "transracial" people are used in discussion of transgender rights, you're completely right. I think it's important though to keep hammering home the irrelevance of that comparison to the topic at hand. It really doesn't matter how Wikipedia handles "transracial" people when we have explicit style guide instructions for how to handle transgendered people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling User:Chetsford a "clueless editor" who "believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are 'designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego' [1]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion."

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "clueless editor" comment was unnecessary, and would be happy to strike it on each occasion if you would prefer. The remainder of my comment, however, seems to me to be perfectly germane for each occasion I included it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that maybe best. Chetsford? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Re this edit please give Jbhunley/Essays/ANI advice a read and consider its advice. That edit very likely has changed the character of the ANI discussion from a topic ban limited in both time and scope to the possibility of a long term block or, should you continue to make attacks, an indefinite community ban. I think that would be a shame. Jbh Talk 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Lest I forget. [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]

Also NB [11]Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


I closed the ANI report you filed, which obviously got heated and stressful for the participants. Don't wish to repeat all that was said at the discussion but will second the advice you received to make your comments on wikipedia more concise and less personal. That way you can make your points more effectively, without inducing an angry/hurt reaction from others. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for putting my horse out of its misery. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Lynching[edit]

Hi! I've re-added the G12 tag – all the existing text was added by the blocked editor subject of the CCI, and all needs to be removed for that reason. If you want to work on a replacement version of the page, I suggest you either (a) make a note of the references or (b) say so here, in which case I will blank the page and list it at WP:CP instead. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. You can blank it and I'll work on it over the weekend. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I've removed the body text but left the quotations; obviously they are now an unduly large part of the article, but I imagine you'll balance that out. Thanks for taking this on, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought it would be obvious that you can't use the text that I've removed, but clearly it wasn't. Just to avoid any further misunderstanding: no part of the text that has been removed can be added back to the article; you're very welcome to create a new article at that page, but it must all be your own work, entirely in your own words (the quotes I've left can be retained, of course). I do apologise for not making this completely clear earlier. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Please look again at the section I have done. Every sentence is re-worked; only the quotations are retained verbatim. I will add other original text, but do I have to paraphrase the quotations right away, as well? Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, you reverted my edit as COPYVIO, which I take pretty seriously. What copyright do you understand to have been violated? The reviews, or something else? Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Having looked at the actual revert, I am even more confused. What you reverted was only my new lede, where most of the "COPYVIO" consists of wiki links; I don't think there is more than four words together of non-wikilinked text that corresponds to the other version. How could I write a new lede without using the same, relevant Wikilinks? That makes no sense to me. Please explain. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I could have expressed that better, I think. The text you added with this edit was in my opinion unduly close to the previous lead, which was substantially copied from elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Newimpartial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it could be interpeted as a misleading username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. I know you've been here for a while, but I just wanted to let you know that your username could be interpreted as one violating username policy as a misleading username. No risk of UAA from me, just letting you know others might not be so generous. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, any username with "new" in it could be seen as misleading after ten years, but I don't think that should raise any questions of policy compliance so, no, I don't think it is an"misleading username" in the sense of the policy Newimpartial (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... there's no violation here. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your AE request[edit]

Hello Newimpartial, I have just closed your request because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the edit you reported was not a violation. Userwoman is topic banned from "gender issues" and, while Kavanaugh is currently embroiled in what could be described as a "gender-related controversy" under the GamerGate decision, the article itself is not about gender issues and the edit in question is not about that either. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. I appreciate the close.
My own interpretation of that polling is, perhaps needless to say, somewhat different, based on my own reading on the topic. However, I value the work of administrators in adjudicating what must be a very unruly body of sanctions and requests for action. You're doing an important (and thankless) job. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I said on her talk page, her edit skirted close to the line, although it did not cross it. Probably her topic ban was not formulated in the most accurate way in the first place, since, under the GamerGate sanctions, people can also be topic banned from "people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy", but we have to enforce the topic ban as it has been written

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Newimpartial. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Trans man talk page comment deletion[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering specifically how my comment violated the NOTFORUM rule. I provided a brief comment in an ongoing thread, directly on-point, with a specific editing suggestion, backed up with a source. What more do I need to do, exactly, to have my comments NOT deleted? It seems to me that I am simply not allowed to participate, as editors are deleting every single one of my comments, even when I follow what they say. I see comments all over these talk pages that are forum-esque discussion without sources (for example, I saw a very long rant on the trans woman talk page, about 5 paragraphs, that was all just POV without a single source cited; I deleted it, and an editor reverted it, but did not revert my comment, which was also very brief, specifically about a point of editing, with a source). Why am I being singled out? And again, what exactly do I need to do to not have my comments deleted? Thank you very much. -- (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a magic formula for relevant comments, but here are some pointers:
DONT use the Talk page to object to the premise of a sourced article, EVEN IF you have one or two sources yourself. If you want to propose changes to an article in that situation, propose specific changes on the basis of BALANCE instead.
DO use Talk pages to propose specific changes to the article in draft form, not to debate the article's underlying assumptions (which is perhaps the main kind of NOTFORUM violation I run into).
DONT append new comments to old topics that are several months stale, ESPECIALLY to launch into new tangents on those topics. It is better to add new sections in this situation.
DO review the Talk page and its archives to see whether issues like yours have been raised before; in your particular case (people who think that science has produced one definitive definition of "biological sex" which should then also be used in place of, or to define, gender) that position has been discussed to death, on article Talk pages and in community discussions (NPOV noticeboard) and has not met with much support; it is essentially regarded as a FRINGE position. In particular,
DONT make an argument about an article's content that is based in a personal conviction where many other editors have already made similar arguments based on the same personal conviction, or at least recognize in your framing of your intervention that you are raising one more time a point that has previously been made - the onus for quality sources is especially important in this situation.
I really do hope this helps! Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to me. It's much appreciated, even though we disagree on the topic at issue. I take your points, but still wonder about the appropriateness of simply deleting comments like mine outright, rather than either ignoring them or responding to them on the talk page with something like what you just wrote. Obviously it makes sense to be strict about actual pages, since that's what people are reading, the finished product. But talk pages are for, well, talking, and while I don't think it should be a total free-for-all, I don't really see why the guidelines shouldn't be pretty liberally applied, since there isn't a limit on real estate and few people (compared to Wikipedia readership) looks at them anyway. It really seems like the general guidelines cited as the basis for deleting them can easily be weaponized by editors with status in the community to censor comments they disagree with--not actually based on the egregiousness of the violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but based on a strong dislike of the view expressed. This is demonstrated by the existence of comments like the one I cited--if it were really just about the guidelines, that rant would have been deleted. The fact that my deletion of it was reverted, on the grounds that my motivation of 'making a point' was improper, is just astounding. It is of course true that I wanted to see whether this would happen, but it's also true that the comment was plainly in violation of NOTAFORUM--so regardless of my motivation, shouldn't it be deleted? Isn't it making a point to me to revert it? I've been using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember, and I always had a good opinion of it, but this experience of seeing what actually happens behind the scenes, at least on controversial topics, has left me really doubting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a truly reliable 'neutral' source (if such a thing is even possible). Of course I recognize that you don't represent Wikipedia as a whole, but since you seem to be a regular editor, I don't know of anyone better to express this to than you. I'm new here on the editing side, but it really would not occur to me to simply delete a comment on a talk page outright just because I strongly disagree with the view expressed, unless it was egregiously in violation of the rules. To do so just smacks of censorship and political revenge, and most of all, pettiness. Do you get where I'm coming from? -- (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, no, not really. I mean, editors do not delete comments on Talk pages that they disagree with - that is quite strictly frowned upon - but they do delete comments that are not useful, including POINTey edits and NOTFORUM violations. Article talk pages are in fact not intended to be a free-for-all, and they work best when the discussion is quite tightly tied to specific proposals to amend the article.
And BTW, your tit for tat deletion of what you called a "rant" is an absolutely textbook example of POINTey behaviour, so it was procedurally correct to revert your deletion even if the content you deleted was a NOTFORUM violation. But in fact, looking back on the intervention you deleted, I don't think it is such a violation. It is long and rambly and argumentative, and it doesn't give its sources, but it is eminently source-able (without relying on FRINGE figures) and offers a clear logical structure that advances a particular discussion. This is as opposed to your original Trans-woman Talk comment, for example, which used a stale discussion, COATRACK-sryle, to talk about something that was bothering you without offering any particular contribution to the article.
I would also point out that editors watching the articles on gender identities tend (understandably) to become irritated when people that know little or nothing about the field of gender identity arrive to edit these articles or their talk pages, just as I imagine that editors that watch biology or physics articles would be annoyed when people who know little about their subject matter arrive to edit them, or arrive on Talk to clumsily re-open topics that have been done to death in the recent past. So if you want to make a constructive contribution, don't regard Talk pages as "free-for-all" and try to come up with specific, sourced, non-FRINGE proposals that would improve the content of articles, and be prepared to discuss these proposals in a non-confrontational way, preferably with some humility. And if you care too much about a particular topic to observe the expectations of the WP environment, move to a topic you care less about and contribute there. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I just want to address one more thing. I'm still mystified by the procedural correctness of reverting that edit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it was a NOTAFORUM violation that I'd deleted - wouldn't reverting it, based solely on my improper motive, be an example of the reverting editor simply making a point (to me) as well? It seems very weird that a comment violating NOTAFORUM policy (again, assuming this for the sake of argument) would be allowed to stand just to privately punish an editor for his motive in deleting it. Isn't this just making the community suffer, or lowering the quality of the talk page, to sanction an individual editor? I would think that a sanction directed solely at the editor (me), while still deleting the NOTAFORUM comment simply because it's in violation of the guidelines, would make more sense. Is my understanding of this correct, that a comment in violation of the rules can be immunized against deletion if an editor has deleted it because of some improper motive? Thanks. -- (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT, as it describes this situation almost exactly. And while you're at it, read WP:COATRACK and try to think laterally about how it might apply to talk pages (since that discussion is framed for articles).
Wikipedia is governed largely by procedural rules - deleting or restoring a page against a consensus ruling is always wrong, even if that ruling was itself incorrect. Exceeding a revert limit is always wrong (except for COPYVIO or BLP violations) even if the article version an editor reverts to is manifestly better than the one reverted from. Without procedure, there would be chaos and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you could contribute usefully to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey C. Grabowski[edit]

It took some time and work, but Geoffrey C. Grabowski has passed AFC and is in article space again. :) BOZ (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that, and some of the other orphan children back as well. You do good work. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I also spend lots of time on projects like this one! BOZ (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Re "Hebrew Bible"[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my clarification of "Hebrew Bible", citing "unsourced POV". I'm afraid I don't follow, as my edit is less of a Point of View change, and more of recognising the theological differences between and making the article more theologically neutral instead of the previous Christian-centric terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I also refer you to the opening paragraph of this well-written article: (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The merger of the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh articles was discussed extensively before consensus was reached. Please read those discussions and start a new Talk page discussion before essaying the change again. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I have read The Misunderstood Jew, so I am quite familiar with Levine's argument. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I briefly skimmed over that discussion earlier and I've just had a full-read of it now, and I'm still in support of renaming the page. It looks as though no real consensus was reached to me, not to mention that very few actual references were included in this discussion in relation to WP:COMMONNAME; every reference that I've ever seen to the Tanakh has referenced exactly that, the "Tanakh" (or variations) not the "Hebrew Bible". I've expanded on this under my note here - I'd appreciate your thoughts over there :) (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin[edit]

Your most recent revert on the Carl Benjamin article is a 3RR violation. You might want to revert your revert so as not to run afoul of WP rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, LedRush, but my first revert and my fourth revert were nearly 48 hours apart. The relevant period for 3RR, as I understand it, is 24 hours. Please advise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. It’s been a long time since I’ve edited on an article this contentious and I thought the rule was more strict than it was. I’m sorry I took up your time.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Henry Morgentaler[edit]

Waiting for you to chime in: Talk:Andrew_Scheer#Definition of Henry Morgentaler Shemtovca (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm waiting for a consensus to develop. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


My argument was not that "one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities" it was that you can only do it if you call some one by a gender descriptor that is substantively different from the gender identity you have asked to be used. Hence why I asked how are guys descriptors different from Fae's. Fae's choice (as far as I can tell) in gender neutral, if Guys ones are also gender neutral he is not misgenderimng them, as they are still being referred to as gender neutral. he is (as I said more then once) being rude and inconsiderate, but that is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is what I referred to as a "sophomoric analytical philosophy argument". In lay terms, you are allowing three values for gender: masculine, feminine, and "gender neutral", and you are saying that no values in the latter category are "substantively different" from one another. This argument is simply bollocks and, followed to its logical conclusion, would posit that editors using "it" for other editors who prefer "they" are not misgendering the latter.
In real life, people whose gender identity is "genderqueer" hold a different gender identity than those whose identity is "neuter", just as those whose identity is "genderfluid" have a different gender identity from those who identify as "nonbinary" or "third gender". If you impose a linear, three-value scale on other people's gender identities you are misgendering them, which is why the contemporary turn has been to allow people to choose their own pronouns rather than dragging, say, zie out of the rhetorical attic as a "gender neutral" third person singular. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And if it was clear which of those "they" referred to you might have a point. The problem is it is not clear, in fact it is not even (as far as I know) yet really recognized as even a gender pronoun, and when it is used it is a gender neutral, I.E. not referring to a specific gender.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we are having a terminological misunderstanding with respect to "misgender". From a grammatical standpoint, we might understand English as having three genders, in which case using "they" for "it" or "zie" is not "misgendering". But the current ethics around pronoun choice is not about grammatical gender - if you were to refer as a trans woman as "he", nobody would be offended on the assumption that you made a grammatical mistake. The point is social msigendering - refusal to accept a person's gender identity. And substituting one non-masculine, non-feminine pronoun for a person's chosen one is every bit as much an act of social misgendering as substituting "he" for "she". Gender identities are simply not indifferent and interchangeable in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No we are having a policy one. We are not here to enforce any social polices from off wiki, we are here (well at ANI) to enforce only Wikipedias polices.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPA includes gender identity in the list of attributes that Wikipedians are not to attack each other over, just as it is protected in human rights law where I live. In all of the discussions I have seen on Wikipedia since the large MOS:GENDERID RfC, respect for the gender identity of editors has been understood to be covered by CIVIL and other related policies and norms. Treating other editors with respect is a WP principle, not a "social policy from off-site", and respect for gender identity is an inherent aspect of 21st-century respect. If we can see this clearly for content policies, I don't see why it is occasionally difficult for contributors to see it for conduct policies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
How was this an attack on their gender ID? Unless it was deliberating mocking the fact they have asked to be regarded as gender...well what gender? It may be the case, or it may not be, it is down to you to show it was used mockingly (rather then just childishly). Maybe it cannot be clearly seen, because it is not really there (well was not meant to be applied in this way) to (paraphrase?) quote another users if you think this should be in policy make the suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that, if an editor refuses to use another editor's preferred pronouns because the latter editor has asked for certain pronouns to be used, as is Guy's account of his own actions[12] then this is a clear violation of CIVIL, NPA and possibly HARASS. "Childishness of intent" is not really a defense for such behavior - we are all respinsible for what we actually do, not simply for what we intend. And I do not find Guy's retrenchment and BATTLEGROUNDiness on this matter at all reassuring.

I do agree that, after the dust has settled from this and from SMcCandlish's previous contretemps, it might be best to further clarify that gender ID is not an allowable pretext to mess with other editors, any more than using the noun "bitch" or casting antisemetic aspersions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Many of use do use a rather formal register of English in many discussions here, most especially at noticeboards. If you can't tell that Guy Macon was using one (note, for example, the almost total lack of contractions), then nothing I can say will be very instructive for you, since I lack any magical ability to increase your observational acuity. It was not a non sequitur, and you were not in a position to try to police him for this imaginary fault.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I was commenting, not policing.
Second, while contractions are a personal choice, the Chicago Manual is clearly not intending for its recommendations about "formal" register to be applied in the context of wiki talk pages; its recommendations about formal usage are simply not relevant, regardless of individual picadillos.
Third, the matter under discussion was whether there are contemporary authorities (not op-eds or curmudgeons) that hold that the singular "they" is incorrect grammar or usage. There simply aren't, and the CMOS preference re: formal usage is not a relevant exception.
Finally, as much as I respect people's willingness to defend the rights of others to say things that one would not, oneself, say, I think Floq's close was correct and your own defense of Macron's choices - at odds as it was with his own self-explanation - was ill-advised if, from a certain perspective, valiant. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

3rr warning[edit]

Hey looks like you are in an edit war. Even if the other author does not follow BRD does not make it right to continue the reversions. Be careful because that can easily get you blocked. I found this because of a complaint at the teacenter. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I am trying to be careful. I will reply there shortly as well. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


This was interesting [[13]]. Checkuser blocked. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)