Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 10 November 2017

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hate is not helping

Please stop providing false information about things you dislike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikicreamdaddy (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi PeterTheFourth,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink 18:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I don't think this is helpful. You can't have an RfC on what somebody's pronouns should be - they're what the person says they are. This could be harmful and result in misgendering, and I'm upset that you think this is the appropriate solution. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're hugely confused about what this RfC is about. This is not about determining which PGPs are Zoë Quinn's. It's not about what Quinn's pronouns should be.

If you think that is the point, then you're hugely mistaken. What this RfC is about is interpreting Misplaced Pages policy in this grey area case to best suit both the subject of the article and our readers. If Quinn hadn't deleted the blog post in question, or used consistent pronouns in personal publications and blog posts and the book, then there would be no disagreement and no need for this RfC. But unfortunately this is unclear and so the RfC is required.

You or I might have firm opinions on this topic, but clearly there exists a disagreement in consensus and so we must request the wiki community's input. Trust in the process. I also urge you to follow the principle of charity and assume good faith... It sounds like you think I'm trying to hurt Quinn or attack the article in some way. This is most definitely not the case. Check my edit history, check my actions, I think you'll find I am not in the business of such harassment.

This is exactly what I meant when I said in the RfC that articles like Quinn's are rife with controversy because of outside issues. See the uncharitable and inflammatory comment from the IP below. But our job is to ignore these things and be as unbiased as is possible about WP policy. Please help me do that job. --Shibbolethink 02:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Removed dumbass IP Comment)

I don't think you're attempting to be harmful at all, I just think that this RfC is more likely to harm than most. I don't feel comfortable participating in it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry...but you're giving up your influence on the outcome...

I think it might be pertinent to remind you that even the blog post that's been put forward as evidence towards a they/their/theirs PGP was apathetic to all others, in a non-upset way. It didn't say "please don't misgender me" or "everyone has been misgendering me so let me clear this up!" like many other coming out posts have.

And the vast majority of personal promotional material uses she/her/hers. I would think if Quinn were hugely offended by or hurt by the misgendering of feminine pronouns, then publishing those pronouns in the book or on the blog would be less common...

Also, the instant that Quinn comes out with an up to date firm statement on PGPs, the article can be changed. We are supposed to be as firm with our use as the subject has recommended. If Quinn tweets out tomorrow "I prefer they/them/theirs, thanks." then the entire RfC is meaningless.

But suit yourself, your opinions are your own and I salute you for having them so strongly. --Shibbolethink 15:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Careful

I happened to notice your discussion and wanted to add a word of caution from my experience. Some editors take offense easily and just as easily report you. Though you are correct, you may need a different approach. Good LuckC. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion that might concern you

C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Hi Gilmore! Thanks for the beer, although I am a teetotaler. I've read through the discussion and appreciate the notice, but I'm not going to participate there. In my experience, the community is very reluctant to enforce any standards on harassment and personal attacks. The initial responses echo my experience. Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you use this time to gain consensus and make changes to pages before the disruptor returns, you do not have long. Good Luck C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for edits, it helps a lot. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)