User talk:Maneesh

Hi

Hello, Maneesh, and

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SL93 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SL93, I've removed the PfDs and added comp sci. stubs. Both terms are well known in computer science and show up quite clearly with 100s of references in google scholar. I've left them as stubs, as I'd prefer someone who knows more to fill them in with detail and the correct set of references. Maneesh (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Demonic non-determinism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable term per

WP:N

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Angelic non-determinism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable per

WP:N

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JNW (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And reverting twice to this purpose. JNW (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I will revert the edits if they don't seem correct, it isn't linkspam. As I replied earlier, most historical ateliers don't have URLs to link to! How can that be linkspam?Maneesh (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I already have, did you read the article talk page before posting this?Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are over the limit and should work this out on the talkpage or be blocked...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already being done before you posted here, as I've already said!Maneesh (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Color page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, Maneesh. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maneesh. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maneesh. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Maneesh. 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

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)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello maneesh Abbasquadir (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi there! Maneesh (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited pages covering topics related to CAH: appropriate enzymes and steroids and conditions. Could you please review them?

• 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone
• 21-Deoxycortisol
• 21-Hydroxylase
• Aldosterone synthase
• Progesterone
• Steroid 11β-hydroxylase
• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency
• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of work! At first glance they all seem to be quite good, I will go through in detail and check (will take a bit).Maneesh (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the medical citation needed tag from the end of the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_onset_congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia#Screening

However, there are lot of questionable values there like various ng/mL values of 17-OHP. Could you please find relevant references that confirm the figures, preferablly reviews or best practice guide from last years (2018-2020), or put back this "citation needed" tag? Maybe you will find something relevant at PMID 32966723 or PMID 30272171?

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin:, The tag was removed for "17-OHP levels over 10 ng/mL at the 60th minute post stimulation is considered diagnostic for LOCAH.". If you look at in Kurtoğlu and Hatipoğlu you will find "The majority of researchers agree that a 17-OHP level over 10 ng/mL at the 60th minute of ACTH application is a criterion for diagnosis of late-onset 21-OH deficiency and this conclusion is in agreement with results of genetic studies" and similar sentences for other specific values. You can find the specific sentence in the article that tries to make this clear: "The ACTH stimulation protocols are described in Kurtoğlu and Hatipoğlu" so as to not cite it repeatedly. That paper is from 2017, so I think it is recent enough. Maneesh (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: Thank you for pointing that out. I have added the reference anyway, in order to be able to find a source faster in future, and to avoid probably confusion, like I hade. I hope that a single reference at the end of a 4-line paragraph (within a separate section) would not be considered over-referencing. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: I think the way you have done it is fine and consistent. Maneesh (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_onset_congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia now has all proper references. But one issue still remains - the "too technical" template. I have contacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DannyS712#Late_onset_congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia_-_too_technical who put the template. In the meanwhile, do you have any idea on where is this page too technical, so we can rewrite these places to justify the removal of the template?

@Maxim Masiutin: That template was put on early in the article's creation, perhaps when it might have been difficult to tell what the condition was. I don't think it applies, I mean, it isn't a condition that has a simple picture associated with it. Maneesh (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: DannyS712 replied that we can now remove this banner. I will remove it then. If you have any objections, let me know, we can always put it back :-) ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LOCAH page is a common page not specific to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Only 21-hydroxylase deficiency leads to androgen excess because 17-OH-progesterone is directed towards androgens. In the deficiencies of other enzymes, like 3-beta-HSD or 11-beta-hydroxylase, there is no androgen excess. Thus, I propose to remove the addition that it leads to androgen excess. Impaired cortisol synthesis is the only required conditions. There are many enzymes in the pathway from cholesterol to cortisol. Any mild impairment of the enzyme that is notices long after birth is LOCAH. But not all of them lead to androgen excess.

Moreover, there is later a clarification that only 21-hydroxylase deficiency leads to androgen excess (QOUTE): "The causes of LOCAH are the same as of classic CAH, and in majority the of the cases are the mutations in the CYP21A2 gene resulting in corresponding activity changes in the associated P450c21 (21-hydroxylase) protein enzyme which ultimately leads to excess androgen production. "

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Can you check this? It appears that androgen excess is the key diagnostic criteria that ties these different deficiencies together. See the emphasis on androgen excess on a case report for 3-beta-HSD: "After administration of dexamethasone, 2 mgl day for 5 days, all glucocorticoid and androgen levels including their metabolites decreased, indicating that the excessive androgen was derived from the adrenal glands" and this entry in OMIM "Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 11-beta-hydroxylase deficiency is an autosomal recessive disorder of corticosteroid biosynthesis resulting in androgen excess". Maneesh (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: Thank you for pointing that out and for your great explanation and great references. I have added them to the definition to prevent further probable questions like mine. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my today's edits of 11-Deoxycortisol. Thank you in advance! ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, you have added a non-breaking space character after "p." at a protein reference sequence, in multiple places. According to the "Standard Mutation Nomenclature in Molecular Diagnostics", there should be no space there. See the rules and the examples there:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867422/
• http://varnomen.hgvs.org/ (select the "General" section)

Can you please remove the space after "p." there? ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which edit you are referring to, I wouldn't do that intentionally. Is it this one? (not mine). Maneesh (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: Yes, I meant these "&nbsp" characters. I will remove them then. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. Please see the Talk section for Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH). ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions on the Androgen backdoor pathway. I have submitted the text from that section to the WikiJournal, see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Androgen_backdoor_pathway

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a really great job with the article! It explains the idea clearly. My contributions were very minimal but I will email you. Maneesh (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maneesh, I noticed your edit to the Woman page that says,

"Morrow and Messenger quote was modified with sq brackets in a way that simply replaced 'feminine' with 'woman'. A misrepresentation of the source, rather egregious given this article is about the term 'woman'"

and I admit, I'm somewhat confused. Can you explain it to me in more detail? I see the old,

"'Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice', edited by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger (2006,

reference, but I can't understand, why would someone switch out 'feminine' for '[woman]' (and I assume 'masculine' for '[man]')? In short: "huh? what?" Should we just add the reference back in and switch the mentions of 'woman' and 'man' to 'feminine' and 'masculine', as per the source? I would do that, but I have the feeling something is going on here. Thanks for any help understanding. Joe (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree with you: it is quite an odd quote modification, isn't it? My reaction isn't much different from yours, I couldn't tell you what, if anything, is going on (everything I do wrt to wp is here visible here). Perhaps best to continue any discussion on Talk:Woman?Maneesh (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Maneesh reported by User:Vaticidalprophet (Result: ). Thank you. Vaticidalprophet 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trying to remove conditions that are listed in the sources in the article without bringing to talk. You need to do that

WP:CON.Maneesh (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

An article you recently created,

Article was clearly marked stub and talk showed that there was no question it was widely used. Please return the article so that editors can add to it. Maneesh (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

@

CommanderWaterford: see reply above. You need to look at the talk page of the article. Maneesh (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 16:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

CommanderWaterford: That's your claim but not mine. PixInsight is a very well known piece of software in the astrophotography community, did you read the links to google books and google scholar that show multiple independent people have written publications on the use of the software? It meets stub criteria just fine.Maneesh (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PixInsight and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:PixInsight, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maneesh! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: This makes no sense, the reference added is an entire book on PixInsight written by a 3rd party. That is significant not 'passing mention', it is published. Maneesh (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PixInsight and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:PixInsight, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

talk) 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

The article Primary color you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Primary color for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArnabSaha -- ArnabSaha (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of a ref for lack of page numbers, but that didn't really work. I haven't figured out what's going on there, but it seems there should be a better fix than just removing refs that quote sources in support of content, for lack of page numbers. Please take a look and see if you can restore more appropriately. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had put in that ref to begin with and am consolidating repeated references. The source is good, but if I can't get a page number to make rp format nicely, it isn't such a special fact that it needs to be obtained from there. Accessibility is important here. Maneesh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Primary color, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fovea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very sorry for the discussion at intersex.

Put up each quote from your sources one-by-one. Does the quote suggest that a human or mammal hermaphrodite or *cannot* exist?Maneesh (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um what I added didn’t say they can’t exist, they said there are no hermaphroditic species of mammals. There is a difference.

talk) 04:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean sure there a possibility our species or other mammal species could evolve to be hermaphroditic. But, right now that’s not the case.

talk) 04:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You aren't telling the truth. Here you say "there are no hermaphroditic species of mammals", the edit you added said "there are no hermaphrodites in any mammal species". There are certainly no hermaphroditic mammal species, of course, most animal species are gonochoric. This does not make individual *hermaphrodites* an impossibility. You keep adding edits then removing them on intersex, putting stuff on the talk page and then putting stuff here. Your writing keeps the claims changing when this is a matter of precise language. This is isn't an honest way to consensus. I'll leave you with some facts that you should consider: Here is a report of autofertility in a rabbit. Here is one of a hermaphrodite beluga whale. How do these reports relate to your universal negative? Maneesh (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh buddy the sources you are presenting are from 1990 and 1994s. The sources I’m presenting are from 1995, 1994, and 2017. I though I already said this to you earlier, a hermaphrodite is one who can produce both gametes from the same individual, all those cases you are presenting are chimeras.

Basically that means two separate individuals merged together. So in a way no these aren’t hermaphrodites.

We keep having theses little edit wars over something that isn’t even controversial.

You are very confused about some very basic ideas. You need to think and read carefully before you make these claims. I'm not interested in discussing this further with you. Maneesh (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the way those sources you are presenting are primary sources.

Write out the what Michael Majerus writes on page 50, and compare to the rabbit and whale I cite above. Despite so much suggestion, you are not reading sources carefully. Maneesh (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just gonna ask this, did you see the quotes I added for the sources I added at intersex?

Please do respond the the request above. Maneesh (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned how I’m not reading the sources carefully. However, regarding the rabbit hermaphrodite case you presented it said the rabbit had two functional ovaries and two infertile testes. So it’s possible the people who written that misreported or you didn’t read the whole thing.

You still have not written out what Michael Majerus wrote. There are many possibilities that explain the case of the apparently autofertile rabbit, one of them is that it had both functional male and female gamete producing gonads, "autofertilisation" would not be used in the title of the paper if that were not the case. Maneesh (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to [this source] back in 2016

talk) 23:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And so did [this source.]

talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And so did [this source] from Nature in 2017.

talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You still have not written out what Michael Majerus wrote. Maneesh (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I saw your edit history here, apparently you read the links.

This really is my last response on the issue my friend. Please stop posting on this page after this. There is no doubt that Mangrove rivulus is the only known vertebrate hermaphroditic species, that does not magically falsify the possibility of exceptional hermaphroditic individuals in gonochoric species. The reports of hermaphroditic mammals that I've highlighted in RS haven't been falsified to the best of my knowledge and demonstrate the fact that we expect (and celebrate) surprises like this in biology. It doesn't mater what year those discoveries occurred in, they simply haven't been falsified. Biologists are still hesitant to strongly claim a hermaphrodite mammal since no one has really carefully observed a mammal acting in both reproductive roles and verified offspring with genetic analysis etc. There isn't more to say than that, your interpretations seem to be confused about the difference between species and individuals. You are not reading your own sources which clearly support the perspective I've outlined here, you are not responding to my request to quote the source you have put forth and your posting has had a manic tone to it with the apologies, use of "buddy" etc. Good day. Maneesh (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine I wouldn’t response any further but, I’m gonna respond to this. your interpretations seem to be confused about the difference between species and individuals. Just to make things clear there are sources that directly say that not a single species of hermaphroditism occurs in mammals.

If a source says not a single mammal species can grow wings, that basically means no individual mammal can grow wings. It’s not hard to understand.

I mean good lord, it’s obvious what the sources I have provided mean on the matter.

You don’t seem to understand what sources are trying to say on the topic.

Hi Maneesh, you mentioned in this edit that you intend to close the RfC at

You are right, I presumed it was my responsibility to close after discussion had died down. I'll just leave it alone. Maneesh (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Refreshing the notice as you last received it over 12 months ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? Maneesh (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

I strongly advise that you at least acknowledge that you have made mistakes in how you've made certain points and to promise to be more careful in the future. It's really important to be careful how you word things in this topic area, and diplomacy goes a long way. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel that way but I certainly don't. A wikipedia that censors users like is not a wikipedia that's worth contributing to. I'm quite civil and generally use scientific language to discuss scientific topics. Maneesh (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly impolite of me to write that and not acknowledge your extraordinary efforts in that thread. I really do feel bad it must've used so much of your time. I am quite confident nothing I've said is impolite or untrue (please do point it out if you think so). If wp can ban me based on very sound edits, and tolerate the sort of language like what you've found from NewImpartial...I mean...there really isn't much to say at that point. Maneesh (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem awfully incensed about my (rather inside-softball) preference for the terms "queer", "fag" and "dyke" over the term "homosexual". Just sayin'. I can't imagine you've suddenly become intolerant of hyperbole, either - that doesn't seem to be like you at all. Newimpartial (talk)`

Entirely uninterested in anything you have to say. Maneesh (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statements written out of a queer theory background can be hard for laypeople to understand. I get that, and have toned down the rhetoric since then. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's your background that teaches you to talk about the deaths of people that way. huh. Enjoy it! Maneesh (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No body dies in that sentence. The identity "homosexual" "dies", being replaced by "queer", "fag" and "dyke". No humans are harmed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, like I said at AE - your actions on this site have amounted to a waged war against homosexuality itself - NOT merely the 'word', and I remind you that the CONTEXT of that statement was due to an IP-lesbian's having been forced to use the word to accurately describe herself because certain editors (I think other than yourself, but that doesn't matter) were insisting that 'lesbian' meant something other than 'female homosexual'. If YOU don't like the word 'homosexual', then STOP trying to define 'gay' and 'lesbian' as something else! Homosexuals exist. Our attraction is EXCLUSIVELY to the SAME SEX. We cannot change this, nor should we be subject to attempted coercion thereto, whether it's by the religious right or woke gender activists. Doing so violates OUR autonomy, and denies our existence. Given the totality of the whole of your actions, I have to draw the conclusion that you want all of us wiped off the face of the earth: most likely by the means of mass sterilisation and mutilation before the onset of puberty (and don't even try to feign ignorance, because we both know you know DANN well what I'm referring to, and THAT debate I will not engage in with you, here). Oh, and one last thing: i think i can fairly confidently presume that you yourself are not homosexual - maybe or maybe not you have a gender preference, I really don't know and it doesn't matter, but you've made it blatantly clear that you believe biological sex is entirely unimportant; therefore, by definition, you CAN'T be homosexual (or if you were, that would make you the world's largest hypocrite - so we'll assume you're not attracted to one and ONLY one BIOLOGICAL sex). Therefore, you have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER telling groups of people that YOU are not a part of what they can call themselves and what they can't! And you more than anyone ought to be aware of this: telling you what you ought to be labelled as is a crime worse than murder. So how DARE you think it is okay to do that to other kinds of people? Maneesh, I humbly beg you to forgive me for doing that on your user talk page. I am of the mindset that responses should be in the same place as what they're responding to. I'm sorry you're being dragged through the wringer over semantic games, when your intentions are clearly not what you're accused of. I have more to say about that, that I hope can be helpful, that I will post in another posting shortly. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E188:AB34:F849:5200 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed IP editor. I am grateful that you have spoken up and helped me understand the motivations behind this user's constant incoherent bludgeoning. It's just an online encyclopedia, no need to feel sorry for me. How demented all this is to even consider complaints about scientific discussions from people who have used well known homophobic slurs juxtaposed with death which is then justified by making everything an "identity". Perhaps I can just claim every word in what I've written is an identity then and we can resolve the matter ;) I can understand how upsetting it is to watch all this. Maneesh (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, "queer, fag and dyke" are not "homophobic slurs" (at least not any more, not where I live), they are real identities. I wouldn't have mentioned them - even two years ago - if I didn't identify with all three at various times, in different ways. But once again, you dismiss my situated knowledge by saying Perhaps I can just claim every word in what I've written is an identity then and we can resolve the matter - this is like your space alien slur all over again. And whatever you think you know about my motivations, I am confident that you have no idea whatsoever what I think, what I know, or what I am aiming for - which, in this context, is merely a CIVIL and unbiased encyclopedia based on non-tendentious readings of recent, reliable sources. What I still lack patience for is people who carry on insincere discussions based on their inability to perform normal operations of empathy in communication, and who engage in deceptive argumentative strategies because they think their values are better than those of the community and they know better than the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your real identities! Maneesh (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I will not clutter this talk page discussing this matter with you here, but I have replied to this comment at some length on my Talk page, where you could reply if you like. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think there's some confusion about that sentence, All it seems to suggest is that they'd rather see the word "homosexual" vanish entirely. They're obviously not calling for the other thing. I was wondering if I should comment on that when I was reading Crossroad's reply on the enforcement request to avoid any embarrassment, but I figured it best to abstain. You seem to be big on language confusion the last few days, cross! --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders how anyone could have interpreted it any other way! 20:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You've been editing this topic area at least as long as me, and you've done good work in that time. In all that time the recent comments on which the complaint focuses is more poorly worded than what I've seen in that time. I'm worried that you've been exceptionally frustrated recently and that that will take you down when it isn't representative of your editing. The ones that the admins are taking issue with are the most serious ones. Stuff about "TW are men" and seeming to compare gender identity to delusional identities are especially what I'm talking about. I will tell you firsthand that one can be effective in the topic area without saying such things, which are totally counterproductive. You should also acknowledge that anything to do with gender, even talking about it, is subject to the gender DS.

Because the original report is about you, the admins are naturally focused on you. That is just how it is at AE, fair or not. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers my friend, I will not defend my truthful claims further with you. I understand your position and truly admire the way you carry yourself on wp. I think that is an excellent way to do things a lot of the time. There are also times when we need to break out of the game-like application of WP policy and make some sense. You can obviously see this is one of those times for me. Hopefully, one way or another, it will improve wp. Maneesh (talk)

Actually I don't fully understand what you are saying here You should also acknowledge that anything to do with gender, even talking about it, is subject to the gender DS.. What would you like me to do? Look at the DS box it says "gender and sexuality"...I'm now further confused as to how it applies to discussions that are focused on "sex". Maneesh (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliments. I suggest you not let yourself become a martyr, as it were, for the sake of being what you see as 'making sense'. As for clarifying what I said: the editor who reported you is emphasizing you seeming to say that the DS doesn't apply to your editing on the topic of sex differences. Although some aspects of the borderline of the DS may be debatable, any editing or commenting on gender identity, no matter where it happens, absolutely is covered by that DS. Acknowledging that at AE would be good because otherwise you look like you're rebelling against the rules. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an online encyclopedia, thinking of myself as a 'martyr' would be a pretty inflated sense of self. I do not see anything on the talk page or anywhere that says the DS doesn't matter, there is no decision yet AFAICT. I'm reading both the "notification" (which I largely disregarded since it says clearly: This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. right then glad that is not implied). Then at 23:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC), there is another notification that says ....To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page..., if I look at my contributions after that time then they are *all* on the talk page of Sex differences in medicine . Later there is the AE notice which says This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Maneesh. Thank you. which doesn't say anything about what I can/can't contribute to and I don't see any other relevant info one the AE page. Very sincerely: What rule is being broken? Maneesh (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a site you've done good work on, and so presumably care about and want to continue to improve. But anyway. As for the DS, I get being confused a bit, but right now your replies at AE are being framed by the editor who reported you as you saying that the rules do not apply to you, because you seem to deny that the gender-related edits fall under the gender DS. If it helps, think of DS as meaning a topic area is under extra scrutiny. It's just about recognizing that it falls under that umbrella. Hope my clarification makes sense. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the part where I check the two policies ("individual" and "female") and showed that they don't apply here since none of the edits are ever about an individual or female? Maneesh (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Okay, sorry for delay. Maneesh, one question for you; no rudeness or insult is meant in any way, here, and for 99.99% if interactions on this site it wouldn't need addressing..I think it truly does in this case, though. Although your English is perfectly good, it seems to me to not be your native language - am I correct? That isn't something that can be held against you, and j you're clearly proficient enough in English to be able to contribute constructively. The thing about THIS issue, though, is that it is a currently ongoing activism effort to radically change some of the most fundamental components of the language, their meanings, &c. It would be unreasonable not to have greater patience with any nonnative speaker when it comes to these matters; beating up on a nonnative speaker because they don't use the exact perfect terminology - that's meaning has justbeen changed - is no different than beating up on a person because they speak with an accent, as far as I see it. What matters is a persons undertook intention, not whether or not they perfectly grasp convoluted language nuances. @Crossroads:, your thoughts? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E188:AB34:F849:5200 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English is my first language :) No offense taken (I often make cringe worthy typos and sometimes type faster than I think!). Let me know as to why you think that is relevant here. Maneesh (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also times when we need to break out of the game-like application of WP policy and make some sense. You can obviously see this is one of those times for me." I just want to say what someone said to me a long time ago: I can understand how you may want to be a Joan of Arc, but don't forget that she was burned at the stake. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I want to be anything like Joan of Arc, but plenty of sound, non-notable people have been burned at stakes for merely saying that unsound ideas are unsound. That's probably a more appropriate analogy here ;) I hope that the sanction will show how WP operates when editors merely discuss important topics like sex differences in medicine the way RS do. Maneesh (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you said on WP that any unsound ideas are unsound? I haven't seen you to do that - what "unsound ideas" do you have in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely uninterested in anything you have to say.

And Carthage must be destroyed. Yes, we know. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to today's politically correct world & Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm actually quite heartened by the consensus response there and the courage with which, at least some, editors are finding. Maybe things can really improve. Maneesh (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, I have a simple question for you that might help resolve the AE discussion in your favor, depending on your answer.

Do you accept, in line with the recent, reliable sources on the topic, that a person's gender identity may differ from their sex assigned at birth (e.g., male gender identity in a case of female sex assignment), that these instances do not generally indicate any pathology (in themselves), and that it is appropriate to treat people in typical social situations according to their gender identity?

A straightforward answer to that question might make everything much simpler for all concerned. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edits like this and this: you had an opportunity to convince other editors that you do not actually hold FRINGE views on Gender identity, which appear to affect both your edits in article space and your interaction with other editors. You have chosen not to do so (presumably motivated by an irrational distrust of Zorp). Wikipedia is grounded in consensus reality, rather than solisism self-directed utterances, so you should not expect any other outcome when you disregard Zorp that consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely uninterested in anything you have to say. Maneesh (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Sex differences in medicine. I would urge you to please stop making personal attacks and statements about what I personally have or have not done, and assumptions of the veracity of statements I make about myself and my career. Continuing to do so could result in your being blocked. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in the course of my response to a complaint against me at ANI. [1] Sorry to do this, but it was necessary to explain the background. But this seems to be now closed. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Quite the inquisition ;) Maneesh (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to consider deeply the implications of this policy, and whether your actions are emblematic of it. Nobody owns an article, or knows supremely more than others what the "correct" way to say something is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that I think I own any article here? Maneesh (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you own any articles. I think you are behaving as though you own the Sex differences in medicine article. You have almost reverted every change I have made. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what editing is. Justifications were provided clearly, happy to go through them one by one on talk if you need to. Maneesh (talk)

Editing is collaboration, a give and take. I have no interest in going through each edit, thanks for the offer, though.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you improve the quality of at least some of your edits, you'll find that they are more easily accepted by others with a pretty good hold on the subject.Maneesh (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than long comments and and intense emotional attachment to these articles, I have no reason to believe you have any expertise in this area. I consider this matter resolved, and I will not comment here any further. I would also urge you not to act against talk page consensus. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may also look at the way I've gone through talk pages in long discussions on very very small edits (against a great deal of aggressive ignorance). Crossroads has been exemplary here. I am not sure why you think that each and every one of your edits (like mine or anyone else's) isn't subject to scrutiny. Maneesh (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I ever implied that my edits are not subject to scrutiny. however, wikipedia thrives on multiple editor involvement. It is typically a bad idea to act unilaterally as though your scrutiny is what should shape an article. As opposed to providing some, and allowing the rest of the community to provide the rest. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, it is wholly and completely inappropriate to misquote me in an edit summary. And that is the least thing wrong with your edit. Please revert. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My quote in edit summary: klinefelter males were not really males your quote cut and pasted from talk page: Klinefelter "males" are not strictly "males" for the sake of academic study. Your right in that it is not an exact quote, it was not intended to be I was paraphrasing and did not use quotation marks. I do not see a meaningful difference between my edit summary paraphrasing and your exact quote.Maneesh (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"not strictly" in this context means "not just" or "they are this, but also other things" E.g. for an academic study on sex hormones with two groups "male" and "female," you would exclude Klinefelter's individuals from the study, because their testosterone is often outside typical levels. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? We've already had this conversation on the relevant talk page, since you seem insistent to continue: you certainly did not clarify that meaning when I was emphatically explaining to you (quoting that very quote) that Klienfelter males are males. All males are other things than just males. The condition is not screened for in most clinical trials, it is suspected there are many more subclinical cases out there so many such males would find themselves in trials since they do not know that have the condition. By your logic any male that could be excluded from a clinical trial is "not strictly male", which makes no sense since people are excluded from clinical trials for an uncountable number of things (HIV status, having had cancer, being a smoker etc. etc.). Maneesh (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not interested in continuing, but you posted the comment both places, so I replied both places. Let's leave it at that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

I do not know what you are talking about, I opened up and got a consensus on this matter. Successfully demonstrating consensus on a straightforward fact is not

WP:BATTLEGROUND. Maneesh (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering the number of people here telling you to stop "enforcing consensus", as well as the fact that you're currently at AE for this behaviour, I don't think it's your place to make claims about what the consensus is, at the moment. I would strongly advise you to stop digging your own grave. As it is, a few admins are already citing your continuing behaviour as a reason to enforce the TBAN. And if you believe it is a witchunt, stop tying helium balloons to your chest. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? what does "enforcing consensus even mean? I'm quite confident in the civility of all my posts and am not concerned with the AE? why are you here with your unsolicited input? Maneesh (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I recommend you read

See {{

Please ping me! 13:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please point to a specific edit? Maneesh (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a specific edit, it is your pattern of editing. This isn't an investigation it's just me reaching out in a friendly way.

Please ping me! 15:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's just rather difficult to consider the suggestion without being able to see what you are talking about? Can you point to sentence that, for instance, referred to a source somewhere way back or something? Maneesh (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you just take a look at

Please ping me! 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Still not clear what you are getting at. There are a lot of responses, which I respond to. I generally reply once to a comment, occasionally I fix after posting in the way that most users do. The difficulty in reading is due to the responses that are coming from many users including me. Maneesh (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to respond to every person that comments there, that would be considered

Please ping me! 17:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You would suggest I am bludgeoning...but not the other users who are replying? How does that make any sense? Maneesh (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that said that "there are a lot of responses, to which I respond to". That's what I was referring to. Anyways, if you don't want to take a friendly word of advice you could just say so before. All I'm saying is you'll find you'd convince more people if you didn't 'pepper' threads.

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero

Parlez Moi 12:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please consider lifting the topic ban from all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy, because 2 years have passed and there is no longer reason to keep the ban imposed for this user (Maneesh)? Due to the specificities of this ban, it is hard to define exactly what is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy. I also believe that the user already understood everything and will not do the same actions again that led to the ban. We were working on medical articles such as Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Androgen backdoor pathway which are based on topics such as sex hormones, genital development, sex assignment at birth, therefore, the ban on gender-related dispute or controversy practically bans the user from all the edits on which he was working. Therefore, could you please consider the ban lifted, due to the reason that the sanctions already brought intended results and there is no longer reason to keep the sanctions imposed. I understand that the topic ban was put in place to prevent any further disruptions or conflicts related to gender-related disputes on Wikipedia. However, as mentioned earlier, it has been two years since the ban was imposed and I believe that the user will not engage in those actions again that led to the ban. Furthermore, lifting the topic ban would allow for a more productive editing environment where all users can contribute positively without any restrictions. The user has shown dedication and commitment towards improving medical articles on Wikipedia, mainly in the field of endocrinology (as I mentioned earlier). Therefore, the dedication should be encouraged rather than restricted. The user also contributed to Wikijournal of Medicine, see [2]. As I mentioned earlier, I ask you to consider lifting the ban because with the constantly evolving nature of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is possible that some edits may inadvertently fall under the category of gender-related dispute or controversy. The user, acknowledging that, was effectively restricted from editing Wikipedia at all, so we lost a valuable contributor, and because of that I respectfully request for you to consider lifting the topic ban from all pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies for this user (Maneesh). Thank you for your time and consideration. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maneesh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Guerillero: Hello! My name is Maxim Masiutin! I don't know what is the correct procedure to ask lifting a topic ban imposed on another user (Maneesh), therefore, I am using the template unblock if that is appropriate. See the reasons to lift the ban in my message above (that I left a few minutes earlier). Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, not the way to appeal an arbitration enforcement restriction. Spicy (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:AE, not through unblock requests, and third-party appeals are not considered. Maneesh can make an appeal on his own if he wishes. Spicy (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Guerillero: wanted to ask clarification on this sanction -- would this TBAN cover articles such as Sex differences in medicine, 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, Disorders of sex development, Intersex? Or only places in those articles where gender is involved? Is this an arbcom thing? or an AE thing? Thanks for any guidance you can provide. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid all of those articles -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the DS for gender and sexuality perhaps need to be expanded to these articles as well,

Please ping me! 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Maneesh, the best thing for you to do is stay away from any articles that you're not sure of as being under your topic ban. From this moment onward, many editors out there will be watching you very closely. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with GoodDay. And Maneesh, don't let this get you down. Let it be a learning experience. I suggest you work on areas of Wikipedia that have nothing to do with gender or sex, and if you do well there, then it will be worth trying to appeal the topic ban in the future if you so wish. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just sent you an email about the Androgen backdoor pathway. Just wanted to make sure that your email works. Thank you! -- 22:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Maxim Masiutin (talk)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]