User talk:Sedeanimu

Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: In addition to this, I do not believe Newimpartial is in good faith. They seem to have a clear bias, and are adamant on undoing such things with a conviction and broken logic - this statement violates Wikipedia policies concerning

Yes, I admit maybe that is a fault. I used the words possibly incorrectly. What I was getting at was your potential bias. As having an identity may interfere with lacking bias. As a person accepts an identity, whether it be political, social, etc. Especially a more recent identity as

non-binary

has only been recently defined (in the 1960s), it seems that a person would find it hard to concede at arguments that would refute a post-modern stance such as sex/gender having clear bounds. This is why I do not accept any identities other than possibly "critical realist" as it puts me in a box- even so, I would only admit my lenience. I have been a "modernist", a "postmodernist", a "communist", "nationalist", etc- whether this be for days, weeks, or months. In the way that I have found such ideologies convincing, but I have broken away from them, and am always changing my stance. Henceforth I do not assign an ideology. And I usually keep my personal convictions privately.

I also believe "gender" is not only something like an ideology, but is more concrete. It describes a person in a quasi-anatomical/concrete way that ideologies cannot- though ideologies may be hard to change. Henceforth, I mentioned that. It would seem bias exists, as I believe. Though I may be wrong, and a study would need to be conducted. Or maybe I can link something relating to bias and the comorbidity with self-identification, which I believe exist- I may be wrong. Anyways, I accept this, and will admit I have not read the

Assume good faith page. I was just using words, I was not aware of the pages existence as I wrote the post. Sedeanimu (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Although, I will add I do not believe it was a

No personal attacks, as I only stated I believed it to be so. I was trying to use logic as to assert the possibility of bias, personal convictions as to not include any absolute statements on the article, etc. I read the criteria, and it did not seem like I fit any one of them for the exception of an ad hominem

, but not really. It is only an exception as it is the most similar case to be made. Though I argue it was not an ad hominem. And I only added that I believed a possible, or I meant to.

I also think the best word I was trying to come up with at the time (which I confused with bad faith) was actually a conflict of interest similar to how most articles work. I believe a conflict of interest was possible. Sedeanimu (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by arguments that would refute a post-modern stance such as sex/gender having clear bounds - my own identities certainly do not depend on postmodernism, nor do I edit Wikipedia out of any desire to have my identities or my opinions reflected therein - if those possible misapprehensions have anything to do with what you meant to say.

It is a well-established principle on Wikipedia that trans and nonbinary people can edit articles related to trans and nonbinary issues, just as Marxists can edit articles on Marxism and French people can edit articles concerning France.

Conflict of interest

is construed much more narrowly on Wikipedia, and bias is evaluated in the actual statements (and article text) editors produce, not based on assumptions related to identities.

Stating that another editor is not in good faith and has a clear bias - in the absence of relevant supporting evidence, which must be presented in the form of diffs - is always a personal attack. Again, don't do that on Wikipedia, please. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt intend to reply, because I felt like not doing so would convey that I will not refute what you said. Anyways, I will say this: OK. I see your points, and I'll just admit your position to be true. I dont intend to do a similar thing as to mention gender identity. And I dont care about arguing for interpretations of personal attacks as it wasnt what I was flagged for. You added that it was also a personal attack only here. Overall, though, my statement: I will agree that it broke the rules, unintentionally due to my ignorance. I meant no malice. And I wont make statements like it without concrete evidence. Which probably will be never because I dont feel like looking for articles to justify myself. Ill just try to avoid commenting on others. Sedeanimu (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2022 (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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.