User talk:Foxmilder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi Foxmilder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for edit requests. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you for explaining this. Foxmilder (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'm Chaheel Riens. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Remsense that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Whether you're correct or not, your recent edit to Remsense's talk page is nothing short of rude. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's rude, in the sense that it's a detailed criticism of somebody's conduct, yeah. You can read it, understand its content, and object to it on the basis of that understanding. Do you find that more unpleasant or unproductive than a lazy, insubstantial dismissal of something you've crafted with considerable care? That was the point I was making, after all: if we are to dismiss one another's contributions, and in the process hurt one another's feelings — as we inevitably will do, from time to time — it is infinitely more productive to do so in formal arguments than in grunts. "Whether [I'm] correct or not", you are able to discern precisely what I'm being in/correct about. Is that not an improvement? Foxmilder (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's rude in the sense that it was unnecessarily rude.
- Could you have made the same points without being condescending? If so - then why didn't you? And if not, then perhaps Remsense isn't the only one who could do with an education in the English language?
- I'm not engaging any further. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Uh no, your fantastical beliefs are not mainstream
"This, after all, is central to the mainstream understanding of sex and gender that Rowling et al reject: the consensus that one can, without contradiction, be “biologically male” without necessarily being a “man”; that there is no unitary essence according to which one is definitively “male” or “female”"
https://chronicleofhighereducation.substack.com/p/no-theres-no-consensus-about-the ~2026-41662-97 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, what’s this about? Is the heading about “fantastical beliefs” directed at me, with the “fantastical beliefs” in question being my own?
- This would be a lot easier to follow had you posted this response on the relevant article’s talk page rather than here. I don’t recall the exact context of the statement you’re objecting to, and your intention in disputing such a statement — I should hope — is to improve the article in question, not to start a personal argument with me.
- The “fantastical belief” you attribute to me is not an expression of any deeply-held personal belief on my part. It’s merely an attempt to summarise the extent to which the gender/sex distinction is accepted by the mainstream. The distinction in question is a linguistic one, so I’m not sure why you’ve sent me a blog post about biology… ?
- In any case, as I’ve said, if you disagree as to the extent of mainstream acceptance of this linguistic convention, this is not a productive place to express that disagreement. Neither is it productive to characterise other editors’ talk-page contributions as “fantastical beliefs”.
- That’s as substantive a response as I can give to a message with no content beyond a quotation of something I’ve said and a link to a blog-post, so I’ll leave it at that.
- I have no interest whatsoever in having an argument with you here. If you wish to contribute to the talk-page discussion you picked that quote from, contribute to it there, not here.
- Regards. Foxmilder (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)