User talk:TaqPCR - Wikiwand

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TaqPCR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, I'm Swatjester. I noticed that you recently removed content from AGM-158 JASSM without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I did include an edit summary though. Again the AGM-158 JASSM-XR being dedescribed in the content I deleted is a proposal for a greatly enlarged variant that was never made. That a variant that has been made once shared a designation with it does not mean the current variant is that proposal. TaqPCR (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I added a section to the talk page with proof that the size of the AGM-158B-2 did not change as described by the content I deleted. If you think that's insufficient we can discuss more and out of respect I'll hold off on editing it again until you respond or a day passes. But I reiterate, the AGM-158B-2 is real (though not worthy of its own section) while the JASSM-XR being described does not and Wikipedia is spreading misinformation when it says it does. TaqPCR (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page -- but it appears you've significantly misread the article (which already explicitly mentions that it changed designation to AGM-158B-2); and regardless you need to provide sources for your claim that it was "a greatly enlarged variant that was never made." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hi TaqPCR! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of SCUM Manifesto. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:SCUM Manifesto, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

"Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable."

Pot meet kettle. You're the one who is reverting an edit made by multiple users because you disagree with pointing out that SCUM is a call to androcide. I also followed your suggestion when you said that we should be consistent and provide links to her other points. TaqPCR (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That was not a suggestion. The burden is on those wishing to include disputed content to obtain consensus. That's you in this case. Multiple users have also reverted the addition. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to SCUM Manifesto. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

You clearly believe that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, which does not justify edit warring (see above) and also suggests that you are fundamentally unwilling or unable to work collaboratively with other users. I strongly urge you to slow down and use the dispute-resolution options mentioned above. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. You are the one who is not.

You said if androcide was linked the other content discussed in the quote should be linked. I agreed so I made the edit that way.

You then said I needed a citation to support the claim that androcide is the correct term. I found one.

You still keep reverting it. TaqPCR (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I never said either of those things. Both I and MrOllie have explained our rationale for excluding the links. Another user, OzzyMuffin238, even proposed a compromise that you have so far ignored. Keep going like this and you can expect to be blocked sooner rather than later. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"The manifesto also called on women to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, [and] institute complete automation; are we also proposing to link to Automation, Anarchism, Communism, and/or Post-capitalism?"

"In that case it is supported by sources, in this case it is not."

As to OzzyMuffin, his proposed edit is whether or not she's serious about the androcide which is a different discussion. As I replied to him I don't think whether it's satirical or not is relevant to whether it should be linked. Things being discussed satirically are the thing being discussed. Do you disagree with this? Or do you disagree that eliminating the male sex through killing all men who don't agree to creating a world that is free of men is the systematic killing of males? TaqPCR (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Are we also proposing to link to Automation, Anarchism, Communism, and/or Post-capitalism is a question, not a suggestion.

In that case it is supported by sources, in this case it is not was not said by me. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct my bad in misatributing that particular quote. But you still asked for sources.

"We go by the predominant views among reliable sources, not dictionary definitions"

I then gave you one. You still claimed it was POV and OR and when I pushed back saying I literally gave a source so how was it OR you said other sources said the opposite and started citing your/mrollie's reading of the primary source as argument as if you hadn't just spent the last dozen comments saying WP:NOR TaqPCR (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The predominant views among reliable sources are not the same as a passing reference in a single published source. WP:NOR applies to what goes into articles, not talk pages. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles