User talk:Unstirredshading23

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Don't ask, don't tell has been reverted.
Your edit here to Don't ask, don't tell was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://web.archive.org/web/20080606142127/http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/files/witt_v_air_force_0635644.pdf, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/files/witt_v_air_force_0635644.pdf) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd want to revert these changes made by this temp ID. I see you've reverted them before. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, 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.

Hello Unstirredshading23, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I apologize if my edits violated policy. I had originally reverted the deletions because they were made by a sock (as stated multiple times by TAIV users) and because I felt that inclusion in the article should be dependent on whether or not reliable sources had reasonably linked Amanda to the topic at hand. I, at the time, had (incorrectly) judged that the paragraph made it clear that she had not identified herself to be trans and that we were not considering her trans. Upon deeper thought, I realized that inclusion in the article itself was giving an incorrect impression of the same.

As such, while I understand that I am not being placed under sanctions, formally or informally, could you advise me if there is something I should do to help me become more familiar with the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia regarding contentious topics (for instance, being advised to refrain from editing mainspace articles about BLPs until I have looked at the edits performed by other editors in detail)? To be more specific, I am asking you for advice regarding how I can familiarize myself with the application of policies to avoid accidentally making edits in violation of policy. Is there something that you specifically think I should be doing to learn more about policies and to avoid violating policy?

I hope that you don't bear any ill will towards me regarding the edits and apologize if this is not the correct place to ask this question. Thanks. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. Don't worry about it too much, but which TAIV users said the user is a sock before you reverted, and why didn't you state this reason in your edit summary then? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree The claim that the user is a sock was made here by a user with TAIV before I made the reversion (it may have been made in other places as well) with some of the behavioral evidence being provided in edit summaries on the article.

I didn't state that it was a reversion of a sock because I, at the time, felt that focusing on the content aspect of the revert (namely my beliefs at the time that the statement we're not claiming she's transgender, and the sources don't say she is either contradicted the sources cited in the article, that the article made it clear that she has not self-identified as trans and should not be considered trans, and that there was significant coverage linking her to the topic) was more important than focusing on the user conduct aspect (i.e. reversion of a sock) and wanted to clarify that I was reverting not only on the grounds of sockpuppetry, but also on the basis of my genuine belief at the time that the paragraph was encyclopedic in nature.

I apologize for any confusion that my poorly written edit summary may have caused and now understand that inclusion in the article gives the incorrect impression that Wikipedia considers her to be trans. Unstirredshading23 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't actually need to use TAIV to determine that they were a sock because it was very obvious they were evading a block. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think your approach is fine, no worries. I had just wondered as there was no TAIV user in the history of the article reverting before you. Thanks for the clarification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)