User talk:HairlessPolarBear

Welcome!

Hi HairlessPolarBear! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted the deletion nomination tag at [[Femosphere] since you did not complete the nomination. Please review Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process for notes about how things are deleted and instructions about how to perform them, if you so choose. Happy editing. Skynxnex (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will do. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have corrected the nomination on the article, the nomination page, the listing page, and notified the author. I've done so since you've provided the rationale but in the future if you decide to nominate things or do other back-house tasks, consider reading the instructions a bit more. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is my first time doing this, but I thought I did it correctly the second time. Thank you for helping! HairlessPolarBear (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to [1] your !vote as you typed {{delete}} which is used to tag a page for speedy deletion. It's clear you were not trying to have the deletion discussion itself deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for fixing this for me! HairlessPolarBear (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm FULBERT. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Femosphere have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FULBERT, Thanks for the note. I want to clarify that my recent edit to the Femosphere article, specifically the removal of the "radicalisation narratives" section, was not experimental, but a policy-based cleanup action aligned with WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V.

I outlined the rationale clearly on the article’s Talk page on May 1, received no objections, and proceeded with the change after 72 hours, which is consistent with best practices around consensus-building.

If there are specific sources you believe support the synthesis claims in that section, I’d be happy to review them and consider how they could be integrated in line with policy.

My intent is to support the article’s quality, neutrality, and sourcing; not to erase perspectives, but to ensure verifiability and avoid original research.

Thanks again, and I’m always open to collaborating constructively.

— HairlessPolarBear (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HairlessPolarBear Thank you for your reply here. Given how invested you appear to be in this article, perhaps it may be useful on the article talk page itself to work step-by-step through each part of the section you find objectionable, so that each citation can be explored individually rather than through an entire section delete? Your comment there before my reverting it was somewhat complicated and involved, and working through this step by step may help move forward with your various concerns? FULBERT (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FULBERT,

Thanks for the suggestion to go step-by-step with the “Radicalisation narratives” section. I’ve now begun that process on the article’s Talk page here and posted the first two bullet reviews. Happy to continue collaborating there as we work through it.

— HairlessPolarBear (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for repeated vandalism of Femosphere article

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ~~~~ Daft Elephant (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daft Elephant, I want to clarify that my recent edits to the Femosphere article (specifically the removal of the “Radicalisation narratives” section) were not vandalism, but part of a good-faith cleanup effort.

As noted in the AfD outcome (“Keep, without prejudice toward a rewrite to address NPOV and other content issues”), this kind of cleanup is encouraged when content may violate core policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH.

I’ve explained my rationale in detail on the article’s Talk page, including a step-by-step review of the sources, and waited 72 hours for collaborative input. I’m also following the suggestions of other editors (e.g., FULBERT) to handle the process carefully and collaboratively.

I understand you’ve raised similar concerns previously during the AfD discussion, including a request for admin intervention. However, the responding admin declined to take action at that time. At least one other experienced editor has also stated they do not view my edits as vandalism.

If there are specific sources or concerns you feel have not been addressed, I’m more than willing to discuss them on the article Talk page. My goal is not to erase perspectives, but to improve the article’s verifiability and neutrality in line with Wikipedia’s content policies.

I also understand the article is currently rated C-class, which suggests there’s still room for improvement through careful sourcing and attribution; something I’m hoping to contribute to in good faith.

Thanks,

— HairlessPolarBear (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HairlessPolarBear, all of your points have been comprehensively refuted and your repeated bludgeoning should be stopped.

Your bad-faith usage of the AfD process, along with your vandalism of the article (e.g. your deletion of entire sections that are demonstrably objective and well-referenced) are unequivocally vandalism.

Your final warning stands and repeated vandalism will not be tolerated.

At this juncture I shall remind you of Wikipedia's advice for people in your position: If you find yourself fanatically obsessed with an article to the point that you are making bad-faith edits, vandalising the article, bludgeoning, and/or being disruptive, then you should step away.

I encourage you to follow this advice.

As advised by another editor, I'm drawing a line under this now. I expect you to do the same. Daft Elephant (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbots

While I actually agree that the Femosphere article is a pile of hot garbage in its current form, you are doing yourself absolutely no favours drafting AfDs in ChatGPT. Wikipedia culture strongly opposes the use of chatbots to write commentary, especially in places like AfDs and AN/I and most of the editors here are well read enough to easily spot chatbot text. We would rather your unvarnished comments, even if you have some challenges with grammar and spelling, over the output of a plagiarism bot. Please remember this in future. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 Thanks for this; I genuinely appreciate the clarity.

For transparency, I haven’t used AI to generate the content for AfDs, ANI, or other formal proceedings; I used it to help clarify/improve formatting, check policy names, review tone etc…before posting. But all the analysis, critiques and decisions are my own.

I’m a social science researcher and new to editing Wikipedia and I’ve also leaned on AI a bit to help navigate the unfamiliar processes and language norms. I have reduced the amount of AI formatting review of my comments over this process, as I have been learning what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia dialog.

That said, I take the feedback seriously and I will take extra care to limit the use of AI for my formatting and checking from now on.

Thanks again,

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically: if we can tell you're using AI you are using it too much. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223 Got it!

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for gender related pages

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

Doug Weller talk 11:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Femosphere" in Spanish Wiki

Hi, HairlessPolarBear. The user AyumiSeiko (who really is Daft Elephant, one of Daniel Vizago's puppeteers - a user I reported a few hours ago -) translated the article Femosphere (here) into the Spanish version of Wikipedia, despite the original information and questionable sources. So I need you to help me nominate the article for deletion. Or at least, add one of the red templates, such as "apparently irrelevant," and then the administrators can decide whether or not to delete the article. As you can see, the article is nothing more than a copy of the manosphere, only with the genders reversed. Kind regards.

P.S.- I apologize if I mentioned you in my complaint against Vizago and his puppets, since based on the number of issues you've published, I thought you had some connection with Vizago. But after learning that you had sent the article for deletion, I realized otherwise. You may not be familiar with the user DanielVizago, but he has been evading his account to write "controversial" articles about gender and sexuality, as is the case with "Femosphere". Ramaxel (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Including sources discussing online misandry in the Femosphere article?. Thank you. --Dekadoka (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]