User talk:80.200.232.89

December 2024

Hello, I'm Eyer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Communism and LGBTQ rights, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyer: The wiki article concurs with everything I wrote already. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further reading, I see that you're adding sourced content from the article to the lead. I'm sorry that I didn't catch that before. A lot of editors add defamatory text to articles as an act of vandalism, and your edit looked like that at first glance. If you re-add your text, be sure to capitalize "East Asian" and "Communist" so that your text matches Wikipedia style. Best wishes. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers 80.200.232.89 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Communism and LGBTQ rights. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. C F A 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mate none of the other phrases are referenced in the lead as well. This is so as to not cause any clutter in the lead. I just added sourced content from the article to the lead. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Communism and LGBTQ rights, you may be blocked from editing. SomeHelpfulEditor (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mate none of the other phrases are referenced in the lead as well. This is so as to not cause any clutter in the lead. I just added sourced content from the article to the lead... like how all wiki articles work. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require sources in the lead. WP:LEAD is a summary of things cited in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2025

Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cap but ok vro 80.200.232.89 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to lie about my edits and vandalize the articles which I edit, you may be blocked from editing. The GWAS article was somewhat understandable, not the article about biology and sexuality though. Perhaps you should try to read what my reasoning was to remove whatever I removed in that article? I mean, the source the person cites quite literally contradicts what they said. It's not fringe when the scientific community generally believes homosexuality to be largely environmental.

Also, nonshared environmental factors =/= prenatal development. It also means unique experiences (their own friend group, for example). prenatal development is definitely a factor, but its not the only one. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It also means unique experiences (their own friend group, for example). prenatal development is definitely a factor, but its not the only one" – well, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Non-shared environment can include effects in utero. As can shared env. A GWAS certainly cannot tell you what type of environment is at play. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? I specifically said that prenatal development is a factor in nonshared environment? You're repeating what I said. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that 100% of the variance in both shared and nonshared factors are simply the cause of prenatal development. That's unscientific and above all disingenious. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're the one insisting that this must be social. I am only saying that your conclusion is unjustified, and that sources are clear that it can be non-social. That is what the evidence indicates. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be non-social. That doesn't mean you can blanket claim that it MUST be non-social. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket claim it "must" be non-social in the article. It says evidence is weak for hypotheses that the post-natal social environment impacts sexual orientation, especially for males. You are making stuff up. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I just realized, monozygotic twins share the same prenatal development. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect: "monozygotic twins at birth show strong differences in methylation levels of individual promoters and large differences in gene expression levels at as many as hundreds of gene loci" [1] Zenomonoz (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the study itself present this as a hypothesis. It's not at all a definitive explanation and definitely not enough to rule out any social influences. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. I am correcting your claim that "twins share the same prenatal development". If that were true, identical twins would always share the same birth defect. Yet they don't. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Vandalism

Please stop vandalising Biology and sexual orientation. Your assertion that there is "straight up lying" on the article is incorrect. The "environment" includes non-social events, such as prenatal hormone exposure. Left handedness only has a modest influence of genes with a heritability of about 25%, but is more or less inborn, due to the environment in utero. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zenomonoz The source itself says that SHARED environmental factors account for 22% of the variance in homosexuality. Also, nonshared environmental factors also include unique experiences or influences, like friendships or events, that make people different, even if they grow up in the same family. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twin studies have been significantly underpowered, for starters. The largest twin study from Sweden found 0% for the shared environment on male sexual orientation, and modest effects on female sexual orientation.

Shared environment can also include any shared prenatal hormone exposure washes, non shared environment can include any fluctuation that only hit one twin. You're the one insisting this must mean postnatal social influence and deleting a reliable secondary source (the Bailey review) to POV push on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zenomonoz That's cool and all, but the phrase in the article alleges that evidence for environmental factors is weak, then use a source contradictory to it. Furthermore, you're insisting that this ISN'T postnatal social influence and instead you're saying that any variance in the environmental factors must mean prenatal development. Again, its unscientific. It's the same for the Swedish twin study that you mentioned. You can't simply claim that. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the phrase in the article alleges that evidence for environmental factors is weak", no the article is explicitly referring to social environment as weak. It is quite clear that non-social environment is important: things like prenatal hormones, maternal immune responses, perturbations in brain growth, and other hypotheses. We defer to secondary sources, not your own interpretation of primary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so cite the secondary source that claims social factors have absolutely no or extremely weak influence to sexual orientation. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It explicitly refers to the Bailey review in the article. There have been more recent studies that looked, for example: "the results offer further evidence that psychosocial influences in the development of adolescent sexual orientation are weak or non-existent". Zenomonoz (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you sent talks about the influences of childrearing* in homosexuality.

It explicitly refers to the Bailey review in the article. the reason why I removed the claim to begin with is because nothing in the Bailey review contains anything clearly saying that social influences play no role. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the reason why I removed the claim to begin with is because nothing in the Bailey review contains anything clearly saying that social influences play no role"

You're just being an incredibly lazy reader then. The Bailey review clearly concludes social theories are weak, especially for males. The article reflects that.

There is even a summary of the Bailey review on the Association for Psychological Science, which states:

Scientific findings do not support the notion that sexual orientation can be taught or learned through social means. And there is little evidence to suggest that non-heterosexual orientations become more common with increased social tolerance.
Scientific evidence suggests that biological and non-social environmental factors jointly influence sexual orientation.

Zenomonoz (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Conceptually, the most straightforward version of a twin study involves identical (monozygotic, or MZ) twins separated shortly after birth and reared in separate, uncorrelated environments. Any similarity between the separated twins must be due to the fact that they are genetically identical and shared the same intrauterine environment, and any differences must reflect postnatal environmental differences. Unfortunately for science, early-separated twins are quite rare, and separated twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual are still rarer. Thus, our knowledge of sexual orientation among separated twins is limited to a few case reports, insufficient in number to draw firm conclusions (Eckert, Bouchard, Bohlen, & Heston, 1986).'

in the study itself. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zenomonoz 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what...? Zenomonoz (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn bro I think you're right ngl. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make your trolling really obvious when you go into other articles and start writing about missing heritability and race and intelligence [2]. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? What do you think 'missing heritability' means? Also race and intelligence was just used as an example Lol. I already removed that portion. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who knows the term "missing heritability" should be aware that environments can be non-social.

And to make it super clear: Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources (reviews, books etc). The issue with you inserting the Ganna study into the heritability page, or the sexual orientation page, is that this is a primary source study. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who knows the term "missing heritability" should be aware that environments can be non-social. That's crazy lmao, you're a yapper fr.

And to make it super clear: Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources (reviews, books etc). The issue with you inserting the Ganna study into the heritability page, or the sexual orientation page, is that this is a primary source study. A significant number of claims use primary sources because, suprisingly, not everything gets the privilege of a secondary source. you're singling me out lol. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as done at Biology and sexual orientation.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.