User talk:Augmented Seventh

Edit War

A lot of edits are based on how your users feel and not based on facts. I had edits removed because other users continue to revert them when wiki and reputable sources disagree. No point to putting the effort to improve pages if facts are not most important. I will not be editing anymore and this has been very eye opening to how unreliable the information on Wikipedia really is. Cltj (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, users are using USA census data as a reason to revert a name to unisex, completely ignoring the rest of the world, thereby making an innaccurate representation as a whole. Cltj (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that it is a unisex name in the United States.

Could you edit the body to include the difference between global regions? Augmented Seventh 🎱 03:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It makes far more sense to have the page represent everyone, not specifically edit based on region. At least for the infobox. If Ryan is statistically 0.1% more female than John, it makes little sense to label it as unisex. Wikipedia should be for everyone equally, not USA then everyone.

I would agree in the text below to have a paragraph making regional distinctions though. Cltj (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://genderize.io/our-data

https://genderize.io/names/ryan

Tons of data pulled from every country. If you feel the need, I provided their data Cltj (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean.

There remains individual encyclopedia projects for different regions.

It appears this subject has been addressed, exhaustively, in the past, and the consensus is reflected in the division into various nations. Augmented Seventh 🎱 03:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I'll leave editing those pages to reflect objective reality, instead of keeping it unisex for whatever reason, to the rest of you. Not having a battle to just have facts posted on the most minor things. I noticed it is on plenty of other provably male names listed as Unisex. Jack, Kyle, Cody, Ryan just off the top of my head. Also interesting that names labeled as having biblical origins are less likely labeled as unisex. As are female names with the same or higher percentages of male than Kyle. Johanna has a higher spread than Kyle. Carina is the same and is labeled as female as well. There is obvious bias and it is very easy to avoid. Unisex should be set a 5% minimum as a standard as wiki's own Unisex page supports that. Cltj (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As are female names with the same or higher percentages of male than Kyle (has female)* Cltj (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went to a notable actress, Michael Learned, and indeed Michael is listed as a traditionally masculine.

It would seem to be arbitrary, to a degree. I'll look into tomorrow. There's always a way to add reliably sourced fact to the encyclopedia. As with any collaborative project, it can sometimes be accomplished through measured incremental actions. Augmented Seventh 🎱 05:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind fixing Cody to properly state male? I provided sources but it keeps being changed back to this unisex bs. Cltj (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Cody is a unisex name that is used mostly for males. Augmented Seventh 🎱 15:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genderize is not an authoritative source, they consider Ashley to be a female name. 46.34.192.168 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's more reputable than this wiki and if you had actually took the time to look at their data, it is pulled from census data from every country. Also it says predominantly female for Ashley which is statistically accurate at 4.7% male. Cody is 1.7% female, less than 1% more female than John (0.5%),it's male and labeling it unisex only further adds to Wikipedia being disreputable. Editing here has made it very eye opening a lot of you have no idea what you are talking about including the mod. Keep making the site crap based on your opinions and feelings. I'll stick to data that supports my argument instead of trying to have an edit war with morons who think a name that is 98.3% male is unisex. Cltj (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disparage other editors with your talk page comments. This is a collaborative project, and reasonable people will disagree.

I understand your stance, I just disagree.

Have a Wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh 🎱 17:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing reasonable about your stance. I doubt you even looked at that data. By your logic every name is unisex Cltj (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acting as if you disagreeing is a higher bar than actual statistical data just screams hubris. Exact sort of person who should not be a moderator Cltj (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy fellow editor,

"...an edit war with morons...* wouldn't really bolster your actual argument about the arguably arbitrary nature of name-gender on some English wikipedia articles.

I encourage you to continue to search for a way to source and cite these additions. There are discussion boards where you could suggest project-wide guidelines.

Best wishes, Augmented Seventh 🎱 00:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For protecting the project of vandalism. Keep up the good work! PawPatroler (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy Augmented Seventh 🎱 02:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Champions 2025

You do realise the event could be cancelled? 151.226.14.179 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the encyclopedia doesn't include speculative trivia around notable current events.

Keep me posted. I'm now curious to know if it goes. Augmented Seventh 🎱 07:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this guy keeps vandalizing Tennessee’s football page can you help or get an admin Chasenielsen545 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]