User talk:J9Peterson

Welcome!

Hello, J9Peterson, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HiLo48, J9Peterson (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J9Peterson (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of J. K. Rowling, an article under double discretionary sanctions with special administrative rulings in effect. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:J. K. Rowling, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Further similar edits can result in an arbitration enforcement block. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my edit appeared biased, but the current statement is not accurate & lacks references.

The word ‘some’ is a vague quantifier, & is unreferenced in this particular article.

My preference is for unbiased accuracy; a photographic snapshot, if you will, that will stand the test of time.

I was unaware of sanctions & the dispute process, but will read up asap so that amendments for accuracy with appropriate references can be made.

I will also read up on Wikipedia’s definition & policy on ‘edit warring’.

I’m hoping my university experience in proofreading, editing, dictionary building & linguistics will help improve the accuracy & value of this unbiased website. (J9Peterson (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)) [[[User:J9Peterson|J9Peterson]] (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)] J9Peterson (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that your edit appeared biased; at times, we are forced to accept consensus on Wikipedia even if we feel the prose is inferior. That particular sentence was the subject of a very well-attended WP:RFC and WP:FAR; changing it would likely require a whole new RFC, and take months. That said, I disagree that the current text is unsupported by sources, and know of no sources that support your edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry to have caused so much trouble & jumping into a current hotly debated topic without authorisation or knowledge of edit warring, double sanctions,etc.

We were having internet connectivity issues at that time & I mistook the ‘reverting back’ for my internet temporarily not working - my partner was ‘ISP shopping’ & managed to interrupt the normal ‘smooth transition’ - hence my multiple attempts at uploading. I will make sure I have stable connection whenever I edit in future.

I can see what a difficult process it must be & the term ‘herding cats’ comes to mind. I have had some experience in ‘herding cats’ in student & professional life before retirement - I want my time here to be productive & helpful, not detrimental to yourself & others.

Although irrelevant, I do have just one reference for my attempted one word edit but have not yet read up on how to insert it (which I won’t do now, of course, but the reference has been used on a related Wikipedia page).

Stryker, Susan; Bettcher, Talia (2016). "Introduction: Trans/Feminisms". Transgender Studies Quarterly. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 3 (1–2). doi:10.1215/23289252-3334127. Retrieved 17 September 2020.

The whole paragraph lacks references. J9Peterson (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to apologize; new editors cannot know (until someone tells them) how difficult it is to edit a controversial Featured article. See WP:LEADCITE; article WP:LEADs do not require citations as they are summaries of content in the body of the article. As far as I can tell (?), Stryker does not mention J. K. Rowling, so its use in this article would by synthesis; if I have missed something, please provide a quote. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained more: I thought I saw a problem with the % of feminists who are anti-trans (TERF), & who agree with JK Rowling, & appear to be a tiny yet vocal minority (small number of world total) of feminists; therefore JKRowling wouldn’t be mentioned in that reference. But this question of % / quantity might prove difficult to reference as it is an on-going volatile issue atm. I need to get my skills up before getting involved in this level of editing / writing.🤦‍♀️ Thanks for your patience & help.👍🏻 J9Peterson (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to do when just starting to edit is to find an uncontroversial but underdeveloped article on a topic you know well, and begin by editing there, before tackling a Featured article in a controversial topic under double administrative sanction! You can look at the top of the talk page of any article to see how it is assessed; finding a C-class article that you can improve can be an easier way to start and learn the ropes. When I started editing over 15 years ago, for months I had a query on my userpage about who the heck wrote the manual in here :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even more experienced editors sometimes lose track of the fact that sources need to discuss the subject of the article. Entirely different to writing an essay, thesis or PhD where you are expected to combine sources to reach some new idea, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

Sorry, reverted you there as "Material culture is the aspect of social reality grounded in the objects and architecture that surround people." Thus human was redundant and might even confuse people about what material culture means. Don't let being reverted like this worry or discourage you, it's all part of the learning process. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]