User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Archive/2

Health Liberation Now

Hey. Might I suggest reposting your two lengthy messages made at Talk:Genspect to the reliable sources noticeboard? While we could come to a local consensus on that talk page as to whether or not this source is reliable, content from that site could be used on many trans and non-binary related articles. A discussion at RSN would enable this. The statements by other RS like Vice and Time go a great deal to establishing the reliability of the source, and you may also wish to check scholarly uses of the site to demonstrate use by others in sources of the highest quality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genspect RfC

Hey. You should re-review WP:RFCOPEN with regards to the RfC you just launched at Talk:Genspect#RFC. You need to sign the RfC question otherwise Legobot, the bot which adds the RFC to the appropriate lists won't pick up on it correctly, and might even remove it outright. You should also review WP:CANVAS, as the notification you gave at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Is Genspect Anti-trans? Request for comment is pretty biased because of the overview paragraph and fails WP:INAPPNOTE. There's a couple of templates that you can use for such notifications that are considered neutral, which are listed at the bottom of WP:CANVAS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the RfC question you don't need the second sentence. That could be better presented and fleshed out in more detail in your !vote as proposer. There you can also draw in any supporting references, or choice quotes for your chosen position. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Thank you! Guess I'm still learning the ropes. I thought I had signed it, I've just gotten spoiled by the reply button and now expect my comments to be auto-signed lol. I was somewhat unsure of the format which is why I thought it might be better to point to the above discussion than leave the first vote on the RFC I opened. Fixed both issues.

I was trying hard as I could to be neutral with the second paragraph and just give a general overview of the facts and discussion. Nothing I said in it was false, most of it's in the lead of the article, and the primary issue editors have raised with including the descriptor has been that not all sources use the term. Frankly I think it's fairly ridiculous we need to have this RFC in the first place for obvious reasons but c'est la vie. Do you think it would be better to remove the paragraph or add it as a reply to the post? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be better to remove the paragraph or add it as a reply to the post Remove it entirely from the notification on the WikiProject, then make a similar contribution to the RfC itself. Keep the notification of the RfC short and sweet, all you need to say is that there's an RfC that has interests to the WikiProject on an article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello TheTranarchist! Your additions to Boots theory have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Health Liberation Now!

Hello, TheTranarchist,

Thank you for creating Health Liberation Now!.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please review the sources. Some of these do not cover the subject in detail but merely quote employees. The article appears it may not meet notability standards. Will leave it a little while for further review.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MaxnaCarta}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: I got all the sources by searching for the exact text "Health Liberation Now" and Ky Schevers and Lee Leveille are described by Xtra Magazine as the driving force behind it, as they're the founders and only two acknowledged employees.

In terms of notability, I believe that Xtra Magazine meets WP:SIRS. I think the Independent article does as well since while it focuses more on Leveille's research and only names the organization once, it links to it more often as the research they're referring to. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTranarchist another editor thinks its notable, so it's likely to be reviewed now. All g! :) Keep up the good work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta: Thank you! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Health Liberation Now! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Health Liberation Now! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Liberation Now! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly greetings

Hey, just saw your response.

It's not relevant to the RFC so I don't plan to engage with it (sorry, I've already argued these things for hours IRL, and we could debate for hours ourselves, but I doubt I'd hear an argument I haven't heard before). But I just wanted to make clear that I'm not attacking you, have zero animosity against you whatsoever, and respect you as an editor. When I said the comparison was "condemnable", I wasn't targettinng you, just the wording itself, which I've indeed heard many times before. Just wanted to make it clear "it's not personal" (I don't do 'personal'). Feel free to remove this (or keep, whatever) once you've read it. DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb: Thank you for the greetings, I knew you weren't personally attacking me, but still felt the wording was justifiable and "condemnable" was a bit far as I was trying to illustrate a point about the language used by the Telegraph as covered in RS, especially given the similarities between the two concepts has been noted by those who experience both transphobia and antisemitism and is a nuanced position people can respectfully debate and disagree about. My apologies for the wall of text, I always reply thoroughly and try and be as comprehensive as possible in my arguments, sometimes too much so. In any case, I likewise have nothing personal, respect your work as an editor, and wish you only the best. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wish you only the best Very much likewise! DFlhb (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is TheTranarchist. Thank you. RAN1 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so what do I do to see your discussions of Wikipedia

Struggling with Mastodon! Doug Weller talk 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Doug Weller: Think of Mastodon accounts somewhat like email accounts. An account username is in the format @username@instance-name.

So if you've signed up for an instance that isn't the one that TheTranarchist is on, then into the search box on your instance you'll want to put both the username and instance name into the searchbox on your instance. You can get those from TheTranarchist's profile on the instance they are on. However if you're on the same instance as TheTranarchist is on, then you can just put their username into the search box. This will bring up their profile on your instance, and you should be able to click the Follow button then.

If you are on another instance, don't worry if you can't see all of TheTranarchists posts. The way that Mastodon works is that the instance you're on only starts caching content from a user on another instance after someone on your instance either follows them or boosts one of their toots. As soon as you follow them, any new posts made by that user will start to appear in your timeline. If you want to read their old posts however, before you followed them, then you'll need to open their profile in a web browser, on their instance. Then you can scroll down until you've seen everything. If however you're on the same instance, then all of their posts prior to your following them will appear because it's local data. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should check whether your instance is one of those that block kolektiva.social, which could also cause this. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. kolektiva has been defederated by some instances, eightpoint.app by others. And of course those two have mutually defederated each other as well. That whole situation between those two instances (and one more whose name I can't remember) is a mess to put mildly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Must try that out tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Hi Doug, sorry I forgot to get back to you on this, were you able to work everything out on Mastodon? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTranarchist I’m getting there. Looks better than Post so far but of course I’m on the Beta version. I’ve already followed Alice Roberts and Flint DIbble on Mastodon. Flint does a lot of debunking of fringe archaeology. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Warning

Hi there. You're involved in an edit war on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and appear to be debating another editor through edit summaries. By my count, you're at 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, and any further would be a violation of the 3RR rule. Please bring these discussions to the article's talk page.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lord Roem:, I was not the only editor reverting PaddyKumar's edits, which were mostly tantamount to vandalism. They seem obviously WP:NOTHERE, and in their latest edit they openly use bigoted language and defend their supposed right to misgender trans people. They exceeded 3RR before I did, which I warned them about, and I asked them to take their concerns to talk. Me and other editors explained our points at talk. While I appreciate the warning, I just wanted to point out the above context. I'm actually planning to raise the issue of their editing at AE, but am not sure the proper procedure and besides am still away from my computer with a phone near dying. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: Broken ping so redoing TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the block and AE case after I wrote this lol. Double the appreciation! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]

I'm going to reiterate this edit warring warning. If you add content and another editor removes it the next step is get consensus for inclusion, not edit war. Springee (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]