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)
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)
Do you think it would be better to remove the paragraph or add it as a reply to the postRemove 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
wish you only the bestVery much likewise! DFlhb ( talk) 03:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Struggling with Mastodon! Doug Weller talk 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@username@instance-name
.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)
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)
@ Lord Roem: Broken ping so redoing TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Do you think it would be better to remove the paragraph or add it as a reply to the postRemove 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
wish you only the bestVery much likewise! DFlhb ( talk) 03:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Struggling with Mastodon! Doug Weller talk 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@username@instance-name
.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)
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)
@ Lord Roem: Broken ping so redoing TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)