Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g.
this and
this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit
![]() |
I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –
Daveout
(talk)
21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?
I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links [1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")
That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.
I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.
And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.
Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?
What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.
I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023 |
Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.
Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A ( talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki ( talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like " War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 ( talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future. Ppt91 talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g.
this and
this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit
![]() |
I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –
Daveout
(talk)
21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?
I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links [1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")
That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.
I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.
And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.
Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?
What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.
I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023 |
Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.
Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A ( talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki ( talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like " War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 ( talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future. Ppt91 talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this forward-marching kitty is singing a punk song, and I hope you are, too.
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
For your kind and helpful comments to new user Johnp99999. Love to see it. –– FormalDude (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
I noticed that you had added to the litigation and article on Tri-Ess which had to have been so taxing but was such necessary work, thank you! I then saw that you were litigated to hell and back on ANI - for that, I am sorry. It happened to me on my last account for reasons that I don't want to get into but that were very personal and it's not easy. If an issue is personal to you, you become non-objective, if you suggest there's bias on Wikipedia and someone is being a bad actor, you're the problem. I feel I have a better understanding of these social norms now, but the calls to civility as a marginalized person are not easy.
What I will say is that sometimes a ban from a topic could be a blessing in disguise - writing about hate groups and LGBT issues is super important but sometimes we all can need a vacation. I hope you can find joy in your chosen topic areas. Be well. Computer-ergonomics ( talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
Nice job continuing to improve Wikipedia even after all of the recent attacks against you! You are a very productive contributor good at countering Wikipedia's systemic bias, and the campaign to drive you away is disappointing. I am looking forward to having you fully back after your ban expires! — Freoh 10:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi TheTranarchist, we've not interacted before, but I suppose you wouldn't mind if I bothered you with a message of support as well. I've read your TBAN appeal and what you've gone and are still going through behind the scenes is awful beyond recognition. Just know that there are many Wikimedians who admire your ability and determination to stand strong in face of systemic injustices, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. Alas, it might be for the best outcome to wait out those 6 months, which I see are almost halfway over now. You did very well addressing the hate movements so far, spending the rest of the TBAN period by addressing social movements that seek to improve society in general, as you're already doing for tenant organizing, seems like a good topic to keep delving into until then. m:Wiki Loves EuroPride 2023 awaits your successful comeback in September! Happy to see you around until then, and wish you well. Cheers! – Vipz ( talk) 00:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Lavender Heart |
The Lavender Heart is awarded to Wikipedians who endure anti-LGBTQ+ harassment in the course of their efforts improving the encyclopedia. While we may all do our best to laugh it off and not feed the trolls, it's important to recognize that words can cut deep, and to make sure that no one feels they're alone when they deal with bigotry and harassment. 💜 — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 14:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
Others gave helpful advice, I just want to say I caught up on the ANI threads and want to say I’m sorry for all the harassment you’ve endured and that I appreciate your contributions/presence in improving queer coverage on Wikipedia. I’ve been around here for 7 years and frequently took long/short breaks in between and would recommend it for you, especially when you’re editing in tenacious areas. Wikipedia is enjoyable, but it should as Tamzin similarly stated not at the expense of your health. Cheers! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g.
this and
this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit
![]() |
I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –
Daveout
(talk)
21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?
I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links [1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")
That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.
I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.
And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.
Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?
What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.
I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023 |
Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.
Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A ( talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki ( talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like " War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 ( talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future. Ppt91 talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having my back during the whole Gloria Hemingway debacle! I'm still relatively inexperienced in page editing, & I think a more experienced person like yourself has helped articulate my case in ways I couldn't! Logan Sheppard ( talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Wikipedia:Move review#Commenting in a move review, particularly "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review." Anyway, it's out of our hands now. St Anselm ( talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
On 3 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boots theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the "boots" theory, poverty is more expensive than being rich? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Boots theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks for your work expanding articles on trans topics, e.g.
this and
this. Hope you didn't mind my minor alterations to the former edit
![]() |
I appreciate your works on trans topics. I'm trans too but I haven't really edited trans topics before, any recommendations on articles to improve? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job on counterbalancing all the "gender critical" articles that have a disingenuous positive or euphemistic facade\presentation. I'd do the same or would help you out if I had the time and the skills.... –
Daveout
(talk)
21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
I don't think we've every interacted directly, but we've had some briefly overlapping edits on some pages related to trans topics and I've come to associate your username with responsible editing and some of the most level-headed discussion from anybody in the Wikipedia:GENSEX area. That ANI discussion is a bit of a farce and I think you handled it just about as well as possible - Don't let them get you down! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 05:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm a fan. As a trans woman, I love what you do, and it's a shame to see so many people assuming bad faith on your part. So many implications that LGBTQ sources and editors should be excluded from LGBTQ topics. In a discussion here, you say you try to stay limited to a few articles at a time. That makes sense. But what about a wider critique of wikipedia's policies and culture?
I've become somewhat of a wiki-skeptic or wiki-doomer since realizing this is a website that actively promotes hate groups by ensuring their URLs are towards the top of a google search. I'm not exaggerating. There is (weak) consensus that hate groups, no matter how vile, should have their URLs in the infobox or external links [1] [2]. The RfC couldn't even agree on banning hate sites outside of sharing official group URLs. The RfC makes it pretty clear they're talking about recruitment or propaganda sites for hate groups, but the consensus was still to keep the links. It makes arguing over other sources seem silly when we're on a site that actively helps search engine optimization for stormfront. (in my head: "Oh, you want to reference Abigail Shrier? Well shit, we're giving stormfront free press, so why not...")
That's just one example. I'm sure you're also aware of the deadnaming policy which results in an icon being deadnamed even though she's been on hormones since 1968 and out as a transgender woman since 1979. It clearly violates the spirit of WP:DEADNAME, but any attempt to change it would be spitting into the wind.
I tried to get involved in less-controversial topics in wikipedia, but ethical concerns still pop up in unexpected places. I can't tell you how many bunk real estate data companies I've removed as sources. The large Pharmacology and medicine pages tend to be well-sourced, but there's still plenty of dubious information on here that could be mistaken for health advice.
And that's just on the English wikipedia! We can also talk about the damage wikipedia is able to do to minority languages. Or the inadequate moderation in many of the smaller languages.
Despite all this, wikipedia rarely acknowledges that articles here can have impacts in the real world. BLP policies begin to address this, but that seems mainly tailored to US libel law. The controversial topics policy also begins to address this, but I think that's mainly to prevent talk pages from becoming shitshows, instead of actually reckoning with the fact that we are publishing in the real world. It's like most of wikipedia's core policies were written in the myspace/slashot era, and has only been tweaked at the edges since. Will wikipedia wait for something horrible to happen before something changes? Something like when facebook helped enable a genocide before we change policies here?
What do I propose? IDK! Over time, through essays and discussions, I think consensus could be built on at least re-evaluating what wikipedia's purpose is, and if it can be more responsible as one of the most read publications in the world. We should build solidarity with other marginalized groups on wikipedia, as well as all the radical centrists (lol) who dominate wikipedia's discourse.
I guess my main idea is a long term project to build consensus for making wikipedia a more responsible publication. Maybe these discussions already exist here. Or maybe anyone with these skeptical views inevitably rage quits after a while. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
For your excellent working maintaining and improving the standards of a variety of LGBTQIA+ Topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 27 February 2023 |
Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I am saddened to see you topic-banned; I hope you have fun with other topics, and wish to see you return to GENSEX in an appropriate amount of time.
■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't sweat the ban, the GENSEX area is long overdue for an ARBCOM case anyway, and when that comes you can always request an exemption from your topic ban to participate.
Note, I'm not calling all of those who voted in favour of the ban bigots, but the number of them who just wanted to remove you from the discussion to push their own right-wing POV is definitely non-zero. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:527:D713:5DC1:9F2A ( talk) 21:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
see you around in the geology topic space then, I guess? It's a shame you got topic banned, but then again, I bet you'll find the rest of wikipedia a lot less likely to crucify you over single sentences. 😁 Anyway... have some cool rocks to get you started! :P -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your topic ban. It's unjust and extremely frustrating that'd they'd topic ban a strong contributor to the topic area while transphobic POV-pushers go unchecked. Best of luck to you in whatever you plan to do next. Loki ( talk) 02:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I left my comment at the noticeboard discussion mentioned above. As you can imagine, I disagree with that admin closure, or TBAN against you that resulted from it. I really see that as a sort of injustice. We will see if that TBAN will stay in place... But if it does stay, please, take this seriously – whatever you do, don't even think about breaching the terms of TBAN, and stay far away from the GENSEX area; anything else would surely result in much more severe sanctions, including long-term blocks. I would hate to see a contributor like you removed from the project, so find some other interests and areas where you can contribute. I am sure there are some; I may recommend that you try at WP:ACW, and other topics involving Southern United States. Having in mind our previous exchange of opinions about neo-Confederates, I don't have to worry that you would try to insert trash terms like " War of Northern Aggression" into the American Civil War-related articles. So, you are "politically verified" to participate there in a constructive manner :) — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm really bummed to hear about your topic ban. You brought a level of expertise to the articles that will be missed and I have no doubt that it will have a profoundly negative impact on article quality. There was clear identity based bias at play among some that advocated for your ban, but I fear others may not have been equipped to spot it. Filiforme1312 ( talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Three times a day is without treats, I should add. Not to even mention plays and walks. In other words, plenty of work to do here. ps. I know it seems hard now, but keep your chin up and think about all of the good work you have done and will continue do in the future. Ppt91 talk 23:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this forward-marching kitty is singing a punk song, and I hope you are, too.
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
For your kind and helpful comments to new user Johnp99999. Love to see it. –– FormalDude (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
I noticed that you had added to the litigation and article on Tri-Ess which had to have been so taxing but was such necessary work, thank you! I then saw that you were litigated to hell and back on ANI - for that, I am sorry. It happened to me on my last account for reasons that I don't want to get into but that were very personal and it's not easy. If an issue is personal to you, you become non-objective, if you suggest there's bias on Wikipedia and someone is being a bad actor, you're the problem. I feel I have a better understanding of these social norms now, but the calls to civility as a marginalized person are not easy.
What I will say is that sometimes a ban from a topic could be a blessing in disguise - writing about hate groups and LGBT issues is super important but sometimes we all can need a vacation. I hope you can find joy in your chosen topic areas. Be well. Computer-ergonomics ( talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
Nice job continuing to improve Wikipedia even after all of the recent attacks against you! You are a very productive contributor good at countering Wikipedia's systemic bias, and the campaign to drive you away is disappointing. I am looking forward to having you fully back after your ban expires! — Freoh 10:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi TheTranarchist, we've not interacted before, but I suppose you wouldn't mind if I bothered you with a message of support as well. I've read your TBAN appeal and what you've gone and are still going through behind the scenes is awful beyond recognition. Just know that there are many Wikimedians who admire your ability and determination to stand strong in face of systemic injustices, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. Alas, it might be for the best outcome to wait out those 6 months, which I see are almost halfway over now. You did very well addressing the hate movements so far, spending the rest of the TBAN period by addressing social movements that seek to improve society in general, as you're already doing for tenant organizing, seems like a good topic to keep delving into until then. m:Wiki Loves EuroPride 2023 awaits your successful comeback in September! Happy to see you around until then, and wish you well. Cheers! – Vipz ( talk) 00:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Lavender Heart |
The Lavender Heart is awarded to Wikipedians who endure anti-LGBTQ+ harassment in the course of their efforts improving the encyclopedia. While we may all do our best to laugh it off and not feed the trolls, it's important to recognize that words can cut deep, and to make sure that no one feels they're alone when they deal with bigotry and harassment. 💜 — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 14:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
![]() |
Others gave helpful advice, I just want to say I caught up on the ANI threads and want to say I’m sorry for all the harassment you’ve endured and that I appreciate your contributions/presence in improving queer coverage on Wikipedia. I’ve been around here for 7 years and frequently took long/short breaks in between and would recommend it for you, especially when you’re editing in tenacious areas. Wikipedia is enjoyable, but it should as Tamzin similarly stated not at the expense of your health. Cheers! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |