Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 18 February 2023

Welcome!

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• 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! Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 04:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Some tips on editing controversial topics

Hello, TheTranarchist, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Tl;dr: thanks for your contributions, but you're making some newbie mistakes in the areas of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE especially, and spending too much time changing the WP:LEAD of mature, contentious topics. Also, controversial topics are inherently difficult for anyone to edit, and much more so for new editors. Here are some explanations of what I see going on, and how to get back on track. Now for the gory details:

Thanks very much for your contributions attempting to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of trans issues. In particular, thanks for your use of edit summaries to explain your changes; they are invaluable as a method of communicating with other editors, and are something that many new editors only learn later, so kudos for getting on board with this right away, and keep up the good work! Secondly, bravo for responding to another editor at Talk:Conversion therapy to explain in further detail your intentions on improving the article; this is a good example of discussion, which is a core principle of how Misplaced Pages editors collaborate to improve articles.

I noticed your edit to Conversion therapy, which is on my WP:Watch list (as is pretty much every article you have edited). In my opinion, this edit provided an WP:UNDUE amount of coverage to gender identity conversion in the WP:LEADSENTENCE of the article, and did not reflect the preponderance of reliable sources on the topic, which are more about sexual orientation, so I removed it. I explained my reasoning briefly in the edit summary, and in more detail on the Talk page in the same discussion you previously responded to.

As you are a brand new here and I enjoy helping new editors get on board with the maze of rules and other things to learn here, I checked your contributions and looked at your recent edit to Transgender youth, and found I had to undo it for reasons explained in the summary. I haven't looked at your other contributions. Two edits isn't enough information to see a pattern, but both edits seemed to me to express a point of view based on a desire for fairness and equality towards trans people, issues, or visibility, possibly with a desire to put right some injustices, or promote visibility of trans issues. While highly laudable in the RW, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and for better or worse, is not about fairness, equality, or righting wrongs, but rather is about adding encyclopedic content to notable topics by summarizing the majority (and significant minority) opinion of what reliable sources have to say about a topic. Sometimes this might not accord with the way we view things, or the way we wish things were, but our job as editors here is to reflect what the reliable sources say, and ignore or own opinions and biases.

You seem to already understand what WP:Verifiability and citations are all about, so that's really good, so next step for you, I think, is to take a deep dive into WP:Neutral point of view, paying special attention to WP:DUE WEIGHT, as it is in these two areas where I believe you have tripped up. It's really important to understand these principles, and if there's a problem, nip it in the bud, because if it becomes a bad habit, it can end up causing you problems and becomes more difficult to change later.

It's also kind of a newbie mistake to head straight for the WP:LEAD of an article, or even the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, without having contributed much to the article body, or even knowing much about the history of it, or what Talk page discussions have already taken place about it. (See also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.) For example, Conversion therapy has been edited by over a thousand editors since it was first created in 2001 in the dawn of Misplaced Pages (shout-out to Ed Poor, whose original version is still essentially accurate), and has 385 editors watching it now. Beyond that, editing any part of a conversial topic is difficult, and heading straight for the lead only more so. (And if that weren't enough, WP:Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions may also apply.)

Speaking of that: as hard as it is to get on board as a new Misplaced Pages editor, editing controversial topics such as trans-related issues, is even harder, so I urge you to step with caution, and be guided by other editors who can help you. Maybe avoid editing the WP:LEAD of trans topics for a while, until you have gained more experience contributing to the body of articles, know something about how the article got that way, have read through the Talk page archives, and understand what the perennial issues are. There's much more I could say, but this is probably more than enough for right now. Just know that I've been editing articles on gender-related and trans topics for ten years or so, and general topics longer than that, so I'm pretty familiar both with general Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, as well as the particularities of editing trans topics. Finally, given your contributions in your short history here, I'm pretty much obliged to leave you the message appearing in the next section; don't be alarmed, everyone gets one of these sooner or later. Feel free to call on me at any time for support or if you have questions about editing at Misplaced Pages generally, or on trans topics in particular. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Standard notice about editing gender-related topics

Hi again. As promised, here is your message about editing on gender-related topics. Normally, I avoid adding this notice for brand new users, but since virtually all of your edits are to trans topics, it's better you learn about this sooner, rather than later after bumping into some restriction you never heard of, or attracting the wrong kind of attention from an Admin. Don't worry, this is not about doing anything wrong, it's about making sure you are aware of this, so please just read it and follow the links. It's intended to be self-explanatory, but please contact me if there is anything you don't understand. Cheers!

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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (R.E.: Gloria Hemingway)

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)

No problem, thanks for having mine! I'm a newbie myself and only joined a month or so ago. The meta commentary and talk page discussions can often reveal individual biases but luckily Misplaced Pages's guidelines are overall fair and applying the right arguments and references often leads to the truth coming out. Also, fun life hack especially in cases like these, if someone is stonewalling and accuses you of breaking guidelines most often they're breaking the same ones! While writing all that to prove she was a trans woman was draining I'm glad to see it paying off. If you ever need help applying LGBT-related Wiki rules to an article just tag me! TheTranarchist (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I decided to check up on the page again, & seeing that the page has been moved had me literally tearing up. I can't believe it. I thought this was an insurmountable battle, but it happened! Logan Sheppard (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up regarding move reviews, you may want to read Misplaced Pages: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. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping you would read it. Everything you wrote in this edit is irrelevant to the move review. It is not meant to be a discussion about the article name, but only about whether the close accurately reflected the discussion. Personally, I think your responses are counter-productive to your argument. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't aware that the discussion of past moves and consensus of an article was entirely irrelevant to a discussion on the validity of the current Move (which referenced past talk on the page) in an article. It's not as if the same (disproven) arguments were being used in the last move request as the current one or anything, or if the key point revolved around which policy applied. Thanks for responding to my extensive citations of relevant WP policy btw... It's really touching how you ignore all the guidelines and policies I posted which are extremely relevant to the review in favor of raising other issues. Personally, I find your dismissal of relevant policy and guidelines to be very counter-productive to your argument, but sure, me pointing out context was the issue.

Having indeed read what you sent:

"Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. In particular, if you believe that a close should have been "not moved" instead of "no consensus" (or vice-versa), that is not a sufficient reason to begin a move review." The discussion was whether COMMONNAME trumped GENDERID. You made your repeated point that it should very clear, sadly WP policy and guidelines didn't back that. I also refer you to "Disagreements with Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page." If you have an issue with the MOS or naming conventions, this wasn't the place to raise it.

"Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy, precedent and project goal."

Spirit of WP policy is a good one (the spirit of respecting trans people hopefully shouldn't immediately dissipate on death because you want to misapply a technicality). Moreover, what I posted was an analysis of previous move requests. Since page name history is indeed considered in these cases, I fail to see how information regarding it was irrelevant.

"Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. "

I hardly see how past talk page discussion regarding moves is new information. Debate included past debate on page (especially since arguments have changed little since the last move request), applicable policy and guidelines is something I also provided. Pointing out the discussion has for the most part had two opposing viewpoints, policy vs guideline, and concerns have been raised throughout the page's history about respecting her identity is not unreasonable.

"Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion. "

Sources were indeed challenged to object to the original move (I believe taking other people's subjective opinions of whether her being trans was valid is indeed challenging sources). Naming conventions regarding trans people were also ignored for the purpose of this Move Review.

Building a little for fun: I'll highlight the relevance for you:

1) Not notable under Gloria/more notable under Gregory:

An argument still being used to oppose the move to Gloria.

2) We don't know her gender identification/she flip-flopped

An argument also still being used to oppose the move to Gloria, which also happens to be false (and relies on questioning the validity of her identity based on pathologizing frameworks, discounting her identification, tying respect for her identity to the extent of her transition, and blatantly disregarding the "latest" in "latest self-id")

3) Policy-trumps-guideline

This has been a prominent and become the central question in this discussion and has tied heavily into the history of the page. The other points hinge on assuming we should follow this one. The fact this policy and others say gender guidelines apply is conveniently ignored.

Now, lets look at your original premise for the Move Review:

"This was a non-admin close (albeit by an experienced editor) that did not seem at all to attempt to determine the consensus of the discussion."

The decision was split 50-50, what consensus are you referring to? The closer went into explicit detail about why the change was approved based on WP guidelines and noted the current state of consensus. In fact, looking at CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." That is to say, WP:GENDERID doesn't stop applying just because you say so.

For funsies, from SUPERVOTE: "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. ... A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one)." The moves were based on policy, the keeps were based on very selectively applying policy and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

"The close introduced a lot of new material (such as reference to BLP) that was not in the discussing, making this close a classic example of a supervote."

Except the relevant guidelines cited heavily linked back and forth with BLP, and the quote from BLP was only a slight variation of what was cited frequently. So, which part exactly was new material? The harms of deadnaming even in death (already raised on the talk page)? The various cited policies and guidelines used in the discussion? This seems like more an excuse to tick off " did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because in closing this requested move discussion" than a solid argument.

"Finally, the close relies heavily on the dubious claim that MOS:GENDERID (a guideline) trumps WP:COMMONNAME (a policy). "

So incredibly dubious... It's not as if multiple people have pointed out the inherent flaw in assuming otherwise (completely nullifying MOS:GENDERID). Also not like someone provided extensive citations of WP policy stating look at specific guidelines when applicable and guidelines saying respect trans people.

In short, glass houses, stones. There was more cause for me to raise the history of the talk page and past move requests than there was for you to continue trying to challenge WP policy and guidelines regarding trans people's names. If you have continue to have sincere issues with the policies and guidelines, raise them in the appropriate locations. TheTranarchist (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Boots theory

Just a heads up, I'm about to approve the draft, but I'm going to rejig it so it talks about the theory first and the index in a section; its notability predates Monroe's index, after all. I was tempted to make the article myself, but that fell by the wayside a little… Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sceptre Thanks! Great minds think alike I suppose! Pinging you so you don't miss this one, I missed this message and I'd already added a little to it (added a reception section to contain ONS statements and included info about supermarket responses), I hope that doesn't mess too much with your improvements. TheTranarchist (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Anarchism

Hi TheTranarchist,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Misplaced Pages's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 15:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Czar Thanks for the warm welcome! I'd already starred it but hadn't taken a good look at the cleanup drive, excited to get involved! TheTranarchist (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

DYK for Boots theory

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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 Endwise (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all Endwise (talk · contribs), and thank you! Very proud to get my first barnstar!! TheTranarchist (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advocate. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your work

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)

Hello @Immanuelle! Thank you, that means a lot!! I also really like your works in general, Turkic creation myth was really interesting and I might end up helping you out more with things like that. In terms of which trans topics would be good to edit, I've been meaning to add my TODO list to my user page for a while so you were the welcome kick I needed! The to do list is on my main page so please feel free to check it out! TheTranarchist (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Revert at John Money

Generally speaking, if you attempt to add material to an article, as you first did here at John Money concerning his alleged beliefs or actions concerning conversion therapy, and another editor undoes the edit for policy-based reasons, as DayTime99 did here, you should then take the matter up at the article Talk page and try to achieve consensus among other editors about the content disagreement before moving forward. Unfortunately, you skipped the latter step initially, and went ahead and readded the material the next day (diff). This was followed by a revert by the other editor (diff), and then finally a Talk page section (thank you for that) and another edit by you almost simultaneously (diff) to readd the material a few minutes later. This is not in the best spirit of collaboration at Misplaced Pages. It may also be viewed as edit warring (see WP:BRD for another possible approach to this). In addition, ArbCom discretionary sanctions for gender-related topics may apply to this article, although I'll have to confirm this. Meanwhile, you might want to reread the discussion "#Standard notice about editing gender-related topics" above. I've removed this material for cause, as explained at the Talk page. If you disagree, you're welcome to continue your efforts to gain consensus for your point of view in discussion at Talk. Feel free to contact me below, or at my Talk page, if you have any questions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Stella O'Malley

Based on this discussion, I wonder if you might want to revert this edit as well (possibly adding the Tordoff source as Sideswipe9th proposed). If you do so promptly, it will not count as an additional revert. :) Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Misplaced Pages articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Misplaced Pages project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. 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)

Thanks and good job

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)

Thank you!!! Often it can feel like editing into the void but it's nice to know my work is appreciated! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

Nomination of Health Liberation Now! for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

@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)

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

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

so what do I do to see your discussions of Misplaced Pages

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

(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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

Ways to improve Novae Terrae Foundation

Hello, TheTranarchist,

Thank you for creating Novae Terrae Foundation.

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

Nice article! I fixed some WP:DISAMBIG links and also typos, but this should be proofread further.

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|Shushugah}}. 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.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alerts

Hey. Just wanted to let you know, when you're issuing a CT alert to an editor for the first time, you need to use {{subst:alert/first|topic=...}} instead of {{subst:alert|topic=...}}. The {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template produces a longer text version with more info in it, and also includes a default uneditable header. I dunno why ArbCom decided to create separate first and second alert templates, but they did.

Oh and if you're issuing multiple alerts due to overlap (eg GENSEX + BLP), I've taken to doing an alert/first for the first topic, and then in the same message use alert for every other topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and tips! Just fixed it, it had felt off/shorter than usual but I thought they'd just updated the template lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOCONFED

I must say, that's quite a way to state your endorsement! Also, if you know some other users who might be interested in this essay and its topic, please inform them! — Sundostund mppria 21:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund Thank you, I try my best lol. I spent a few years in my childhood in a small town in upstate NY where people flew confederate flags off their porches, so I know first-hand it's got fuck all to do with heritage and is nothing but flagging as a racist with the thinnest (or just fully transparent) veneer of plausible deniability. My dad taught me John Brown's Body (among a host of lefty, socialist, civil war union and trade union songs) and I've sung it long as I can remember, so it seemed very fitting! I'll make a post about it on Mastodon. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Upstate NY? From the historical perspective, I find it very ironical (and surprising) that such things happen in a former Union stronghold; somehow, I always thought that neo-Confederates are mostly limited to the Southern United States (as these are ex-Confederate territories). I guess one can learn something new every day... On the other hand, its not surprising that it was a small town; such environment (somewhat rural, etc) is far more fertile ground for neo-Confederate ideas, than large urban areas (as far as I know). — Sundostund mppria 22:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sundostund My thoughts exactly, there was no "heritage" excuse for flying them up there. They are certainly more visible in the South (where you get open confederate monuments from Jim Crow), and more broadly in rural areas than urban ones, but I've even seen confederate flags in NYC. Though they're usually flown next to nazi flags, with proud boys, or at MAGA marches - more in temporary displays at far right events than permanent fixtures (though the case in different in conservative bastions such as long island and staten island and some fly from homes there). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, "heritage" excuse (or "appeal to tradition") can't be a justification for flying them up even in the South, not to mention the North, etc. Also, I just can't believe that you saw confederate flags in NYC, but I'll take your word for it. As for confederate monuments, I'd say that their number is dwindling somewhat in recent years, even in the South, along with other confederate symbols... — Sundostund mppria 23:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional

Also, I want to say that I appreciate your decision to share your life story (or some of it) on your userpage; I am sure that many people, in the same or similar situation, will find your experience as something helpful. I am sorry to hear about you being forced to stay in the closet and only able to transition at 16; I can't even imagine the burden of living in a small town, with a bunch of neo-Confederate people nearby, and being forced to hide your true identity. Thankfully, all of that is behind you now. — Sundostund mppria 15:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was going for! To be so explicitly un-apologetically trans Misplaced Pages feels safer for other editors and to perhaps humanize me in the eyes of transphobes checking out my page (though that's a long shot lol).

To clarify though, I only spent 2/3 years of my life up there, though I have friends there and would visit occasionally growing up. I actually spent most of my time closeted in the big apple, which was only marginally better, as trans people have been beaten, attacked, stabbed, and harassed within a close radius of my home, and all over the city for that matter. I watched my trans friends, those who were lucky enough to have supportive families and come out younger, still get all sorts of abuse. In hindsight I was very obviously trans, to the extend that even in elementary school a trans boy I was friends with was taken off the school-bus by his mother since I was a "bad influence" (presumably she'd somehow learned we would draw queer art together and I would sometimes be more openly feminine since the back of the bus was where the queer kids hung out). I watched the public schools get slowly more accepting, though that was patchy, as I watched my trans friends in high school facing bullshit from other students and the administration; one time my Econ/Gov teacher had us debate and discuss the Aimee Stephens case and talked about how weird she looked and how it might disturb a grieving family. I was only able to come out after I graduated and moved out (at 16) since I knew my father wouldn't be accepting, but at least of the mindset that if I was already self-sufficient he'd just sign off.

The closet is behind me, but it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. I'm no longer a suicidal alcoholic trying to bury the pain of living a lie - I'm myself without any shame and have solid friends and people know me for who I really am. But we also have transphobes and fascists explicitly ramping up their calls for genocide and state repression of trans people and rapidly using the issue to consolidate power. I've always done everything in my power to fight and organize for a better world and against fascism, as it's fight or die, so I'm openly proud to make sure fascists don't get to control Misplaced Pages or information. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your edit to Conversion therapy has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. You can't just copy from the source and change a few words, it needs to be completely rewritten. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe How was this calculated? The 3 paragraphs removed are a reworded summary of concepts covered and mentioned in a span of 20 pages in the book - I have it open right now and the language is consistently markedly different (sadly can't get a digital copy anywhere). I tried checking the Earwig Copyvio detector on the old revision id but it won't load. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Making no comment on the copyvio for now, but the cited book chapter is available at WP:LIB through the American Psychological Association collection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd been waiting for it to be available there for a while (I can finally return this overdue loan from the library lol). Checked there before you commented but couldn't find it for some reason, changing my search terms worked though! The removed paragraphs still seem mostly summarization, but I'll rewrite them when I get a chance tonight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, read the three removed paragraphs from the article, and the cited source side by side now. In doing so I was able to clearly identify specific sentences from the book chapter that were only minimally paraphrased from the source text. I've listed below the mappings between the article and source texts.

Article text -> Source text

First paragraph, first sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, first sentence

First paragraph, second sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, third sentence

First paragraph, third sentence -> second paragraph (first new paragraph) on page 53, fourth sentence

Second paragraph, first sentence -> page 58, first sentence in Treatments for Gender Identity section

Second paragraph, second sentence -> page 58, second sentence in Treatments section

Second paragraph, third sentence -> page 58, fifth sentence in Treatments section?

Second paragraph, fourth sentence -> page 58, fourth and fifth sentence in Treatments section

Second paragraph, fifth sentence -> page 58, seventh sentence in treatments section

Third paragraph, first sentence -> page 58, first sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

Third paragraph, second sentence -> page 58, second sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

Third paragraph, third sentence -> page 58, third sentence, second paragraph in Treatments section

This to me does read like a close paraphrase issue, which would not be reliably detected by Earwig even if it had access to the source. That said, for some of the sentences, there is an degree of WP:LIMITED in play. But when each paragraph is read as a whole, the similarities not only in word order but also sentence order with respect to the source text does make this a CLOP problem. This is particularly evident in the third paragraph of the article, which is exceptionally similar to the second paragraph of the Treatments section in the source material. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

It is a violation of the policy regarding Biographies of living persons to call a living person a "nazi barbie" anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Do not repeat that misconduct. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Does that extend to people who openly work with white-supremacists and have literally used a Nazi barbie as a profile picture? If this is in regards to my commit message, I said her nazi barbie debacle, which refers to her profile picture, not directly calling her something. If this is in regards to my user page, she called me a "trancel", so let she who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, as someone else who has also been harassed by a subject/entity we have an article on in this content area, it's difficult to be objective about that subject/entity when they are currently or previously have harassed you. Given those circumstances, it might be better to limit yourself to only preforming uncontroversial maintenance edits on the article (eg vandalism removal), and make suggestions for controversial edits on the article's talk page instead of making them directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair approach. On the other hand though, her harassment (consisting of two insults in two tweets) was directly in regards to the fact I wrote the article and she didn't like the contents. It feels like an extremely dangerous precedent for TERFs †, or anyone for that matter, to be able to insult someone who edited their article on Twitter and in doing so force them to step back from the article. None of my edits have been controversial thus far, as no editors (barring SPA's and people blocked for persistent transphobia) have raised any issues with my edits there, as they've all been factual and easily verifiable. If it can help avoid further issues, should I declare the potential COI and context on the article talk page?

† Before anyone says that's an insult, it's not, but more importantly it's a term she uses for herself regularly TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to every single living portion on Earth, no matter how reprehensible they are. No exceptions. It is a really bad idea to edit the biographies of people that you are feuding with off-Misplaced Pages. Keep in mind that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that must be followed by all editors. It is difficult to be neutral about a person you are arguing with. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not "feuding" with her off-wikipedia though. I have never interacted with her in my life outside of having written the article about her. She has only ever written one thing about me directly, HINT : the wikipedia entry is made by a rather boastful trancel who enjoys lying about people online, having previously more generally said The defamatory page about me on @Misplaced Pages @JWalesF has been semi protected and cannot be edited. All edits in the history have been undone. The sad little incels are ensuring the lies remain. My only response was to include that she said that in my honorable mentions, mention that she has literally used a nazi barbie as a profile picture, and get on with my life.If every time a public figure complains about their article and insults the editors who wrote it or an editor who significantly contributed is grounds for the editors having to step back on the basis of WP:NPOV, we would very quickly lose all our editors. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly that sort of harassment could easily be gamed by an article subject, and at the extreme end of it yes it could lead to attempts to stack the consensus deck off-wiki. However we do already have processes in place for handling that sort of thing, from noticeboards like BLPN and ANI, right the way through to WMF Trust and Safety.

On declaring the COI with one of the templates, only you can really answer that I think. There is a balance between declaring a COI, and outing yourself. In the case of the harassment against me, that entity posted photos of me alongside my name and social media links. While I could declare my COI with the templates, it would make it somewhat easier to link me to an offline identity. I largely trust myself enough to self-police with regards to that article, and save COI declarations for when they are contextually relevant. Thankfully, despite the noise that organisation makes online, the article itself sees very little editorial interest outside of the occasional bit of drive-by vandalism and the addition of sources whenever they are noticed in the media. Thus far I've only had to declare it once, in a discussion over a year ago.

I don't know the full context behind how KJKM has attacked you. Whether or not the harassment was something generic and relatively anonymous like "look at this anonymous editor who has been editing my page, they are such a ", or more targeted like "TheTranarchist is , they are such a ", and whether or not declaring a COI could lead to further harassment by the article subject. Those are really only questions you can ask and answer to yourself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Was just about to publish my above comment when you did lol. Her only harassment has been towards the wikipedia editors who have protected her page from vandalism in general and me specifically by calling me a "trancel" (and even then, not naming me, just referring to me). There is no link to my personal life, her only beef with me has been the fact I wrote the article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This diff is inappropriate. Please remove the WP:POLEMIC material from your userpage. gnu57 00:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC refers to attacking other editors and content unrelated to the encyclopedia. Noting popular responses to articles I've written does not count as WP:POLEMIC by any stretch. Nothing there is false, most is in her article. Which part specifically do you take issue with? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No Misplaced Pages editor should be writing things like this about a living person that the editor has written a biography of: She just doesn't like reality and thinks if she yells enough it will suddenly change. Frankly, the funniest part is not only does she just mindlessly yell "lies" (which her followers uncritically regurgitate in lockstep, pointlessly swarming the article's talk page), she feels forced to resort to ad-hominems of some 19 year old girl she's never met (which are even funnier when you consider, as my best friend laughed pointing out, I'm poly and have three girlfriends). But hey, attacking trans kids while lying through her teeth and claiming everyone else is the liar is really par for the course. That type of commentary is unseemly, definitely polemical and a violation of BLP policy. Do not write a Misplaced Pages biography and then denounce that person on your Misplaced Pages userpage. If publicized, it could bring discredit on Misplaced Pages. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I am far from a fan of this particular BLP I have to agree that this type of commentary is gratitutous and unhelpful. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to denounce people (even if they are genuinely awful). (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence admittedly might be too on the nose and can be rewritten/removed. The second sentence is factual: she indeed called the article full of lies (I can drop the "mindlessly", and to be fair her PR strategy isn't mindless so much as coldly calculated, I hope), indeed never bothered to point a single supposed lie out, and her followers indeed swarmed the talk page to call the article biased and full of lies (once again, never bothering to point any out). The ad-hominem is plain to see, and I reserve to right to point out how ridiculously off the mark it is (I didn't even bother to respond with any ad-hominen of my own, I just laughed at how bad hers was, and it took all my New York soul to not actually throw any serious shade). The third sentence points out that given her history and activities, her personal attacks on me are entirely predictable, and when her only notability is campaigning against trans rights and harassing trans people that's not exactly a big secret. I am here to build an encyclopedia and this isn't denouncement, just laughing about an honorable mention, ie her criticism of the article and childish insults towards me. I'm not in the habit of "denouncing" people on my userpage after writing articles, my userpage would be a lot longer if I was, I just list public attention I get for my work here and analyze it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gays Against Groomers

Hello, TheTranarchist,

Thank you for creating Gays Against Groomers.

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

Engaging article, but needs a lot of improvements. Formatting needs to be addressed to better comply with MOS:LAYOUT and specifically MOS:BODY. Current section titles make it difficult for the reader to navigate the article with ease and content goes into too much extraneous detail. It might be a good idea to take a look at some GA-level articles on political organizations and see how they are organized (like English Defence League--another far-right group, which despite being a very long article covers its subject very well). It's important to keep in mind the expectations of a reader unfamiliar with the subject and whether the article would be easy for them to navigate. Also, be mindful of overciting; the reflist needs to be cleaned up. Finally, some images would be helpful. Feel free to reach out if you have any more questions!

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|Ppt91}}. 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.

Ppt91 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ppt91, thank you for reviewing the page! Dealing with the vandalism and updating it a bit I forgot to reach back out to you for some advice on this. I was originally trying to model it more off Libs of TikTok, but that they upgraded from a twitter account to an organization poses some difficulties. I created the sections after compiling the articles mentioning them and the sections were based off the themes that consistently emerged.

Running an idea past you, what do you think of updating it to the following sectioning?

• History
  • Founding
  • Funding
• Activities
  • Protests and rallies
  • Legislation
  • Harassment (which should also be updated to include a bit more of their targeting of individual journalists/parents/public figures)
• Reception
  • Criticism (currently present but listed under Reception rather than a subsection)
  • Social media platforms
  • Conservative and far-right media

Additionally, that's not the first time I've been told my articles can be intricately/overly-detailed lol, so could you point out some sections that need addressing in that regard so I can trim them down? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Thanks for getting back to me. Replying in haste to let you know I'll definitely look through and provide some more thoughtful feedback soon. Also, I wanted to let you know that I am in strong support of the work you're doing and, especially as a queer man myself, think Misplaced Pages needs more well-crafted LGBTQ focused pages, including of course those shedding light on groups actively hostile to the community. I'll be back in touch soon! Ppt91 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist here's my feedback regarding structure

• History (Heading) I would divide into appropriate subsections using Subheading 1 eg "Political origins (2017 to 2020)" or something along those lines; just a suggestion; you can include Funding here as a subsection
• Activities (Heading)
  • Protests and rallies (Subheading 1)
  • Legislation (Subheading 1)
  • Harassment (Subheading 1) I think this is fine as is with possible smaller subsections using Subheading 2 for topics that really need one
• Reception (Heading)
  • Criticism (Subheading 1) Keeping it simple and, as above, using smaller subsections if needed with the use of Subheading 2
  • Praise (Subheading 1)

I believe this structure should satisfy MOS:LAYOUT but abide by its rules in case there are any inconsistencies in my recommendation.

As for writing tips specifically, I think a clearer structure will lend itself to better prose because you will remain more focused on what needs to be included in each. See how it goes and I am happy to help in the process! Ppt91 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Sorry it took me a minute to respond to this but as we know I got caught up dealing with other articles lol.

I'll update the article along these lines tomorrow!

A few quick thoughts, for "History" I'm thinking of splitting it into subsections "Twitter account" and "Incorporation", which will have subsubsection "Funding". For "Praise", I'm not sure if we have the sourcing to justify that but I can double check. I can't recall any sources that mention them being praised per se, usually they just note that they appear frequently on far-right media and are agreed with there.

Additionally, do you think the image should be their Twitter profile or the image on their website? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic warning

As you have already received the notice about contentious topics being in affect, I'm officially giving you a warning about your conduct in the area. External links that identify people further than they have disclosed on Misplaced Pages are not permitted and are a very fast way to get blocked, regardless of who the person is that you are levying them against or if you or I agree with any of their thoughts. Please ensure that all your edits fully comply with the policies and practices of Misplaced Pages. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaNP My apologies, someone else had identified the conflict of interest without providing any evidence and I wanted to independently verify the information since that's a heavy charge to make without supporting details. Thanks for the link, I see now I should have emailed that directly to an admin or arbitrator. Would it be appropriate to add a COI template to the relevant talk page or should I leave that to an uninvolved admin? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not too involved in the COI enforcement realm. Which template are we talking about? Also excuse my bad link above, I have fixed it. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries, the one at WP:DISCLOSE, I'm not sure if he'd have to add that himself or if someone else could. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be a self-disclosure template. Not saying this rises to a level of needing a post here, but at the top of WP:COIN might provide some useful advice for you. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Might not be necessary yet, he's tried to edit the page once and left three comments on the talk page, all in favor of describing her as a "women's rights activist" campaigning for "single-sex female only spaces", but that's it. If he continues it might be more worth it, given that he supports the person/organization and has gone as far as to show up at their rallies so is not neutral. However, it would be best if he was forthright and open about the COI on that page so it doesn't need to be brought to WP:COIN. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Tranarchist, how many edit wars do you want to be in at any one time? Because now it's Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, where I think you're duking it out with four other editors. And this is after Chloe Cole and Mridul Wadhwa. AmandaNP, I think this user's heart in the right place--but they are seriously overdoing it, and this is too much conflict. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies In all honesty, for my mental health and sanity I try and set a cap at 2 or 3 concurrent ones, preferably 1, or even better none.

Any outside perspectives on the FAIR article would be greatly appreciated as it's been very draining. "Local consensus" there seems to be 1) to remove anything vaguely critical of the organization, 2) to remove relevant details (such as multiple RS pointing out Rufo had a large role in creating the CRT panic), 3) to convert the article into a puff piece where the lead doesn't follow the body and just lists their fucking mission statement, 4) to launch personal attacks against me rather than responding to any points raised, and 5) to push a POV and factually incorrect notion that transgender students do not have a recognized right to have their names/pronouns respected. As a sidenote, one of the biggest pushers of all of those fields finds it apparently acceptable behavior to deadname Brianna Ghey in an unrelated discussion then cry about being censored - somehow managing to make the Times look comparatively progressive on trans issues as even they apologized for their deadnaming. That's not even mentioning the massive undisclosed COI that I raised to arb-com this afternoon but have yet to receive word on.

That being said, neither the Cole or Wadhwa articles have involved edit warring, there have been mostly productive discussions on improving the article on the talk page. By that math, in the past few days I've only been involved in 1 edit conflict, hardly "overdoing it" or "too much conflict". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Tranarch, please review wp:APPNOTE. This notification should be reviewed in context of, "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Additionally, you only notified one discussion board which could be seen as selective notification. Given the contentious nature of the subject area and the discussions in question please be more careful going forward and consider editing your notification. Springee (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Spring, that has a neutral title and was politely worded, clear in presentation, and brief. The LGBT noticeboard is the obvious place for a question on what classifies as transgender rights, so I've no clue which other relevant noticeboards you think I didn't notify... It presented the discussion, and the context behind that discussion, that some editors objected solely based on their opinion on what rights trans people should have. Consensus now seems to be trans kids do indeed have a right to be respected in school and that the fringe insistence otherwise is odd and not based on more than opinion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi @TheTranarchist. I have so much respect for you and think the work you do here is really important, but I would wholeheartedly recommend that you take it one article at a time and disengage from the distracting—and potentially disruptive—stuff. It is not worth it. The best thing you can do for ensuring these really difficult topics are well covered here is through sustained and laborious editorial process. Rather than exhausting yourself, focus on exhaustive NPOV sourcing (I know you already do), consensus building (even when it feels like an impossible task), and pushing forward with encyclopedic, quality content (even it means covering less topics). And know that you're not alone. There are numerous editors, myself included, who are willing to help. Ppt91 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91 thank you, that really means a lot to me! I generally try and take it at one or two articles at a time, it's just a pity that disruptive editing keeps me from actually working on improving or working on articles I'd like to and over-stretches me. I love when people give me honest feedback to improve an article and we can have productive discussions, and good-faith criticism of my work helps me and the encyclopedia improve, but sadly too often talk pages devolve into stopping POV pushing and whitewashing and I'm suddenly playing defense on multiple fronts. I've been focused nearly exclusively on the FAIR nonsense and advertification the past few days when I'd wanted to work on the Crown Heights Tenant Union and circle back on fixing up GAG. If you could take a look at the FAIR article and contribute your thoughts I'd greatly appreciate it! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)