User talk:-sche/Archive 4

Notable people of Transgender

• Niluka Ekanayake - Governor of Central Province of Sri Lanka ^[1]

References https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/maha-sanga-protests-appointment-of-first-transgender-governor/

Notreallydavid1 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Moore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your edits to the intersex page. It is stronger and more complete as a result of recent changes. It is my view that the intersections between intersex and LGBT might merit their own article at some point. So much of the intersex page already acts as a way of signposting readers to more detail. Trankuility (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello -sche! I'm thinking of starting a new article on gender identity under Title IX in the educational context, what with this month's headline-grabbing pronouncement from the DOJ/DOE, and today's multi-state lawsuit in response. Perhaps you'd like to give it some attention as I work on it -- I'm in love with your editing skills, and you seem to be quite interested in the subject matter. For now it is here: User:Y/Gender identity under Title IX. Cheers! -- Y not? 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Update - Now in mainspace: Gender identity under Title IX. -- Y not? 21:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Causes of transsexualism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aptronym. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill (ReFill, RefFill, Reflinks) expands bare references semi-automatically. -sche (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your edits on the intersex page. They have been reverted before by me or by User:WhatamIdoing. Trankuility (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

...without addressing the issue I raised. -sche (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? -sche (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on same-sex attraction seem predicated on intersex people homogeneously understanding intersex bodies as being a third sex, while your comments on transgender as a form of intersex rely on non WP:MEDRS theories and fringe theories. This is not based on any understanding or reading of the rest of the article, and so shows a non WP:NPOV. The reasoning that intersex people cannot be same sex attracted and that transgender people are intersex has the effect of ruling out other categories such as trans woman, trans man, as well as issues with the separation of sexual orientation and gender identity as concepts. It is not necessary to include every inconsistent or poorly considered fringe theory. It is my hope that folks at WikiProject Medicine will turn their attention to the pages on causes of transsexuality that have some similar content. Trankuility (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to not over-emphasize the edge cases in this article. According to the majority of mainstream sources, intersex and transsexuality are separate categories. It is true that an intersex person can have any sexual orientation and any gender identity. It's true that any person, of any sexual orientation or any gender identity, could be intersex (knowingly or not). However:

• the typical transsexual person is not biologically intersex,
• the typical intersex person does not identify as transsexual, and
• transsexuality is not a type of intersex (because "brain function" or "internal psychology" isn't on the widely accepted list of what constitutes intersex).

I know that some trans people hope that they'll find some "scientific biological reason" for their gender identity, rather than feeling stigmatized as "crazy". (This hope is inevitable in cultures with as much biological reductionism as ours, and would probably be inevitable anyway just due to the differential in stigma.) However, at this point in time, given the current state of mainstream POVs, etc., I think it's important to avoid trying to squeeze in this idea that maybe transsexuality is mostly caused by biology, so maybe it's intersex, too. It's not helpful. Because intersex is defined as a certain short list of specific biological results, even incontrovertible proof that transsexuality was 100% biological wouldn't change this categorization. Up until the mainstream academic POV changes – and specifically until the mainstream academic POV of experts specializing in intersex conditions changes – to say that transsexuality is a kind of intersex, then we should continue to say that a person can be both trans and intersex, but they're completely separate considerations that don't coincide very often (mostly due to the rarity of both conditions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:WhatamIdoing. I thought it might be helpful to share a link to our earlier discussion on your talk page (this). It might even be useful to transclude it onto the Talk:Intersex page, if you're agreeable? Trankuility (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for English. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Kaczynski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josephine Butler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, please, please - could you post on the talk page of the Two Spirit article before you go making substantial changes regarding gender that have colonial influences while using dominant culture terminology that is not applicable? You are creating a huge amount of work for indigenous editors. It's incredibly frustrating. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. You are making huge mistakes here. I've cleaned up a bunch, but at this point I'm going to just go back to reverting. You are adding "sources" that are just a title and a year, without even an author name, let alone publication data. This is a 101 level of WP policy violation as editors can't even check those sources. Other "sources" by non-Natives that you've added do not even source the content you've added. This has been a problem with almost every one of these sections. I agree with Iggy that you are relying on colonial views and voices, and this is totally skewing the content. It is also undue weight to plop these huge sections into Indigenous articles without any attempt to integrate them into the existing content of the article, and without any understanding of the cultures you are trying to write about. Please read the Two Spirit article again, more carefully. We've really worked to explain why this type of approach is a huge problem. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I appreciate you taking so much time to go over the concerns with some of the sources and terms, and revise most of the articles. If I make any more edits to this area, I'll be more careful about sourcing.

The two sentences in the Crow Nation article which cover this topic also have the same issues, as a result of my having edited it years ago (I think, aside from the articles I recently edited which you two have helped clean up, it is the only other article, aside from the one about the specific person Osh-Tisch, to which I recall adding info about two-spirits), including citing Williams and Lang, but I know Joe Medicine Crow has written/spoken about the topic, so I've removed Williams and Lang now, and I'll try to revise the [one remaining] sentence based on Medicine Crow as soon as I'm able (unless one of you or someone else beats me to it).

For the Mohave article, what do you think of this as a sentence to add to the ==Culture== section, perhaps right after its mention of Devereux and his extensive fieldwork, or perhaps elsewhere (e.g. a lower-down subsection if that seems more appropriate):

Devereux reported that the Mohave historically had initiation rituals for men, women, alyha (male-bodied individuals who, as early as childhood, adopted the same clothing and work as women), and hwame (female-bodied individuals who adopted the clothing and role of men).^[1]

? Or do you have suggestions for improvement?

1. [1]

   G. Devereux, Institutional Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, Human Biology 9 (1937), pages 498-627

-sche (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm dealing with pneumonia right now. Devereux is actually one of the few early anthropologists that are decent. He fully immersed himself in Mohave culture. It might be good for you to read this in it's entirety http://via.library.depaul.edu/jwgl/vol2/iss1/3/ it goes into why applying standard terms as you simply does not work and is not culturally accurate. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Indigenous girl (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're experienced to know this already, but a reminder that edit warring is not permitted. Instead start a discussion on the talk about about the issue and try to resolve it through discussion. Continuing to edit war may lead to a block. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

moved to Talk:Incel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expressed my gratitude in small ways before, but after looking at your distinctive history of contributions, I wanted to explicitly say, "Thank you," for all the work you have put into editing Trans woman and other articles. I appreciate the multifaceted approach you have taken to making Wikipedia better! -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Major League Baseball players from South Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, since you reverted me here (), please point me to the thread you mentioned - I'm not aware of it. What I am aware of, and that is established professional bibliographic practise when citing publications, is to use the name used in the publication (in order to adjust to the target medium some leeway is typically allowed in regard to if full or abbreviated forenames are used). If a new edition under a different name exists, that new edition can be cited instead, otherwise the old name sticks with the old publication. This is also what WP:SAYWHERE is about. History cannot be changed. It is possible to cross-link new and old names in catalogs so that old publications continue to show up after a name change, but this doesn't change the name used in citations of old works. Also, in cases where it might be helpful to readers it is possible to mention the new name as well. I wonder how you come to think I would be trying to change established practise. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Both now and when you said in the edit summary of your change to WP:MOS that that's what SAYWHERE said, I re-read that guideline to see if I was missing something, because I don't see anything in it about name changes. By my reading, it's about citing the work you read and not a different work that attributed what it said, in-text, to the first one. If SAYWHERE did talk about name changes, why would it be necessary to duplicate it in the MOS, anyway? Are people commonly trying to change authors' names and citing the MOS? -sche (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As you correctly point out, WP:SAYWHERE is about citing the work in front of the editor, not a reference to that work somewhere else. This includes actually or potentially existing newer versions of the same work as well. This is actually a common problem in Wikipedia, where editors are citing from an older version of a book in their possession with bibliographic data derived from a different or newer edition of the work found online, instead of using the data from the book itself. (If they refer to the same edition, it is okay to add extra info like DOIs etc., but not to replace info found in the actual publication.) Over the years I have seen quite many cases, where this resulted in wrong page numbers, ISBNs, publishers and journal names given, but sometimes also in wrong author names (due to spelling errors in citing refs, but then carried on into other works) and creatively modified titles. This is harmful, as these references are basically void, as they cannot be reliably tracked down to actual physically existing publications.

As I said, there is some leeway in regard to providing full or abbreviated names, but substituting a name with a different one is a no-go, just as the publisher or journal name does not get updated in a citation in cases where the publisher or journal changes its name. This would make it difficult to locate the actual publication (which does not suddenly change its front face as published retrospectively) in a library. Basically you would be citing a source which does not exist (under that name and configuration). (In the publisher/journal name change example, if they would offer the publication under their new name, that is the equivalent to a reprint/republication - a different edition, hence no problem.)

What is typically appreciated in such cases is a courtesy note following the citation mentioning the new name, so that interested readers will be able to connect titles published under the old and the new name, but I understand that in cases where the name change isn't the result of a marriage etc. but of some kind of gender change, an author might rather not like to have both names mentioned next to each other to not unnecessarily draw attention to the fact (that's the "context" bit in WP:GENDERID, which suggests a case-by-case decision - about such extra info, not about "silently" substituting names in citations, that is). But that's among the more or less normal cruelties of life everyone has to face and master in one way or another, and unfortunately there's no remedy to the underlying problem: A fundamental principle of the act of publishing something is that it cannot be revoked ever - it becomes part of history as is - with all the shortcomings it might contain and implications it might create. (It is possible to update errors or changes in a newer edition (which will then be cited as a different publication), make a work no longer accessible, or even to destroy it, but this does not (legally) change its "published" status, only its availability.) The author is always responsible for the publication, so if the author does not want to become connected with a work now or in the future, the only way to possibly do it is to not out a name change anywhere (unreliable), try to publish it anonymously, or not publish at all.

WP:GENDERID is a very new guideline and still imperfect. As such the present text could, by omission of a note regarding the case we are discussing right now, be interpreted in a way to allow name changes in citations, which however would violate WP:SAYWHERE; that's why I added the link for clarification (as is common practise in MOS in order to reduce ambiguity). Obviously, you would like to have old names substituted by new names in citations, otherwise you would not be against that clarifying link (but if that would have community consensus, it would have to be mentioned as an exception under WP:SAYWHERE, which it isn't). I, on the other hand, want to have it mentioned at WP:GENDERID in order to make sure that WP:GENDERID cannot be used as excuse for such name substituations in citations (unless an updated publication can be found, where the new name is used - see above).

Since you didn't provide a link to the thread you mentioned I searched myself and this appears to be the one in question, right? Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The conflict between deadnaming and ABOUTSELF, versus VERIFIABILTY and previous RfCs. It isn't exactly the same topic, but related, one user wants to be referred to by the user's new name only even in the context of an old event, and the community doesn't support this, as this would be an attempt to rewrite the history of that old event.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lionel Messi. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

hi there. you will need to get a talkpage consensus for the recreation of that after it was previously redirected after discussion, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I did, as noted in my edit summary with a link to the discussion. If that's insufficient, well, then let's have more discussion! Cheers! -sche (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will comment there, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your name was found on Feedback request service Politics, government, and law. Please join the discussion here and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's position concerning Hamas. Thanks! Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron DeSantis. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Louis Farrakhan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Fassbender. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please revert your close of the move request at Talk:John/Eleanor Rykener. Discussion was still ongoing, with issues that were not presented in the last requested move, and I did not consent to withdraw the request. There is no rule against refiling the RM, and it should run for seven days and then be closed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the outcome of the recent previous RM, of which you were apparently unaware. Nonetheless, editors in that RM already considered the policy argument you made, that "John" was the COMMONNAME, and found it potentially inaccurate as well as outweighed by other factors, with the result that the page was not moved. (Your minor, apparently non-policy-based argument that the parenthetical name "Burma (Myanmar)" isn't used for the article on Myanmar, seems like WP:OSE.) The "ongoing discussion" you refer to consists of editors opposing the move, pointing out that the issue was already settled just weeks ago, questioning the appropriateness of yet another RM and calling for it to be closed on that basis. Unfortunately, sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time wasting. -sche (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny that you mention it, I was about to do exactly the same edit you did, but I am glad that someone else noticed the problem with the sentence. :) I removed the fringe blog citation, and then saw that the other citation was another fringe blog, only after being done with the first edit. ShimonChai (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A145GI15I95 (talk • contribs) 21:37, January 29, 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95: when placing a {{uw-3rr}} template, please use the article param so that it links to the article in question; like this: {{subst:Uw-3rr|Article name|optional comment}} Also, don't forget to sign all your posts with WP:FOURTILDES. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit shows lack of good faith (describing my edit as a shoehorn). Please also see the relevant talk discussion as the article's title, purpose, and usefulness . Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Culture of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)