User talk:Marie Paradox

Archives

Alternative aggression listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative aggression. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative aggression redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marie Paradox. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marie Paradox. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Marie Paradox. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of recently deceased persons

The only connection I can think of was my suggestion that a template be revised to say the person was living OR recently deceased.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vchimpanzee,

I left the alert after your recent edit at the Laverne Cox article and could not find any evidence that anyone had yet alerted you to the fact that BLPs are a current area of conflict. (And because I do not want to be responsible for unintended innuendo, the article falls into the area of conflict because Laverne Cox is alive.) If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask!

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought this was about Robert Mandan and my problem with the template. My edit to Laverne Cox was because I wondered what her name was as a man. I felt that this was important enough to be in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to mention my thoughts on your specific revision because regardless of how you had edited the article, it would have been a good time to post the discretionary sanctions alert. (After all the alert is a notice and not a warning. Hopefully the new version of the template, which was revised after I posted to your talk page, makes that clearer.)

But since you brought it up, I thought it was poor form to unilaterally decide to make a change when discussion about just such a change has been taking place on the talk page off and on for more than four years, and no consensus has been reached to change the article, and the article has been subjected to notorious disruptive editing. I believe the least you could do for your fellow editors is to go to the talk page and, if you have not done so already, read all the info boxes at the top of the page, familiarize yourself with the discussion about edits like yours, and explain why you made your edit. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee I am going to delete this thread in 21 days. In the meantime if you could strike through the heading of this section, I would appreciate it. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought if anyone objected they would revert. I didn't put it in the lead because I figured it might be controversial or the information would have been there. But there seemed to be no reason not to put the information in the section on early life, once I found a source that appeared reliable. At first I didn't see a RELIABLE source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did revert, but I don't agree with your logic. The issue on the talk page seems to be whether we can verify the name. There is a chance the source just got it from somewhere. But I don't see where the guideline linked to justifies the edit. If the person was not notable under the former name, i can see leaving it out of the lead. I don't see where leaving the former name out entirely is justified.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that the policy does not seem to apply to all trans people, I agree. But in this case it applies because Laverne Cox was, as you put it, "not notable under" her former name. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on whether "'not notable under' her former name" means we can ever use it if the source is reliable. That just doesn't make sense..— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably be doing this on Talk:Laverne Cox anyway. Would it be okay to move the entire discussion there?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to continue this conversation on the talk page, that is more than okay with me. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant everything already said here should be there as well, starting where I first mentioned Laverne Cox.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Steve Down

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Down. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy discretionary sanctions alert

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 recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 Wikipedia's policies, or any 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.

Template:Z33 Woodroar (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at NPOV noticeboard regarding Trans woman

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that some of your recent comments at WP:NPOVN seemed to actively discourage discussion of neutrality issues. It seemed your comments were intended to shut down discussion and suggestions from NPOVN regulars. Discussing such issues seems the entire point of the NPOV noticeboard. The comments which appeared aimed at shutting down discussion included: [1], [2], [3], [4] If discouraging input and discussion was not your intention, I just wanted to leave you a quick note to let you know it came across that way. Also, I’m not defending the editor with whom you appear to have had past dispute, but it seems the discussion has become quite lengthy [5], has involved multiple previously uninvolved editors, and the focus is now specifically on article content issues related to neutrality and clarity at this point, rather than one particular editor’s alleged behavior. If this editor continues to edit war or otherwise be disruptive, seems WP:AN3 or WP:ANI could be used, but could you please refrain from discouraging discussion of neutrality related issues at NPOVN? Thank you. DynaGirl (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DynaGirl,

Regarding WP:AN3 and WP:ANI, all I will say for now is that I have been hoping that other editors and I can resolve our problems without seeking administrator intervention.

As for your request, the fact that you needed to go back more than 48 hours to find all my diffs except one in which I edited a previous comment ought to tell you a something about how willing I am to discourage other editors from participating in the discussion. You might also want to consider -- and you should not be blamed for not already knowing this -- I have been promoting the idea that (a) the editors at Trans woman put a POV lead tag at the top of the page, and (b) the tag should link to an appropriate section of the talk page so that people have an idea of what the dispute is about. Why? Well, the salient reason is that I think people who find the article should be made aware of the discussion at NPOV/N, even if I believe that the discussion is ill-advised.

And, yes, I said the discussion is ill-advised. Why? Well, to keep this from being more of a wall of text than it already is I will limit myself to one reason: It is not good for the Talk:Trans woman regulars who most want to change the lede. We should be acculturating them to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:DISCUSSION, WP:CONSENSUS, and perhaps most salient for this discussion WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Editors who are already struggling with communicating effectively with their fellow editors (note that the editor who made the report did not even link to a relevant section of Talk:Trans woman despite what is prescribed at NPOV/N) should not be given the impression that they can solve their problems by sidestepping community processes and simply calling for a vote. This is especially true on a noticeboard people regularly feel serves no purpose. (Just take a look at the talk page, including archived discussion.) The end for Civil POV pushers is often either being "sanctioned for incivility" or "go[ing] . . . quietly" after becoming "disillusioned". I do not want to see either of these things happen.

One more thing, I ask that you take care when telling editors there is something wrong with diffs that are obviously votes. I might not like to see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY flouted, but if editors should insist on reducing a discussion to a series of votes, I will not look favorably on voter intimidation.

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marie Paradox:, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say you've been promoting POV tag. Edit history shows you actually removed POV tag from the trans woman page [6] in the midst of an ongoing and lengthy WP:NPOVN discussion in which numerous uninvolved editor have raised neutrality as well as clarity concerns. [7] DynaGirl (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DynaGirl, could you refrain from making it difficult for me to assume good faith or more specifically assume that you are not cherry picking? The relevant talk page discussion is linked to in the very diff you just presented. If you look at that discussion or my recent comments to Userwoman, you will see my explanation: I removed the tag because (a) it was not a POV lead tag, and to date the discussion has focused on the lead (even the report at NPOV/N was strictly about the lead), and (b) it does not link to a specific section of the talk page and thus does not do much to guide readers into discussion about what is being disputed. I have said that I would accept such an edit even if the discussion linked to lacked a source that I felt was reliable. I fully expected that someone would insert a POV lead tag with a link to a relevant discussion on the talk page, and that would be the end of it. Frankly, I am baffled that the people who most vocally express POV concerns would apparently rather see no POV tag on the page than accept a compromise. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 17:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you stated on talk you removed general POV tag saying it should be POV lead tag instead but didn't replace it with POV lead tag, but instead removed it outright. I've commented on talk:Trans woman with respect to the tag issue if you'd like to discuss there. DynaGirl (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DynaGirl, thank you for letting me know. I have replied there. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Talk:Trans woman. Consensus building can be tiresome at times, but I wanted to let you know that your contributions and your voice are valued, and I don't think I am alone in saying that I certainly would not want to see you back down from editing because of some silly wiki drama like this. Have this tiny barnstar: — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Insertcleverphrasehere. Your tiny barnstar means a lot to me! -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 14:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]