User talk:WanderingWanda
No matter who you are or what you want to talk about, if you approach me in an earnest, open, and cordial way I will do my best to return the favor.
-WanderingWanda
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 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 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.
Providing a standard alert for information per the discussion at Talk:Stephanie Hirst --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. (This is my second one of these so far. If I get five can I trade them in for a prize?) WanderingWanda (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, if you had an alert in the last 12 months on the same topic, then the alert is unnecessary. I was probably confused by the layout of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AWanderingWanda, as I was only looking for a diff rather than the warnings. Maybe what info is in the log has changed slightly, not sure. It would be much easier if this were built into something like Twinkle which explicitly told you if a user was already relevantly alerted.
- Thanks for pointing it out. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Deadnames
Thanks for pitching in on the curses talk page. I'm a little conflicted at the moment. I asked on the LGBT Studies page about this, and the only response I got was that this really was a reasonable place to use the deadname. My thinking is more like yours, that how you refer to them today isn't necessarily the same as how they were referred to then. But your comment is more in tune with my thinking. I'm wondering if you have any ideas as to how I can resolve this in a way more respectful to the person in question? Kcrca (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Kcrca, I've made an additional statement in support of just using her current name. Perhaps that will be the end of it. If not, a compromise position would be to write her name as "Currentname (then Deadname)". That's what the Wikileaks article currently does when talking about Chelsea Manning. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Though I've found myself in editing disputes only a few times, it can be intimidating to simply act in the face of more experienced opposition. I appreciate your input and help! Kcrca (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)