User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2015

IdeaLab proposal

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder victims

Firstly, let me reassure you that I don't dispute the fact that the murders of Ms Araujo and Ms Hester were tragedies, and horrific crimes.

That said, we don't have an article about Ms Araujo: we have an article about the murder of Ms Araujo, and that murder's sociological after-effects. And to be frank, I doubt we'd have an article about Ms Hester either, if she hadn't also been murdered. Our article on trans women does not need to include every single trans woman ever. It doesn't even need to include everyone who's listed in Category:Transgender and transsexual women.

And for the record, I also don't think that our article on trans men should include Brandon Teena in the list of notable trans men, even with the existence of the film Boys Don't Cry, because the film was only made after (and because of) Mr Teena's tragic murder. DS (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello hello? Can I have a response? DS (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would you need one? You didn't ask me a question! Your position is noted. You already know I disagree with you. What's there to say? Skyerise (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Also checking in here :) Vizjim (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! It was a Wikipedia Loves Libraries meetup, and its page can be found here. Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you. Am starting work on our meetup page - could you take a look? and make your own changes/suggestions? Vizjim (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Abbey Brewing Company

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NALS page

Hi -

Do you know how to format the Native American Literature Symposium meetup page into two tabs? I'd like to have an intro page with aims and resources, and another tab with suggested articles (or even three article tabs - Biography / Books / General. Would be very grateful. Best, looking fowrwrad to seeing you on Thursday, Vizjim (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to do that. Skyerise (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Birth name not called out in the lead sentence, but rather in the info box.

Got it, thanks. - Embram (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Rimmer

I'm a bit confused by your deleting the category of Polyamory. The article says at the outset that his prime theme was opposition to monogamy. In the autobiographical Adventure in Loving, he talks about how he and his wife had an ongoing sexual relationship with another couple, which ended only when one of the other couple died. deisenbe (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better category in ehich he could be placed since 1) all the people involved are dead, and 2) he openly talks about the long-lasting relationship with this other couple? deisenbe (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, whatever category you use would have to be supported by sources that use the exact term the category refers to. There is a list of Notable people in open marriages in the open marriage article. Rimmer is already included there. Use of categories relating to sexuality is highly restricted. I don't believe there are any people categories for either polyamory or open marriage. This is intentional. We can categorize self-identified polyamory advocates in the Category:Polyamory. We cannot place people there simply because their we believe their relationship is polyamorous. There used to be a category called something like "Polyamorous people" or "People in polyamorous relationship", but it was intentionally deleted as having a high potential for misuse. There is similarly no category for people in open marriages. With support, they can be listed in the section of open marriage which I referred to above. As Wikipedia can be sued if we get these things wrong, we simply don't create such categories as they are so liable to be misused. Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikithon Isleta Pueblo

Hey! Will be the first Wikithon on tribal lands? Anyway, I'm not sure how to email you, but I'll email Vizjim. Otherwise, I'll just show up and ask where the Wikithon is. -Ahalenia (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I don't know! There should be an "Email this user" link in the tools section of the left-hand menu when you are looking at my user or talk page. But I think you have to have your Wikipedia email enabled to be able to use it. It's in preferences. But mailing Vizjim is fine... Skyerise (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll meet you in person tomorrow anyway ;) Ahalenia (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Ahalenia

Yup. Skyerise (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Monsters

I note that in the article on Walter Breen, you rearranged the content so that his crimes are described prior to his numismatic (and other) writings. I feel that this was inappropriate, because there are (sadly) a great many such monsters. The only reason that Breen was a notable monster is because of his numismatic activity; otherwise he'd just be "that monster who used to be married to MZB and various fans got upset about him".

Would you object to my restoring the previous order of topics? DS (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Works sections are supposed to be the last section before appendices.... I'll take another look though. Skyerise (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New Mexico state question listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Mexico state question. Since you had some involvement with the New Mexico state question redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sharyn Scott

I put her up for a afd-since I know you tagged her for notability figured you want to leave some input. Wgolf (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your assistance.. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

external links

Dear Skyerise,

Someone once said "Linking to DMOZ is the normal method we use to point to links that are otherwise to be avoided." ( -- User talk:Derek farn#External links ).

However, since then all mention of "DMOZ" has been removed from the Wikipedia: External links guideline. [1] In some discussion about that removal, at least one person said "If the links do not merit inclusion on-wiki, then they do not merit being linked to through a directory service either." ( -- Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 34#Open_Directory Project (DMOZ) )

I am interested in your opinion.

Are DMOZ links so useful that every Wikipedia article that has a corresponding DMOZ category should link to that DMOZ page?

Are DMOZ links, although they may have been useful in the past, so useless today that they should be removed from every Wikipedia article?

Or do you have some intermediate opinion? --DavidCary (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DMOZ is useful. There is nothing in WP:EL that would require DMOZ link removal. I'd leave them. Especially in cases where they lead to lists of related organizations (i.e. we can't list every Buddhist meditation center, but we can link to a category on DMOZ that will give access to them and prevent the accumulation of individual links on Wikipedia articles). Skyerise (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Be Here Now

I am here, at your talk page, now. Hi, and good to meet you. Had a quick look at your user page and your work and life are very impressive, thank you for your contributions. In my edit summary at 'Be Here Now' I mentioned some things that I see that you are obviously aware of, so my apology for 'schooling' you there. Maybe we can take the question to the talk page and expand the discussion? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:07 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

No question, really. The general rule for such navigation templates is that they should only be put on articles listed in the template. This is violated all the time, but it seems rather promotional of a specific subject to do so. What really gets me is the templates labelled "Part of a series on... " being plastered over any vaguely related article which is not part of the series! Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I like your floating coffee cup. What is probably missing on the Yoga template, and on Wikipedia, is a page 'List of Yoga books', as well as a 'Related' section on the template (Maybe I'll start one, but not today), then the template could 'legally' go on such pages. Would you like to start/add-to such a list? Thanks. This note is part of a series... Randy Kryn 16:25 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

Toney Anaya Article

Thank for correcting my recent edits to the Toney Anaya article. I was trying real hard to ensure that my edits complied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding biographies of living persons, neutral point of view, and reliable sources, but somehow managed to overlook the grammatical error that you corrected.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about List of wineries in New Mexico

Hello, Skyerise,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of wineries in New Mexico should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in New Mexico .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pleis

Your edits to Jack Pleis have been wonderful, you can certainly spin off the comprehensivediscographicalistal work into new album articles. A cellist I know said that he was a 'great player' when I played him that Carmen McRae record on a recent drunken spring evening. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll probably get around to spinning off album articles eventually. Got other fish to fry right now... Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vajravārāhī

Greetings! I restored the links to the Google Books at the article Vajravārāhī. There source to Simmer-Brown, Judith. 2014. Dakini's Warm Breath: The Feminine Principle in Tibetan Buddhism appears twice in the article: the first time, it correctly displays the page 144, and the second time, apparently, it isn't available for all the users. See, with Google Books, some pages might be available for others, depending on the country of access, while others might not be visible. In other words, I might not see certain pages while accessing from Finland, while someone from Netherlands, let's say, can see those pages very well. Anyway, one is always free to ask for Template:Request quotation.

I tried to restore the edits you made after reverting mine, but I guess my simple CTRL+F search didn't bend to this task. Please feel free to restore those edits (I got rather baffled, sorry). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite format

Please, why do you keep removing formatting I add to citations? It's wiki standard and you keep removing it. It's inexplicable. Ogress _smash! 02:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are simply not paying close enough attention. Look at the article, not the source. Skyerise (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not use a cite form the last few times, you just stuck BROWN p. XX inside of the ref formats, so yes, I was paying enough attention. Ogress _smash! 02:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved a multiply-used source to Sources, where it was formatted and if anything, improved. Look at the article, not the code! We don't need the full citation multiple times in the aricle just because the page number is different! Skyerise (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In your most recent edit, you did. In your earlier edit, you removed all formatting except "ref". You'll note I did not object to your most recent edits because you used a citation format, not raw text. Ogress _smash! 05:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved the full reference, then referred to it. There's really no need for the fancy stuff unless the citations list is so long you can't see the sources list. But whatever. Skyerise (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama status

Hi Skyerise, could I kindly refer you to the discussion about this (regarding your edit today) on the talk page, Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama#.22Dalai_Lamas_are_amongst_the_head_monks_of_the_Gelug_school.22, I've been looking into this tricky point quite carefully, thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for setting the foundations in aiding me for improving the page Kuwait Astronomical Society! Exximos (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Leah Song

Hi, are you sure it is appropriate to make an article with the stage name as title and make the real name a redirect to that article, instead of the other way around? So you have actually an article about a name and not a person, but the article contains all the information about the person. Sounds wrong to me. Wouldn't it be better to use 'Leah Smith' as title? When I created the article about Raising Appalachia I was thinking hard and long if there is enough info about the sisters (especially Leah, as she sings also solo) outside of the Raising Appalachia group for an individual article. Unfortunately I didn't think so and there is little new info apart from the Raising Appalachia connection.

I also have to ask you, where you see the advantage of linking inline references first to an extra Note section and than from there to the Reference section (using sfn) instead if directly from the inline ref numbers to the references (using ref)??? Seems to me this wastes space on the page and makes it more complicated for readers to get to a reference. Isn't the sfn template mainly useful if one reference is used several times in an article (I might be wrong as I didn't know that template before and just quickly read it's description)? Optimale ^Gu 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in this case, per WP:COMMONNAME. She actually goes by Leah Song in general, and the majority of articles about and I think all the interviews, the bio on her own site and pretty much everything refers to her as Song rather than Smith. Of course, with a last name like Smith it's hard to do a valid comparison using Google search. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the citation style, the creator of the article gets to determine it (see WP:CITEVAR). I find that it is much, much easier to build an article from scratch using Harvard-style referencing. Sorry if it's not what you prefer. Skyerise (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sylvan Grove Theater and Columns

Two images added; there are a bunch more in a Commons category, which I've linked via a template. - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe! Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace archives

Hey Skyerise, I recently set up archiving for Talk:Ada Lovelace, but I didn't realize that using the monthly archiving system was going to create such a mess (lots of tiny archive pages instead of a few large archive pages). I was hoping to redo it with a simple sequential archive and then delete the monthly archives. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, is there any particular reason you aren't an administrator? Seems like you should be :) Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think monthly is fine. They are searchable, right? So people can find what they are looking for regardless of the structure. It doesn't look like you are an admin on EN so it creates a lot of deletion work. If I'm mistaken and you can do the deletions yourself, then I guess go ahead, but I don't see the problem....

As for reason I am not an admin? I have received a lot of harassment from IP editors. I mean a lot. Don't really want to have a higher profile as it attracts more attention and I'd probably get in trouble for just stomping any such IP harassers with tools rather than following process. Have no patience for them and think we shouldn't even allow IP editing. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That's sad to hear, but not surprising. If you experience more harassment, you may want to consider emailing someone on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. If you don't know anyone on that list, I recommend User:FloNight. She's super helpful. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sometimes I do paid editing. Despite the fact that I am legit about creating cited, non-promotional articles, I don't expect I would be successful at an admin bid because of it, even if I wanted to be an admin. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

RIPM

Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to RIPM. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did get the email. I'l complete the form tomorrow. Things suddenly got very busy and I wasn't able to attend to it, but they have calmed down... Skyerise (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unwelcome use of talk page

The editor Sundayclose (talk · contribs) is not welcome to post on my talk page. Other editors feel free to revert any further harassment. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI: one can not ban another from posting appropriate warnings and notices. See WP:NOBAN Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Read more closely: one cannot ban an administrator from posting notices. Non-admin editors have no special privileges when it comes to canned notices, especially when they are using them to harass rather than to inform. See also WP:DTTR. Skyerise (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to". The "or" separates the two. As an example to the difficulty of an "admins only post request", If X could put a "everyone (but administrators) is banned from posting here". Then nobody but admins could warn X for vandalism. As posting on AIV generally requires four warnings, it would be difficult to get X properly listed on AIV without a reprimand for violating their request. DTTR is an essay on behavior (with good recommendations), but not a policy.

If someone posts inappropriate warnings on your talk page and won't stop, take it to ANI. If someone were to remove an appropriate warning notice from a talk page, it might be construed as vandalism. Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, editors are allowed to remove anything from their talk page, including valid warning. Removal means "I've read it". And nobody is talking about banning all non-admins from a talk page. Only about banning single non-admin editors, so your reasoning is just a bunch of red herring! And ANI is a complete joke when it comes to such matters. Skyerise (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner

Ok, I was not aware that MOS:IDENTITY was so severe - or that it even existed at all. At the French wikipedia, we are still trying to find an acceptable way to treat such cases. IMHO, the use of female (or in other cases male) pronouns during the person's whole life is not a good idea, as in some cases it just makes him/her look kind of silly. That's especially the case with Jenner's sports career. However, I just don't have the time or interest to debate that. Best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing sex and gender. Pronouns are gendered, not sexed. And to the subject, it does not make them look silly: it acknowledges their lifelong gender identification. Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the gender issue : it's just that in some contexts, writing "she" when the subject was still legally a man - and in Jenner's case, was performing as a male athlete - is just odd to the reader. The result is that the article looks silly, which unfortunately makes Jenner look silly. But then again, that's just my point of view. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the point of view of someone uneducated on gender issues. Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to his own opinion. My point of view is that we should avoid to expose trans people to potential ridicule by uneducated readers, but you have every right to think that I am being too pessimistic. Take care, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think mixing pronouns is more ridiculous than sticking with a single gender. On top of that, the facts of transgenderism support the latter, not the former. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's one point of view, although I have been taking part in debates at the French wikipedia where the opposite POV (about pronouns, that is) has prevailed for now. Then again, if the majority here has a different opinion, I have no interest in challenging it. I think both of us are concerned with protecting trans people from ridicule and callousness, but we have different opinions about the articles' presentations. That's not a major problem, though. No hard feelings, I hope. Take care. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a very civil editor, certainly no cause for hard feelings. Have a great day, or night, or whatever time it is where you are... Skyerise (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Right now, we are having a bright sunny day here in Paris. :) Best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sneer quotes nope

FYI...the use of quotes around the term role model was not used maliciously.Fine to remove the quotes if you misunderstood the purpose which means that other readers could misunderstand the use of quotes there or claim they are some kind of spite quotes....jftr that is a somewhat difficult editing fix and I edited the quotes to refer to the quoted ref. To try and distinguish spokesperson athletes from box cover athletes. This is now the 3rd time that you have abf with my edits to this topic and I do not appreciate that.ChangalangaIP (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We do not use quotation marks unless someone is being quoted. Who are you quoting? The citation for a quotation should directly follow the quotation. Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the Wheaties ref which follows the statement but never mind putting quote things back since it could be misunderstood. When I get on my PC maybe I will add a quoted section to the cite. I cannot even remember why I rm the previous quotation marks from "spokesperson", so it may be better to not quote single words there anyhow, since they are not helping the section.ChangalangaIP (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Veni, vidi, vici 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Write an essay describing those who play Wikipedia as a sport. First entry, "the tackle" - bring up your opponent on frivolous complaints on an admin board. Be sure at least one ally is ready to jump your opponent with you. Other players will come, and you can together deny, negate, misinterpret and just make things up about what's wrong with what they have to say for themselves. Score a point for each previously uninvolved person who jumps in. Add 2 bonus points if you can go on so long that when the admin gets there they just roll their eyes and archive it. Skyerise (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl

Re: "External links: not sure what that was doing here" (your edit - your comment)

If you didn't know why the link to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters was included on the Lost Girl article .... you should have taken a look at the linked article to see why. Lost Girl is included in it because (1) Bo is bisexual; (2) Lauren is homosexual; (3) Evony/The Morrigan is bisexual; (4) Tamsin is bisexual; (5) Vex is bisexual. Gay (male) couples have also appeared (Season 2 and 3). Instead of removing a valuable link to another Wikipedia article, perhaps you can think of a way to include it. Or is deleting for the sake of deletion going to be the norm? PS: are you the new admin of the page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The emphasis was on here, after the nav template tagged onto the very end of the article rather than in see also! Skyerise (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All I know and all I care about is that you deleted the link -- but didn't make the effort to include it somewhere else that can be a better fit. Now you've tinkered with the quotation that is the Voice-over monologue recited by Bo during the original (Canadian) opening credits. If you want to turn off Jane Doe and John Doe editors from contributing to Wikipedia, you're definitely on the right path. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Manual of Style and I am simply conforming things to it. Please read WP:OWN, nobody "owns" articles here. And you might want to read our policy on conflicts of interest too, since I see you state "I am the Admin of the Lost Girl Wiki" on your user page. And don't give me any bullshit about making you feel some particular way - you control your feelings, not me. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Raewyn Connell

With regards your recent edit comment "external media does not go in info box, belongs in external links section", could you please give me the link to the specific section in WP:MOS / discussion / other WP policy where it says so? As I'm not aware of such a rule. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." Infobox is part of the body. It's an external link. External links are restricted to the appendices to avoid having people exit Wikipedia while reading. They may be in Notes, References, Further reading and External links sections only. Skyerise (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder to say Thank you

Skyerise, you sent me a thank you for an edit I did, and I wanted to thank you. Not for the Thank you, but for the reminder that I should consider other people's edits and thank them if they made the article better, or made my life as an editor of an article easier. Of course I appreciate all good faith edits, but while some are just adding new information, some go into the article and clean it up, make it better. I wish I could remember to thank those editors more often, but often I get tunnel vision. Therefore, thank you for making me stop and evaluate. Mburrell (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note

I appreciate the thought and effort you're putting into the discussions on the Village Pump, even if I'm not agreeing with all your points. I have plenty of TG friends and acquaintances, and they do not all have a uniform opinion/feeling/experience with regard to the underlying matters at the heart of the discussion, so I tend to oppose one-size-fits-all approaches, and (being an anthropologist by training) I take as objective-as-possible a view of matters like this from socio-culturally relativistic perspective, and I disagree with treating different contexts as directly comparable. Most analogies (not just about this topic) are false equivalence on one level or another, so they break eventually. That said, it's very important for WP to have these discussions, sometimes repeatedly and heatedly, to arrive at sensible encyclopedic output. Anyway, and I mean this in the most well-meaning way, despite the sarcastic (and arguably sexist) name of the essay: Please read WP:DIVA and take it to heart. Not because I think you're "being a diva"; I didn't title the essay. But the reasoning in it is valid: When you make "If things don't go the way I want, I'm going to quit" threats, it a) makes a lot of people actually want you to quit, and b) makes even more people, who don't want you to quit, nevertheless turn off any further critical thinking about the issues you're raising, and just move on. It's psychologically, if not thematically, closely related to Godwin's law – certain debate tactics just dump the discussion in the toilet. PS: I've filed a requested move at the essay's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction needed on King of the Hill guest stars article

While cleaning up a bit of vandalism, I came across a correction needed at List_of_guest_stars_on_King_of_the_Hill#Season_6 regarding Caitlyn Jenner -- it's under "Torch Song Hillogy". I've been trying to make sense of the precedents and current consensus, but I'm not confident I can make the edit correctly. You'll appreciate it's a lot to wade through, and since your boots are already quite muddy, I thought I'd presume on your experience to do it right. Thanks. Willondon (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Willondon, it's a mess and under discussion, but MOS:IDENTITY says to use the most recent gender identity. Some people think it means only on the subject's biography, but it doesn't say that... what I did will probably be reverted again... but whatever... Skyerise (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Deadnaming listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Deadnaming. Since you had some involvement with the Deadnaming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow

This is a great day. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Transparent (TV series) vandalism

Hi there! I found your name in the WikiProject LGBT studies and thought that you might be able to help revert vandalist edits to the article Transparent (TV series). Multiple anonymous accounts have lately changed "her" into "him" for a transgender woman. I have reverted several of these edits, and added a remark on the talk page. Would you please look into this, or suggest someone else's help? Thank you in advance. It may seem like a small topic, but I actually believe that TV series might be a good start to bring the topic to the attention of a wider audience. Mark in wiki (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PROD?

This should not even exist. The trouble is someone decided all schools are notable. Enigma^msg 15:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you re Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification

Thank you for the notification regarding this topic.Ashleigh Mitchell 22:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondancer (talk • contribs)

The Be Good Tanyas

WP:ELNO expressly prohibits the collation of comprehensive offsite linkfarms in our articles — a band's article is not allowed to contain a comprehensive directory of offsite links to every individual music video they ever released. Regardless of whether they're on the band's "official" YouTube channel or not, they're still not appropriate. And even the external links section of the article is only allowed to contain the band's primary website and nothing else — ELNO specifically prohibits social networking links, so the ELs section is not allowed to contain Myspaces, Facebooks, Twitters, Soundclouds, sources such as AllMusic that should be converted to footnoted references instead, or extended directories of content (such as a relocation of the YouTube videos directory just because it's inappropriate elsewhere) — the only thing that belongs in the external links section is the official website itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Creating under-referenced articles which don't establish notability per WP:GNG are a way bigger problem, especially when they involve living persons. Something you might want to keep in mind. Skyerise (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not my "opinion"; it's what WP:ELNO says.

And as for "creating under-referenced articles which don't establish notability per WP:GNG", I don't do that. What you're missing is that GNG is a complement to, not an override of, our subject-specific inclusion criteria — we do have certain criteria (such as a politician getting elected to a state or national legislature, an actor winning a top-level film award such as an Oscar or a Genie, a writer winning a top-level literary award such as a Pulitzer or a Giller, a musician winning a Grammy or a Juno, etc.) for which an article is allowed to be created, and must be kept, as soon as one source can be added which confirms that said criterion has been met. It takes more than that to make an article good, absolutely, and another person in the same field who doesn't meet that criterion still has to pass GNG to become appropriate for inclusion — but there are certain achievement criteria (election to an WP:NPOL-passing office, winning of an elite class of awards, etc.) which confer automatic notability as long as the article contains one source confirming that the criterion has been achieved.

Accordingly, an article about a Genie or Oscar or BAFTA-winning actor may certainly be flagged as needing reference improvement, but may not have its basic notability questioned or challenged, as long as the claim that he won a Genie Award or an Oscar or a BAFTA is sourced as being true.

You might also want to keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia has an explicit rule against actively stalking other editors' contribution histories to attack every single article they've touched. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The so-called "rule" only includes doing things which are not intended for article improvement but only to harass. It specifically does not prohibit reviewing another editors contributions for repeated problematic patterns and calling out those problems where they occur. If you want to force other editors to work to your interpretations of the rules you consider important, then I suggest you be open to having your adherence to other rules you think are less important examined. Skyerise (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My work is not failing to conform to any rules of greater or lesser classes of importance. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fresno pepper

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fresno pepper —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Falconjh (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Falconjh (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Poking the bear

I repoked the bear over [[here]].

BTW, for your citation the correct author of the Vanity Fair piece on her is Buzz Bissinger. The photographer was [[Annie Leibovitz]].

I also started an ANI over [[here]].

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kriyananda page

I need help with an issue regarding two sentences but I am assuming with expand out into the rest of the page. Please see the Kriyananda talk page - the last entry... Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [[2]]

Solstice & Season's greetings

	Merry Christmas and happy New Year
	Best wishes to you and your family. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How attached are you to Wikipedian categories?

Hello. Would you be annoyed if I put the Wikipedians who read Elfquest, the Incarnations of Immortality, and Frank Herbert categories up for deletion. We are the only two people in the first two categories, and there is only one other in the last. LA If you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 13:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)