User talk:Sophieburke99

This user is a student editor in University_of_Cincinnati_/English_2089_Intermediate_Composition__(Fall_) .

Welcome!

Hello, Sophieburke99, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I agree with the edits you plan on making. I like how you plan to incorporate recent information and bring the article up to date. Maybe go into more depth about the differences between non-binary and genderqueer and why they can't be used interchangeably.

Genderqueer

Hi! I wanted to give you a head's up about the article. As the article falls within the area of gender, this is one of the more controversial editing areas on Wikipedia - this means that any edits to the article need to be written carefully. The sourcing needs to be the strongest possible sourcing and the writing needs to be neutral as possible.

It looks like one of your additions to the article, the section on discourse/debate was removed by Flyer22 Reborn with the edit summary "Poor source for such a statement, and the source and a section based on it is therefore WP:Undue". The source you used was this one. The issue with the source is most likely that the editorial oversight is unclear, the organization is student/youth led, and there's no sign that this specific website/organization is routinely seen as a reliable source by other reliable sources like academic sources. This is one of the downfalls of using websites as sources, as this is a pretty common issue. For this topic, I'd heavily recommend that you use academic and scholarly sources. While genderqueer isn't strictly a health and science topic per se (it brushes against it, as many articles about gender and sexuality tend to do), I would use the guidelines for medicine related reliable sources as a guideline since this can be such a controversial topic area. We have a training module on this here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalor (Wiki Ed), regarding this, I wouldn't suggest WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are needed. All it is needs is a WP:Secondary academic source. Even a solid media source, such as a source from The Guardian, would suffice. For any health material, then, yes, MEDRS-compliant sources should be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Flyer22 Reborn! I wasn't sure if this was too close to topics that would require MEDRS or not, so thank you for clarifying this! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles

Hi, Sophieburke99,

I'd like to extend my welcome to you as well. This message is a more formal follow-up to what Shalor already wrote above. Following this post, is a standard notice sent to anyone editing gender-related articles, such as your contributions to Genderqueer. After reading it, you're welcome to remove the notice, or keep it, as you wish. Normally, Shalor would be your first contact for any content issues, but you're more than welcome to contact me as well, if you have any questions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathglot! Sophieburk99, the main thing here is to just exercise caution and make sure that you're putting out the strongest work possible. If you're worried, you can always ask myself or other editors to review the material. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]