Jump to content

User talk:-sche/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2012

[edit]

Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Salisbury Convention without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Velella  Velella Talk   19:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit fixed a grammatical error. Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

[edit]

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 04:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was your response there misplaced? If it was intended as support for the move proposal, move it up to the correct section. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it was. Thanks for pointing that out! -sche (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltics Rfc

[edit]

FWIW, I partially dropped out of that discussion, as something from my past was brought up there. I can't elaborate further, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your refraining from accusations of baiting. Please do not levy personal attacks at the discussion again. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice. :) -sche (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

We do know, for the next eight years Chelsea will be in Kansas. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A gender identity change is so fundamentally different it can't be easily compare to a stage name, nom de plume or other common occurrence. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To show that Wikipedia does not always title articles using subject's legal names, I think it is appropriate to give many examples. Let's see what others think. (Somehow. I'm not sure how to go about soliciting others' views: it's a talk page that we're talking about, so it hasn't got a talk page we can post on. Hmm...) -sche (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with getting more input. I do assert though that every example given simply doesn't apply as they are not about a gender identity change. I believe every identity change also corresponds to the article being at the latest stated gender identity. Maybe we don't need examples or we find if there are any articles that are not at the person's latest gender identity? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this question has nothing to do with gender identity. It is a name change, and the point of the the FAQ is, we don't base article titles on legal name. Therefore, the argument of 'it's not yet manning's legal name' are irrelevant for the article title. Thus the examples given are quite relevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is _exactly_ the point. We're talking about someone doing something radically different than just renaming themselves because of marriage, change in religious identity, general preference, etc. The change of gender identity is rare, the changing of a name is common. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
who cares? Legal names dont come into consideration, policy is clear as day on this point. So opining on legal name change options in the states where manning lives is useless quibbling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, of course we care about the legal status of names, it has been brought up many times. It should be made clear that a common name adoption is actually also legal in 46 of 50 US states including Manning's home/future home in Kansas. Secondly we're presently discussing the use of any examples. Personally I just don't see any examples that aren't gender identity name changes as having much validity as those are made and used under different circumstances whereas trans people face threats of violence due, in part, because their old names are weaponized against them, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the closers explicitly discounted such legal name arguments, as does wp:at. The weaponized quote is just more hyperbole, perhaps true for some ppl, but the name bradley is no secret. If you can find an additional gender switch where the legal name remained different plz add.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful to note that most states do not require people to take legal action to change their names. I've re-instated that bit from an earlier version.
I think it's good, but not necessary, to give a broad range of examples of people who we don't refer to by their legal names, including both transgender and cisgender people. If only transgender people are included, it's easy for those who oppose "Chelsea" to say "well, we should wait for a legal name change in all of those cases"! But if we point out that we didn't wait for (e.g.) Bill Clinton to legally change his name, that makes it clear how 'general' the policy is. -sche (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but you're actually weakening your argument by presenting the common law name change bit. Is doesnt matter one bit, as in NOT AT ALL what Manning's legal name is, because otherwise, if it remains Bradley for some legal reason (the army has stated they won't allow a name change I think) - then people could say 'aha! Her legal name isn't Chelsea and won't be for 35 years, therefore keep'. The point we need to emphasize in the FAQ is a policy point - legal name is not required and in fact we regularly and blatantly ignore legal names. The FAQ is weaker now - can we please put it back to give real exmples and drop the name change stuff because IT DOESN'T MATTER and us playing armchair name change lawyer just muddies the water-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i think we have to keep in mind that we're addressing a FAQ site. We should answer those questions, but in a way that is informing of why some of the answers are what they are. I'm currently looking into what, if any, Wikipedia articles don't use a new name for transgender people. So far Manning is the only one and it seems to go against BLP. Why there isn't an urgency to fix this immediately is beyond me. 30 days is an abomination on the number one reference site in the world. We are doing real harm to a real person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the 30 day thing is another issue that I dont want to get into here. My point is, whether Manning changes their legal name or not, our policies don't care, and it's a CRYSTALBALL to try to state when and if Manning will change their real name (many many sources have pointed out the legal name change hasn't happened). In any case, I think it's just weakening your argument. We're better off shutting down discussion it the FAQ and stating clearly that legal names do not have to match article titles, and in fact, often they do not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the "common law name change" bit and added back the example of Clinton. Which transgender person would make the best second example of a person whose article is neither their legal nor their birth name? Preferably someone whose article has not be the subject of repeated RMs. -sche (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I have reverted that, we need the common law part as it is frequently brought up. Until we have examples of titles with gender identity I feel the examples are purposely deceptive. As far as I have seen this is the only article where we don't follow Mos:identity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer I did for the 30-day issue works for now. Just as there are several points on pronouns, I think there are a few that need to be addressed on the title. And "legal" name change has several points to be answered, and one is that she already has essentially done a legal name change even if not everyone respects it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments:
  1. In what way is the name of Bill Clinton offensive to transgender women?
  2. Surely we can find a better example than Stevens/Islam, whose Wikipedia article uses the middle of his three names, rather than his birth name or his current name. How about citing Theresa Sparks instead?
-sche (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW

[edit]

Hi, re this, this and this: your closure was both improper (since you had previously contributed to the discussion) and premature (since the nomination was at 16:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC) which is less than seven days ago). I have reverted all three edits.

If you wish to close a TFD in future, please make sure that you follow all of the instructions linked top right of WP:TFD as "Closing instructions". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for the info! I looked around for instructions on how to close "RFD"s (or whatever Requests for Deletion are called here), but didn't find any, so I followed the model of other SNOW-closes I'd seen. -sche (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:SNOW applies, since it's not an overwhelming "keep": there were four "delete", plus several neutrals that could be read as "delete". I suspect that it will close "keep" though, but I'm unsure how the "Lastly" sentence (involving WP:NOTAFORUM) will be resolved. Let's see what the closing admin does, on Saturday or Sunday. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

[edit]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

[edit]

Dear -sche.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for the barnstar and for your own hard work (which was more substantial than mine) to set up the RM. :) -sche (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Jews/infobox

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jews/infobox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]

wording

[edit]

That wording is a bit clumsy. What if we presented it as a summary or in some other way then presenting it as a direct quote? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the wording is fine. But more importantly, the disputes over MOS-TW/MOS-TM made it clear that a sizeable number of people will find fault with any template that paraphrases the MOS, and will argue that it leaves something important out, or states something the MOS doesn't, and that the template should therefore be deleted. That's why MOS-TRANS quotes the MOS verbatim; it's one of its raisons d'être, IMO. (The other raison d'être for it is that a single template can't fall out of sync with itself the way a pair of templates can.)
If you do feel that the wording of the MOS is clumsy, though, then as I suggested in my edit summary, the thing to do is to make a post on WT:MOS and change the wording of WP:MOS itself, not to change quotations of it. -sche (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure I want to deal with month-long processes but I'll raise it once the TfD is done and see if there is consensus to not quote directly. Long-term it may make sense to help copy-edit what MOS has, which is unfortunately ironic as usually the writing on MOS is much better than average. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Pamela Geller

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

Template:MOS-TRANS

[edit]

Now that there has been some distance do you think we should look to combining the other templates into Template:MOS-TRANS, with parameters? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. I am not sure what venue it would be best to propose the merger in; perhaps just one of the templates' talk pages (linked-to from the other templates' talk pages) — or does Wikipedia have a dedicated forum for template merger requests? One thing I anticipate may come up in any merger discussion is the question of whether the end-result template should retain NOTAFORUM as an intrinsic part of it (as in MOSTRANS), or apply it separately (as pages that use MOS-TW and MOS-TM do). -sche (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just try to make the template as best as we see fit, then post for comments on the two templates that would be merged into it. That way any basic issues could be worked on until a formal merger happens. I keep seeing Intersex people's biographies so i think we might want a parameter just for them as well, perhaps with a link to where to ask for help as there is the Medical project, as well as the LGBT one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:John Schlossberg

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Schlossberg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Politics

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Politics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-sche/Archive_1&oldid=1168298698"