User talk:Amanda A. Brant

Welcome!

Hi Amanda A. Brant! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grimes2 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the ce of the Nobel-prize laureates articles. Grimes2 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Benjamin List

On 8 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Benjamin List, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Amanda A. Brant. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack against you in Talk:Kathleen Stock

Hey Amanda, my advice next time another editor makes an accusation like that is to not rise to their bait. Point out the personal attack and refer them back to policy. If they continue, then you can raise it through one of the noticeboards via WP:RUCD. I do agree with everything you've said on the talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The discussion got a little too heated and I was unwisely baited into explaining my general position and reasoning by the comment that I shouldn't edit the article simply because I had used the abbreviation TERF in reference to GC Academia Network. I will certainly be more careful in how I respond to that group of editors in the future. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about it. I've had the same accusation made against me. It's frustrating when it happens, but better to let the other editor make a fool of themselves, than get dragged into an argument on their terms. No-one comes out of the latter situation well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using edit summaries

Please use an edit summary with every edit. Each edit should have the goal of improving an article in some way, however large or small. The edit summary field is there, to help you communicate with your fellow editors, and explain the rationale for your edit, or in other words, how your change improves the article. Here's some standard verbiage about this, with some links with more information; please read it and follow the links:
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You are strongly encouraged (but not required) to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a dozen or more edits you made at Feminist views on transgender topics today, none of which had an edit summary. This is contrary to the spirit and letter of collaboration and consensus, and if it becomes a pattern, could be seen as WP:DISRUPTive. Please leave an edit summary with each edit you make, explaining how it improves the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate addition of category to articles

I see that you have inappropriately added the category ‘Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom’ to the articles on various UK organisations. I have reverted this on LGB Alliance. I suggest you self-revert all of the other additions of this category which you have made today. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amanda. I don't think that that category is intrinsically inappropriate although Sweet6970 is correct that it must be used with care. I think that it might be defensible on an article like LGB Alliance, and on the other organisations which exist largely to argue against LGBT rights. It is probably less defensible on something like Alba Party, which could (maybe overgenerously) be argued to be not in active opposition to LGBT rights, merely not at all bothered to discipline those of its members who are. Anyway, I'm not here to advise you to do, or not do, anything specific with those categories, just to be careful and to consider starting discussions whenever consensus needs to be reached on its applicability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I’m a bit puzzled by your comment above. If an organisation is opposed to LGBT rights that means they are opposed to rights for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as trans people. For instance, this would mean that the organisations are opposed to legislation banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and are opposed to same-sex marriage. I can see nothing in the articles concerned to support this description of them. (There is a separate category for ‘organizations that oppose transgender rights’.) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy the idea that an organisation can be against one stripe of the rainbow flag without being against the whole thing. I see that purely as a cynical matter of tactics and optics, in which the battle against LGBT rights is targeted at the smallest, least understood and most reviled group first before moving on to the others later. Leaving that aside, the argument that could be made would be around the anti bisexual, anti gay marriage and pro "conversion therapy" noises seeping out of the LGBA. We don't need to agree on this though, as I do agree with you that the other category should be the first port of call as that is most obviously appropriate. I hope we all agree that the best thing to do if there is a question over the which categories to use is to discuss it and to try to bring in other people to break any deadlock. The main point of my message was to reassure Amanda that there is a discussion to be had here and that her additions, while not automatically all correct, were also not automatically wrong. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel, for weighing in here. As I explained on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 3, this new country category is simply based on the existing use and understanding of its parent and sister categories. LGB Alliance was already included in that category and was only (correctly) added to a new country-specific sub category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my Talkpage:

1) It would be better if you had kept this discussion where it started – on your Talk page. It is confusing when a discussion is spread across more than one page. Therefore, I am copying this response to your own Talkpage.

2) You say that the LGB Alliance article was already included in a general ‘opposed to LGBT rights category’. It was not. Your statement is false.

3) You say I removed it because I don’t like it. I don’t like it when Wikipedia gives false information.

4) I also don’t like it when editors make false statements about me. You should address the issue, instead of inventing motivations for me.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from your talk page, which is the most appropriate venue to discuss your problematic edits): No, this is about your problematic and unjustified removal of a relevant category, and your subsequent edit warring against multiple editors[1][2][3]. Your removal is obviously based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any valid reason, as multiple editors have explained to you. Your claim that the category wasn't already included in the parent hierarchy is false. It was included in a country sub category based on its inclusion in one of the thematic sub categories of the same category. The only new statement made through the inclusion of the country sub category was the country in which the organisation is based, which doesn't appear to be questionable or disputed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:LGB Alliance. I came to your Talk page out of courtesy, to explain my edit. There is no further purpose in engaging with you here. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom has been nominated for deletion

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Safety Network moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Trans Safety Network, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Declaration on women's sex-based rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Declaration on women's sex-based rights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Declaration on women's sex-based rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkl talk 12:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JK Rowling

Hey Amanda,

The recent featured article review of J. K. Rowling was recently concluded, with a result of keep. Accordingly WP:FAOWN now applies to it, so you may wish to raise any such contentious edits on the talk page first, as every part of the article's content was subject to a rather rigorous review and discussion only a couple of weeks ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, not only WP:FAOWN, but WP:LEAD and WP:BLP apply. You have been notified of both BLP and gender discretionary sanctions, yet you made an unsourced additon to the lead of a BLP-- one that, as far as I can tell, cannot be sourced to any high quality source. Please take greater care when editing articles about living people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made no unsourced edit at all. Lead sections do not normally include references. The lead is a summary of the body, including the sub article on her political views, which clearly support the summary of her activism in this field as anti-transgender. In fact she is primarily known for her anti-transgender views, statements and other activities[4] and has been for years, in the sense that most RS coverage focuses on it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review again WP:BLP, along with WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM. A better understanding of these pages may help you avoid breaching the discretionary sanctions on Rowling or other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @SandyGeorgia: here, and had I not made the edit at 4.30am last night I would have also included reference to BLP and especially WP:WHEN given the controversial nature of that edit, as it absolutely would require multiple reliable sources asserting it.

Amanda off-wiki, I do agree with you. I think there are a lot of parallels right now between Rowling's recent Twitter conduct and those of Graham Linehan circa 2016/17. And I suspect that should she continue along this trajectory of increasing levels of transphobic views, as evidence when you compare her 2018 "middle-aged moment" response versus the multiple transphobic tweets made over the last 7 days, there will come a point in the not too distant future where we can say that, in wikivoice, and in her lead. But that is not now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Womens Declaration Edit

Amanda on 6th May you added a citation to the Women's Declaration International page which shows that it was retrieved on 11 December 2021. Please can you explain how the dates do not align. ~~Additionally the site is behind a paywall so it is not possible to verify the citation~~. Bartleyo (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)--Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was published on that date. Clearly an error. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amanda_A._Brant reported by User:Crossroads (Result: ). Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022 - Breach of Talk page guidelines

See WP:TALK You should not change your comments after someone has replied to them. I am reverting your changes – make your comments properly, with a new post. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may NOT change my comments. It is not allowed to change another user's talk page comments. Your comment below has nothing to do with my comment, and it's perfectly normal practise to refine one's comment. The nature of the adjustments are not suitable for a new comment, and not intended as a new comment. If you feel the need to respond directly to an earlier version of my comment you may indicate that in your own comment by linking to that version. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO - READ WP:TALK So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. An exception to this rule may be permitted if there is only one reply and it invokes WP:MUTUAL Sweet6970 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is only advice and not binding (as the page even points out), and it's not universally accepted practice. Making a few adjustments to talk page comments is widely accepted practice. Furthermore, the page also points out: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." The advice on that page does not make it acceptable for you to substantially edit my comment. If the earlier version of the comment is important to you for some arcane reason, you can just point that out in your own comment. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit your comment - I reverted it and told you to make your additional comments as a new post - as per my first post above which also told you to read WP:TALK. But, of course, you should not need to read the guidelines - it should be obvious to you that changing your comment after someone has replied to you gives a misleading impression of the discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trans Safety Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trans Safety Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans Safety Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Suitskvarts (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Women's Declaration International for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women's Declaration International, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Declaration International until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex-based rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sex-based rights has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Sex-based rights until a consensus is reached. Mathglot (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Are you capable of listening to others? Just stop and try it and I think you would be amazed. Willbb234 21:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder - Contentious topic alert - gender and sexuality

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GCF

You have twice here and here personally attacked Holly Lawford-Smith and said that citing her book was "like using a book by a well-known supporter of the KKK when writing about white supremacy in the US." Each time linking to news stories about activists protesting about this university professor in a clear attempt to discredit this person to other editors at that article. You might want to re-read our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to article talk pages. And our article on Ku Klux Klan may remind you that these were people who had more than viewpoints you find hateful, but went about murdering people. So, unless you have reliable sources that Lawford-Smith is actually lynching trans people, please strike both those associations and seriously tone down your rhetoric. Wikipedia:Activist says "Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors". Wikipedia is not here to settle an ongoing culture war and editors who only support text and sources from their side of the debate are likely to find themselves topic banned. -- Colin°^Talk 12:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Amanda's frustration and I agree that she has a right to point out that Lawford-Smith is not an impartial or appropriate source for Wikivoice statements on these issues. I agree that she needs to keep it civil but I ask you to understand how hard it is for the people at the sharp end to do this. I don't think that talking about topic bans in this way is helpful. We have already had some of our best editors in this area topic banned and such talk can create a climate of fear that amounts to censorship. Maybe I can rephrase the advice in a way that is more helpful:

Amanda, please bear in mind that anything you write can be misinterpreted or over-interpreted, sometimes in good faith and sometimes in not so good faith. This can prevent people engaging with the point that you are actually making. When you use a comparison like "X is like Y in Z way" people can (accidentally or deliberately) miss the point by saying that "X is not like Y in ABC ways" without even engaging with the "Z way". Please try to write comments carefully, with a view to not giving people any unnecessary scope to misunderstand or misconstrue them. I know that this burden of exactitude and civility falls asymmetrically and I understand that this is not at all fair. Even so, I recommend to be scrupulously polite. Try not to give people a stick to beat you with. Think about how your comments might look to an uninvolved observer who doesn't know the backstory. You are never going to convince people who are subtly but determinedly pushing an anti-trans POV but there are many others watching who still have minds to make up. Focus on persuading the reasonable people reading. DanielRigal (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page etiquette reminder

Hey,

Just wanted to give you a reminder after this comment, article talk pages not the venue for discussing editor conduct issues. Article talk pages are for content focussed discussions. If you feel as though there's an issue with the conduct of another editor, WP:ANI and WP:AE are the correct venues. As Mridul Wadhwa is subject to two CTOPs (gender and sexuality, and biographies of living or recently deceased people) I would strong suggest AE over ANI when reporting conduct issues.

I'd also suggest you remove, strike, or amend your comment on the article talk page because of this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Louise Westmarland

Hello, Amanda A. Brant,

Thank you for creating Louise Westmarland.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Amanda, nice work on your new article. In my opinion, it would benefit from inclusion in appropriate Wikiprojects, and additional WP:RS secondary sources would be a plus. Good job!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ruth Pearce (sociologist)

The article Ruth Pearce (sociologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject does not meet notability standards of Wikipedia

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Amanda A. Brant. Thank you for your work on Henry F. Fradella. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Henry F. Fradella for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry F. Fradella, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Fradella until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo News/Yahoo Finance

Hey,

Please be careful when citing stuff to Yahoo News or Yahoo Finance. Like MSN they often rehost/republish articles by other sources, and you can typically identify this by the logo and/or name of the originator being published above the headline. The Yahoo News source that you just added to J. K. Rowling and Political views of J. K. Rowling was simply a republishing of the Daily Beast article you also used for that content.

Also, please be very careful when adding content like that to WP:BLPs. Per WP:DAILYBEAST that source should only be used with caution for supporting content about a living person, if at all and rarely for statements that are controversial in nature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda again, please be careful when citing or linking to any articles on Yahoo News or Yahoo Finance. As I just said in my comment on Talk:J. K. Rowling, the Yahoo article that you linked to in that discussion was a republishing of an article by The Week that you had already linked to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These were quickly collected sources used for discussion purposes on a talk page, among many others. I didn't notice that it was the same article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by Southern Poverty Law Center

I have requested this be speedily deleted as G10, an attack page. Unlike most attack pages which just serve to annoy or harass their targets, we have specific evidence that the SPLC's hate group designation has been used by at least one individual, Floyd Corkins, to target a designated group for attempted mass murder, as seen in Family Research Council#2012 shooting. Further, SPLC's designation is not defining for any of these organizations initially included. I'll further note that clearly violent hate groups, such as Aryan Nations, where such characteristic might well be defining (SPLC) were left out in favor of groups that appear to have common appearance in the gender and sexuality contentious topic. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was deleted per my posting to AN here. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were no groups that were "left out" on purpose as this newly created category had not yet been fully populated and was only in its infancy and first hours of existence. I wasn't aware that a similar category had been deleted before. We have lists that cover this very topic (List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups) and it seems weird to me that we cannot have a category based on something that is well covered in both articles and lists. I used the list as a starting point for the category and had not yet gotten around to include Aryan Nations and similar groups. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell? SPLC's designation doesn't go on anyone other entity's article via category, because it's not a defining characteristic of any of the entities for which we have articles. Likewise, X's opinion of Y doesn't go on Y's article in general per WP:OPINIONCAT. If you haven't, do read the back-and-forth at the AN discussion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-criticals and Cass report

Amanda, you have repeatedly claimed on Talk:Cass Review that a particular politician "admitted" and "openly said" something that AFAICT she didn't actually say.[5][6][7][8] Misrepresenting the words of a BLP, even if it's a politician, even on a talk page, and even if social media is full of people saying the same thing, does not help Wikipedia. The politician said that there were gender-critical people in government when the Cass Review was commissioned, and that a more liberal or centrist government wouldn't have commissioned it. She did not actually say that the independent review's purpose was to promote gender-critical POVs. I don't think this politician's tweet is relevant to that discussion anyway, but I want to encourage you to be careful about what you are saying about living people on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of what she said and it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of it. My comment was actually based on journalist Erin Reed's comment on it[9][10][11]. This is also just a comment I made on a talk page. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP rules apply on all pages, including talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accurate and reasonable comment. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inaccurate and misleading. I also think that it does not help Wikipedia. It is an WP:ADVOCACY comment that does not belong here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source

I don't want to discuss further at the discussion, as this is more conduct than content, but I have a few concerns about your most recent comment:

You have edit-warred instead of responding on this talk page. You are required to obtain consensus for the inclusion of this material, especially when 1) the source is no longer considered generally reliably on this topic, 2) there are concerns about WP:DUE, and 3) multiple editors, at least three, have agreed it doesn't belong in the lead for one of those reasons, and no editor has offered kind of policy-based defense of the content in the discussion. I believe the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that removed it from the lead (again) was a good solution that improved the lead.

First, the editor you are talking to reverted once; its a stretch to call your two reverts edit warring, and their one certainly isn't. I suggest you be more careful when using that language in the future, as it is against policy to make such unsupported aspersions.

Second, the reliability of the source on this topic is irrelevant, as you aren't disputing whether the claim is reliable. Trying to remove a source for reliability when there is no dispute as to its reliability is WP:WIKILAWYERING.

I encourage you to focus on the argument that it is WP:UNDUE, both in this discussion and in future ones. That argument is reasonable, and appears to be convincing. BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor reverted without responding or justifying their edits on the talk page. That constitutes edit-warring. Unlike me, who has never edit-warred. I've reverted once, not twice (my first edit was normal editing and had nothing to do with reverting anything), and only after offering a detailed justification for my edit. A bunch of editors on "your side" have falsely accused me of edit-warring and harassed me with templates and whatnot for reverting exactly once with justification on talk. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, the sentence was

originally added in 2021 (in a different part of the article) [12]
moved to the lead by @Sweet6970 in 2022 [13]
removed by Amanda on 8 July [14]
re-added by @Void if removed on 8 July [15]
removed by Amanda again on 9 July [16]
re-added by @BilledMammal on 9 July [17]
removed by @Barnards.tar.gz on 9 July [18]

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would consider that series of edits from July 8th and 9th to be an edit war. It's not 3RR, and it's by no means the worst Wikipedia has ever seen, but when five edits do nothing except to add or remove exactly the same characters from an article, we generally do call that an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I haven't looked at the talk page. Hopefully, you're all managing to have a productive conversation. But if the path towards consensus proves difficult and someone hits the Undo button again, I suggest taking it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and contentious topic notices are not heckling

Describing them as heckling is not only a failure of WP:AGF but reflects badly one you. Not a good way to avoid being blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]