User talk:Ryubyss

Category:Social justice terminology

I notice that you have created the Category Social justice terminology, and added AFAB (Assigned female at birth), Assigned male at birth to the category. I've removed the last two from that category, as they are not supported by sources. Remember that categorization is not a matter of opinion, but depends on the definitions used in reliable sources, and the WP:CATDEF guideline. You also added articles like Heteronormativity, Internalized oppression, Lived experience, Safe space, Trigger warning, Straight ally, and perhaps others to that category, but I have not been able to verify them. Please be sure when you add a category to an article, that the category is a defining characteristic for that article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

Categorization at Wikipedia is somewhat complex, and is widely misunderstood and even misused. Many consider it a kind of "See also", or, "Here are some related, categories you might be interested in". Here's an example of how it is commonly misunderstood: what might be an interesting category for "Albert Einstein"? How about, category Cosmology, or General relativity, or Gravity? At first blush, these seem highly related and great choices for categories. And they are highly related topics for those reading the "Albert Einstein" article. But they are not appropriate for the Albert Einstein article, because none of these are defining characteristics of Albert Einstein.

I don't want to go into a long explanation here of what constitutes a defining characteristic, you can read about that at Wikipedia:Categorization. But as a kind of shorthand, you can think of defining characteristic as an "IS-A" test: if you can say that "Albert Einstein IS A 'quantum physicist'", then you can add category "Quantum physicists" to the article. And indeed, the article is in that category. But it is not in category "General relativity". Can you say, "Albert Einstein IS A 'General relativity'"? No; that implies that 'General relativity is not a defining characteristic, as a person cannot be a theory; therefore, this category is not appropriate for Albert Einstein. (If you look carefully, you will find one invalid category at that article, for exactly this reason.) Now, the IS-A test is an oversimplification of how categories work, so you'll have to read the guideline to get the full picture, but it's a starting point.

Now, back to the list of articles you posted above: the url or location where these articles appear, for example, in a social justice website glossary, might be indicative, but it doesn't necessarily meet the requirement of defining characteristic. For example, if such a glossary were to contain "white supremacism", or "neo-nazi", that does not mean that either of these terms, both of which antedate the concept of social justice by decades, "IS A" social justice term; that would have to be established by sources, not that contain the word, but that describe it in those terms. For example: if you find that reliable sources consistently describe or define white supremacism this way: "white supremacism is a social justice term that refers to blah blah...", then, you could add Category:Social justice terminology to the White supremacism article. If they don't, then you cannot. That is the defining characteristic test you should use, when deciding if an article belongs in a category or not. For Heteronormativity, the test is: do reliable sources consistently say, "Heteronormativity is a social justice term that refers...": if yes, you can add it to that category; if not, then you cannot. For the full story, see WP:CATEGORY. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all sorts of people say the word "fish", for example. if you find a person says, for example, "heteronormative" you can bet that person espouses Social Justice (a term which I like to capitalize) or says so to mock or critique SJ.

see?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

note: "Category: Social justice". 73.61.8.252 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You may be right, or not; but the thing is, we cannot simply use our own opinions about what a term means, or how it should be categorized, in order to alter Wikipedia articles. We need to follow the guidelines here, and they are codified in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of which Wikipedia:Categorization is one. The fact that you find a glossary, as you did above (sjwiki), that says: "The purpose of this glossary is to provide a core of very basic definitions of terms as used in social justice discourse, praxis, and theory" does not mean that reliable sources commonly and consistently define or describe the terms in that glossary as "social justice terms"; it only means that that website describes it that way. Furthermore, the sjwiki is invalid as a source at Wikipedia, because it is a wiki, that is to say, it is a self-published source. This makes sjwiki useless for supporting your case. You may be able to support it elsewhere but not that way. (The Harpers article is an opinion piece written with no claim of impartiality and is of doubtful quality for supporting your case.)

The internet is a big place, and if you are searching online using keywords for what you are trying to prove, you will find it (Saturn is the largest planet has eight million results), which is a type of confirmation bias. What you need to do, is to search for the term you are interested in, say, heteronormativity, in a neutral way: say, definition heteronormativity, or glossary heteronormativity, and then sample the reliable sources from that pool of results, and ask yourself, "do these reliable sources commonly and consistently describe this term as a social justice term?" If yes: add to category; if not, don't.

You're getting into the somewhat tricky field of Categorization, and if you do want to get involved here, then you need to follow the guidelines. One of those is sticking with reliable sources (i.e., sjwiki is out) and to follow the recommendations at the WP:Categorization guideline. You can't just do what "feels right", or "bet" what others are thinking when they use a term; we have to follow the guideline and demonstrate that the term belongs there.

My recommendation would be to hold off on doing categorization for now, until you've gained a better understanding of it. I am not an expert in categorization, but some editors are; I will add a notice to alert them to this discussion; they may be able to correct any mistakes on my part, or to add additional comments which will help you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your comment during the edit conflict, where you added rationalwiki. Like sjwiki, this is completely invalid for supporting your case. You are not a newbie, and surely don't need to be reminded of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which completely discounts sources of this type. You can't even cite Wikipedia itself as a source for the same reason. Surely you are aware of this. So please, stick to the reliable sources; these wikis, opinion pieces, blogs, and other self-published sources count for nothing here. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryubyss, I, too, don’t understand how someone who’s not a newbie can have the interaction we had on my talk page or at Villa Diodati. You should surely by now know how to post to a talk page. Looking at some of your edits, I think you need to pause and spend some time catching up on key Wikipedia policies before further editing. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Weird Al" Yankovic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetrad of media effects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tetrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogdoad (Egyptian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serpent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Langan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp fiction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Merlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Hood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

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)

Please be sure 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! Debresser (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Critical social justice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positionality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Perry Rhodan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Mongoliad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write in sentence fragments.

"The 2040s." is not a sentence that makes sense. "An eight person crew, who have been stationed on the Tantalus Base on Mars for six months." doesn't make any logical sense because it lacks a verb. These kinds of choppy sentence fragments shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Captain Future

added a link pointing to Pulp fiction

The Iron Heel

added a link pointing to Madhouse

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Hauman

Welcome to Wikipedia. You removed content from Wikipedia with this edit of yours to Glenn Hauman, but without providing a rationale for this in an edit summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adams

I have reversed your edit to the lead of this article per [[1]]. Links in the info box were sufficient for that. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critical social justice has been nominated for deletion

Category:Critical social justice 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Wave (1981 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posture.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Everett Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Mark's Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religions

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently removed content from Abrahamic religions without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

added a link pointing to Alien

List of beings referred to as fairies

added a link pointing to Asturian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alien.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 March 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) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]