User talk:Tamzin/Archive/13

ANI Topic

Just dropping a note to let you know, I have no issues with the thread you raised at ANI. You are someone who has been on the of a particular brand of editor, different to the one I end up on but no less militant and convinced of their "truth" of the world (yours are actually worse than mine.) I hold you in the greatest respect. Raising a question over the block and asking for a review was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I welcome the oversight and have zero issues. Canterbury Tail talk 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: You beat me to posting something on your own talk. :) I hope you know I'm entirely genuine about you being a good admin, and I hope that the strength of my wording in the AN/I post (CC @Floquenbeam) didn't come off as... I don't know, histrionic. I really try to avoid playing the social capital games of adminspace these days (cf. File:On the backrooms (essay by Tamzin).oga), and to me here that just meant saying how I feel and seeing if anyone agreed, not preparing a meticulously worded objection that could start the papertrail for further proceedings, which ironically led to stronger wording than I've used in cases where I expected a dispute to land at ArbCom. In other words, with apologies to Pascal, if I had more anger, I would have written a nicer letter.

All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A note

I saw your name today so I just stopped by to drop you a note. I raised an eyebrow when I saw you helped close the ADL discussion because of the star of David on your user page. However, I could not find fault with the close. Another thing, if I had been actively editing when you stood at RFA I would have opposed based on your political stance. But now, I would not oppose a Tamzin RFA. Have a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this came out wrong Tamzin, I saw your name today so I came here to leave a note. I really think your work here is great. Today, I would want you to be an administrator. Good job on the ADL close you showed great impartiality. I think I have been staring at my screen too long and it came out wrong. Leeky has let me know it was not a good message. I will go to bed now. Lightburst (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst: I believe you that it wasn't your intention to say anything hurtful here. And I do appreciate the vote of confidence (although these days I don't particularly care who thinks I'd be a good admin, one luxury of not being an admin). But I do think it's important to understand why theleekycauldron was taken aback at this, and frankly why I was taken aback. One of the main points I tried to make as an admin, which I still see as worth taking the time to fight over even now (see above), is that it's not appropriate to judge editors by their religion, sexuality, ethnicity, et cetera. Saying (or implying) that you saw someone as likely to be biased based on their religion/ethnicity is still doing that, even if your ultimate conclusion is a favorable one. The one-off favorable conclusion doesn't actually offset the initial biased assumption, and calls into question whether you would be inclined to (explicitly or not) use religion or ethnicity as the basis for criticism if you didn't agree with a Jew's close of an Israel-related RfC. You won't find me in the sanctions thread, because I don't want to play any part in the fucked-up way this site handles user conduct issues; but if I can give some constructive, restorative advice, I'd ask you to consider why it is that you think someone acknowledging affiliation with a specific group should be seen as potentially tainting their (quasi)administrative actions, and whether that's an approach that is fair to minority groups, given that members of less marginalized groups are often able to signal their membership without it being seen as remarkable, but are no less prone to bias (for instance, a man saying "I have a husband" might be seen as showing bias on LGBTQ topics, but a man saying "I have a wife" is not; yet over 95% of the U.S. has opinions on LGBTQ rights). Whichever way the thread goes, I think that's a good question for you—and anyone—to consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hey, you're a good friend, you know that? That was powerful and nice for you to reach out to me afterwards. Sorry you've had to put up with some embarrassing and annoying stuff from me lately, but that was really kind. You deserve this barnstar. The Night Watch (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Night Watch: I don't "put up" with anything. I haven't done anything I didn't want to do since July 2013. You're nice to chat with. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's something I worry about a little, that I say something wrong! I was always the "quirky loner kid", and social situations cause me high stress. Yes, even online ones, go figure. It's always a learning process for me. But yeah, you're fun to talk to. Don't overexert yourself, per usual :) The Night Watch (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I am not sure what to think about this. Polygnotus (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I try not to have opinions on categories when I can help it. Do you have a specific question? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A great attitude. Well, I am no expert on the matters at hand, being born boring, but I stumbled across it accidentally and I wondered if the claim that calling transgender men "male" could be slightly awkward is correct (and if so, why). Valereee has you listed as an expert on their userpage (and as willing to answer questions) so I figured I might as well ask. Polygnotus (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any authority, descriptive or prescriptive, that considers it correct to call trans men "men" but not to call them "male". As far as I know that's just a lexicological myth borne of hasty explanations of the gender/sex distinction. "Male" and "female" can refer to gender, "man" and "woman" to sex.

Ceterum censeo content categories delenda est. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my AI says male refers to sex and man refers to gender. Polygnotus (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And this is why it is good to ask experts instead of trusting AI. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

September thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for what you told my friend Graham! - I thought of you earlier today when I added a RS to an article that was on DYK 10 years ago, my story today, - I think of you often that way, with thanks for having pointed out that not all singers' biographies are of equal quality. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Rubber-stamping

Can you please "close" this RfC? Contentious topic, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Celebrity Number Six

On 4 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Celebrity Number Six, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that retired model Leticia Sardá had no idea that she was the subject of a four-year global search? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Celebrity Number Six. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Celebrity Number Six), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,206 views (675.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Celebrity Number Six

The article Celebrity Number Six you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Celebrity Number Six for comments about the article, and Talk:Celebrity Number Six/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mandel

Do you have any theory what's behind these [1] edits? Fwiw, I think [2] counts as "published". I keep reverting because It's right there in The New Yorker!!! Wikipedians don't question The New Yorker!!! Without good reason, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: My theory has been that, due to our past own goal, that section gets an unusual amount of attention for the personal life section on a relatively low-profile BLP, leading to a lot of tilting at windmills by people who care more about the idea of being right than actually being right. It's certainly an unusual pattern of edits, not just from that IP either, but about sufficiently disparate topics that I doubt it's socking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello there

It's that the Face Reveal on your image! 77.77.218.177 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)