User talk:WanderingWanda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, WanderingWanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wachowskis

I have seen your comments about crediting the Wachowskis and agree with having a more appropriate approach in Wikipedia articles about their works. If you do an RfC, please ping me. I would like to weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks. I've been thinking about doing that but I am very new to Wikipedia editing so am nervous about it, haha. But you've inspired me to cook up a draft. Not sure best place to post it yet. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What you wrote below is a good outline, especially with the questions and answers. Whenever you kick it off, I recommend taking breaks from engaging in discussion. Like if someone disagrees, you don't have to reply to them right away. Take an hour or two (or even a day) to gather your thoughts. I say this as someone who has experienced and tries to avoid getting tangled in live and heated back-and-forth exchanges. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: Good note, thank you. I tried not to get heated but probably didn't completely succeed. My big fear with this is that it'll wind up backfiring and enshrining a policy that the Wachowskis should be misgendered in credits. That is, I'm worried I'll make things worse rather than better. But I guess I just gotta push forward and do my best, and let the chips fall where they may. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi WanderingWanda! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 04:37, Monday, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

(Draft removed.)

AGREE.

Agree: I think "Wachowski's" is actually gender neutral and would be perfectly fitting either way since it is respectful to the preferred gender of the siblings, and it credits their proper name for prior works at the same time. Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Thank you, but this is just a draft! :) Please vote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Request_for_Comment_-_Crediting_The_Wachowskis

@Erik: As requested, a ping to let you know it's live! WanderingWanda (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC etiquette

WanderingWanda, just thought I'd share some advice about votes and comments in the RfC format we're using. Each participant should usually only provide one entry (a vote or comment) in the survey section. If there's a need to respond to someone else's vote or comment there, keep the response as brief as possible. If it turns into a lengthy back-and-forth, one of the editors involved should announce a break, stating that they will continue the debate down in the Discussion section. The less clutter in the survey section the better. Whoever closes the RfC will read all of it regardless of which section it's in, and keeping the votes/comments separated from in-depth discussion makes it easier in the end to assess. Having two or more entries can sometimes lead to an editor getting counted twice unintentionally.

Also, try to avoid responding to every dissenting opinion, especially in the survey section. Doing so can lead some to believe the process is being bludgeoned (see WP:BLUDGEON). I'm not accusing you of this in any way, just wanted to give you a heads up in case you weren't already aware. I saw your comments asking to move Flyer's non-vote down to the discussion section, so hopefully it's more clear to you now why that isn't necessary. In addition, it would be helpful if you moved your latest comment under survey over to discussion, since you've already voted. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll keep it in mind and I'll move those comments down as requested. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope you know I wasn't trying to step on any toes. I'm a bit of a freak when it comes to formatting, and I'm sure I tend to go a bit overboard at times! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 I may not agree with your vote, but I appreciate your help shepherding my first RfC along, and I think you've been fair, calm, and thoughtful throughout the process. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 could you tell me what you think of this proposed reformat of the RfC? User:WanderingWanda/sandbox WanderingWanda (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now, and it looks like you've already implemented it. I think for the most part, it was helpful. I reorganized it further to keep everything under one level 2 header/section, because when things get archived down the road, it's best to have it all contained in the same section. Plus when the discussion is closed, it's less confusing as well when adding the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} tags (you typically don't want these to cross level 2 sections). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 thanks for your help! I went back and forth on whether to put everything under one header or not. (I would’ve waited longer for feedback but once I made the draft every additional comment made my job harder.) WanderingWanda (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-existent categories

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to We the Animals (film), please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Great work

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for all the lovely contributions you're making in terms of LGBTQ articles. I think you are doing a remarkable job. :) Hope you have a great weekend. — dorianha bogelund ^«talk» 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dorianha Bogelund: thank you, I appreciate it. 😊 Let me know if there’s ever anything you think I could help with. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns in signatures

Is there an essay somewhere about adding your pronouns to your signature? If not, I've created one in my userspace. Feel free to edit it! Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Qzekrom I like it! I was thinking about making something similar but I was envisioning a template that people could stick on their user pages. (Maybe I still will: no reason that both couldn't exist.) If you wanted to expand the essay to include some other topics you might talk about: a) adding a gender userbox to your userpage, b) using pronoun templates like Template:They to check someone's pronouns, c) adding your preferred pronouns to your Wikipedia preferences. (But on the other hand maybe short and to the point is best.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your leadership through the (very long) RfC on crediting the Wachowskis! I didn't have the time to participate very much in the discussion, but it was an important conversation for us all to have, and you showed an admirable amount of dedication and patience to finding a consensus. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Secundus Zephyrus! And thanks for your input in the RfC. (After it was finally over I watched Bound to celebrate. Somehow I had never gotten around to seeing it before - it's a lot of fun!) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never actually seen it myself, I'll add it to my list! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for developing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity

Thanks for developing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity.

Judging by your Wikipedia edit count you seems to be fairly inexperienced in Wikipedia but I look at what you are doing and you seem to understand things well. I am especially impressed with your interest in setting and sorting policy, which I see as a deficiency everywhere and especially in the LGBT+ space.

I like when other people have conversations about policy and develop it. I appreciate everything you have done so far, and I want to encourage you to do more to the limit of your interest and imagination. The wiki community is looking for leadership and if you have a go at sharing your ideas and making proposals, then I think the time is right and the opportunity is open.

That you are active on Wikidata in a similar space gives you insight into the big picture here. If I can ever support you then ask, because I want you to have what you need to propose whatever changes you want to actualize.

Thanks - Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Blue Rasberry, I really appreciate it. When I started the Wachowski RfC I knew it was crazy to to embroil myself in a complex policy debate considering how inexperienced I was. But the way Wikipedia articles credited the Wachowskis had been bugging me for years, and I guess I finally reached the point where I was like, well, if no one else is going to fix this, I should give it a shot! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous account?

I know that you state on your user page that you've "been an avid Wikipedia reader and fan for years" and "have only just started contributing [yourself]," but your editing from the beginning as WanderingWanda indicates that you were familiar with editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No, this is my first account and my first time being a regular contributor. I try to avoid lying, in general, because I find it's too much work. :) I said in my Teahouse introduction: I created this account three years ago, made exactly three edits, and didn't start editing again until less than two months ago. But for about as long as Wikipedia's been around, I've been reading not just its articles but behind-the-curtain stuff like talk and policy pages with interest. So I'm an odd combination of veteran and total newb. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll add: I guess I should see it as a compliment that someone's like "you seem so experienced that you can't be a newbie" but it is a little discouraging that I've spent months working hard trying to improve the encyclopedia only for an established editor to drop in and be like "HEY SO YOU'RE A LIAR, RIGHT?" WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I was going to let your reply stand without a response, but, since you've replied again, I'll go ahead and reply again: Just about every time we get an editor editing like a non-newbie (whether they are arguing policies and guidelines, visiting a certain Wikipedia noticeboard or WikiProject out of the blue, or actually editing a Wikipedia article) while claiming to be new, it is suspicious behavior. If it wasn't at all suspicious, you would not have felt the need to state what you stated on your user page and at the Teahouse. Yes, in cases like yours, an experienced editor might query that editor if they are new. You've showed some signs of being unfamiliar with some rules and protocols. But you've also showed familiarity that made me and others suspicious of you from the beginning. One editor emailed me wondering if you are Lightbreather. The editor stated that they hadn't seen WP:Advocacy like yours since Lightbreather. Not that you edit exactly like Lightbreather (although there are similarities), but rather that you are editing Wikipedia in an attempt to remold it, which is similar to what Lightbreather tried to do. I did not call you a liar. But if we want to talk experiences, my experience (having edited this site since 2007) is that when an editor gives an explanation like yours, they almost always are not new. Given how passionate you are about transgender issues, for example, it is difficult to believe that you would not have edited transgender topics or weighed in on transgender issues before now. It is difficult to believe that you just watched all types of debating from the sidelines. People who are interested in reading Wikipedia talk page discussions will almost always get involved sooner than later. It doesn't take them years to get involved, not usually...especially when they are as outspoken and passionate as you are. Above, all I did was query your newness. You answered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I'll add is I don't agree that I've engaged in WP:ADVOCACY. I've focused on a particular topic but nothing I've done has been at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We disagree then. Because editing a Wikipedia article to combat heteronormativity is a WP:Advocacy action. It is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS action. And the community has been clear on that more than once. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do I want to "combat heteronormativity"? I mean, I wouldn't put it like that. Do I think Wikipedia should be pro-heteronormativity? Well, let's look at how the heteronormativity article defines the term: It assumes that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex and that it's often linked to...homophobia. That sounds like a pretty biased point of view to me, so no, I don't think Wikipedia should be "heteronormative" based on that definition. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of Wikipedia being heteronormative, I don't see what else I can state that I didn't already state in the aforementioned linked discussion. Wikipedia follows the majority or mainstream view. That's just the way it is. We do not try to challenge it. We use WP:Reliable sources to challenge it. We don't use a lead image that is far from expected for the topic or represents a minority aspect of the topic. Well, yes, there is the Woman case, but it's understandable why we went with that image. I'm more so for doing multiple images in the case of that article...just like we currently do for the Girl article. But as noted on the Woman talk page, there were issues with the multiple images route, and then MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES came about. If we went by "oh, that's so unfair" views on Wikipedia, we would falsely balance the Sexism article. Take a look at the current state of Talk:Sexism. We routinely get male editors complaining about the Sexism article being sexist and how Wikipedia should combat the sexist literature that prioritizes women and girls over men and boys as victims of sexism. But that's not the way Wikipedia works. The Sexism is article is mostly about women because the literature is mostly about women. Our Physical attractiveness article mainly covers heterosexuality because the literature on it mainly covers heterosexuality. I've retained what little same-sex material we include there, but we should look for better sourcing on the matter. And the sourcing needs to be about the topic, not random media sources about gay sexual activity.

As for other things you've done that some see or might see as advocacy? How about proposing that an article is moved based on MOS:GENDERID? Like I stated elsewhere, "In cases like these, editors keep citing MOS:GENDERID as if MOS:GENDERID is about article titles and as though it trumps what the WP:Article titles policy states. I think it's best for editors to either stick to what the policy states, such as about WP:Common names, or create a section addressing gender identity at WP:Article titles in a way that allows for giving more weight to the less common name in the case of transgender people." And as for applying MOS:GENDERID to historical figures, where sources conflict on their gender identity or how to refer to them pronoun-wise, like you suggested in this and this case? I'm not fully sure what to think, although what I stated in the James Barry (surgeon) case demonstrates that I understand your point on that, but some also see that as advocacy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say that I've never deliberately misconstrued a policy or a guideline. Partway through the Wachowski RfC you pointed out that I was interpreting GENDERID too broadly. I assume some people thought I was trying to pull some sneaky fast one or whatever, but no, I just never noticed the distinction the guideline made between biographical articles and other articles and was blindsided by the revelation.

I think people, myself included, get confused about GENDERID because they expect it to be consistent and it isn't. People naturally expect the guideline to either be that Wikipedia respects people's chosen name and pronouns or Wikipedia doesn't. Instead the guideline is a confusing mish-mosh of well-we-mostly-respect-them-but-not-always. (Which is why the gender id policies need to changed and clarified!) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea if @Flyer22 Reborn: is correct but I can see why the concern was raised. On one hand you have been here a very short time yet you also have an understanding of Wikipedia that rivals people who have been editing for many years. It also appears that you have a very specific thrust in your edits. Nothing inherently wrong with editing in your area of interest. However, please put a bit more thought into getting consensus and don't be so quick to push your changes through when others object. I suspect you will bring a new perspective to many articles but please remember that your interest and NPOV many not always align. I never like it when my view of neutral doesn't align with the consensus view but sometimes it happens to the best of us... and sometimes it happens to me ;) . Take care! Springee (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

you have been here a very short time yet you also have an understanding of Wikipedia that rivals people who have been editing for many years. Well, thanks for the compliment I suppose!

However, please put a bit more thought into getting consensus and don't be so quick to push your changes through when others object. I do always try to be congenial and consensus minded but I admit sometimes I rush into things a little too quickly. Peace, WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:And Then There Were None 1973 Pocket Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:And Then There Were None 1973 Pocket Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Directed by The Wachowskis Sense8.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Directed by The Wachowskis Sense8.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Woman and Man lead images

Hi Wanda, I tried to consolidate some of the images into the sandboxes on Talk:Woman and Talk:Man. I made the links to the sandboxes in the headers more noticeable too. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 (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 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.

Since you focus almost exclusively on this topic area, you should be aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to the entire subject, broadly construed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comma poem

Hi Wanda. I hope you weren't irked by my deletion of your poem on the MoS talk page (it was immediately restored, and I didn't protest other than to repeat my assertion that it didn't rhyme, which is why I'd jokingly deleted it), or by my addition of "Burma-Shave " afterwards (which you can delete if you wish), and if you were irked I apologize. The reason I'm here now is to ask whether you might consider deleting "feel" from the fourth line, as I'm disturbed by the effect this has on the meter. On another note, I'm surprised to see that SMcCandlish has posted a DS notice on your page as well as mine. You have my sympathy if you too find this somewhat rattling, but I will refrain from further comment on this here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roy, I jumped when I saw the notice but I don't necessarily mind an editor posting a neutral notice like that if they feel it's appropriate. The "poem" was just a silly play on the lyrics of Karma Police by Radiohead. I don't mind you deleting it or playing around with it. Thanks for stopping by :) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Wanda! –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A correction to the record

In a recent discussion, an editor said I've only been here since January. I want to state, for the record, this is not true. I made a very important contribution to an article years ago that was, sadly, not appreciated as it should have been. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Considering we started editing regularly around the same time, I have seen you grow much faster than myself! You had a wonderful RfC, and now you've gone and already successfully navigated the landmine that is ANI!! You have my admiration for that feat. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks MJL! My very first Barnstar!! WanderingWanda (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A serious error

Wow, in all my year of editing Wikipedia, I've never seen something in an article as incorrect as this:

...it may even be that tasks, like editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images or participating in a discussion, are nowhere near as difficult as you might think and don't actually require extensive experience or a degree in wikiology.

Next you'll tell me a newbie could start an RfC. Can you imagine such a thing? RfCs are basically rocket science. You have to copy a bit of code and paste it at the top and everything. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:STEM School Shooting

Respectfully want to notify you transtrender of the ongoing consensus discussion in the article's talk page, since you were previously involved in the discussion and since I would like to avoid an edit war with you and NewImpartial. Thank you. LilySophie (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

LilySophie: "transtrender"?? WanderingWanda (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Note: I'm leaving a more detailed comment about this on Lily's talk page.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

Regarding this notification to WikiProject Feminism, which was selectively sent a partisan group likely to hold particular known views:

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Masculism#Requested move 13 May 2019. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

I would advice reverting yourself. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The notice was neutrally worded and feminism and masculism are obviously closely related. I've also posted a notice to the Men's Rights Movement article. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not a "balance" - BOTH notices are canvassing as they are intended to reach editors with known viewpoints. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, Wanda never used the term "balance" in describing their notification efforts. They were probably making a point that you missed which was that this activity is clearly within WP:APPNOTE. They are intended to inform people of a discussion that is relevant to them based off interest in this topic area. (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Firstly, its generally rare for any specific RM to have notifications posted on talk pages. This RM in particular is about a simple spelling difference. Selective notification of WikiProjects can be WP:Votestacking when one can reasonably expect that WikiProject to hold certain views. Note that I did not complain about the post on WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, which this does fall under and is supposed to have balanced participants (even though I still think all talk page notifications for this low-level of an RM is indiscriminately, disruptive, and unnecessary). We don't have to invite the whole encyclopedia to a minor RM about spelling - but in particular we should not invite groups diametrically opposed to the topic area of that RM. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the conversation is no longer just "a minor RM about spelling". What you're saying here boils down to "I don't want the Masculism templates to have any scrutiny". WanderingWanda (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If you truly believe that and you think you're conforming to Wikipedia etiquette, then post links to it everywhere. Don't stop now. WP:VP, every single article talk page of every article on the template, every WikiProject about gender, sexuality, or society... please by all means. No matter what, its still a simple RM about spelling. But go ahead and turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let me just warn you that you've been here since January and have tended to disrupt several processes, talk pages, and articles. Its starting to look like you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to inject your views into it. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: It is correct that some of us were not here at the dawn of AN/I, but that's no reason to be spoken down to like this. I kindly ask you refrain from biting my peer and treat them with the appropriate amount of good faith. We all are just trying to do what we think is right in this manner, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make article edits to make a point

The concerns you raised with respect to the templates in question here [[1]] are valid enough to warrant discussion. However, when you raise the question then decide to act on your POV without considering the views of others it crosses into disruptive/agenda pushing. It would be best to open a discussion at some neutral location, let the discussion come to a conclusion then act. Springee (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite feedback, however, I think your read on the situation is a little uncharitable. My edits to Man were intended, above all, to make the article better, and WP:BOLD encourages us to make bold improvements rather than just talking about them. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You replied to Springee that "My edits to Man were intended, above all, to make the article better" yet elsewhere you stated "I went ahead and added the Feminism sidebar to Man. (As for the idea that people might laugh at it, well, I figure it is good to spread laughter in the world!)". I'm sorry, but 'for the lulz' is WP:Trolling, not contribution. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just having a bit of fun in response to your over-the-top comment on that page:

I'm almost tempted to say go ahead because I'd love to see the laughs at Wikipedia's expense when screenshots of Feminism sidebars and iconography being used on male-specific articles gets spread around.

In retrospect I shouldn't have been so flippant. In any case, to be clear, I added the feminism template for the reason I posted on that page, and not for the "lulz":

The goal of feminism is equality of the genders and therefore it concerns males as well as females.

WanderingWanda (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Wanda. I see you added yourself as a participant to WikiProject Men as I was typing out my MfD nomination of it. I described it as a one-participant project–should I revise my nomination to "two-participant"? Leviv ich 15:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, yeah that's funny. You can revise if you'd like! But I did leave a comment explaining the situation on the nomination page. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Let's avoid adding the project to multiple articles until the deletion discussion is concluded. Thanks in advance. El_C 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I won't add it to any more articles. (I may, unless you or anyone else objects, add a talk page notice about the deletion discussion and the project in general to a few pages that I've already added the template to.) WanderingWanda (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine — a few. Thanks again. El_C 20:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I just hope someone appreciates the Shane reference I made in the Genderqueer discussion

because I'm proud of it. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Archive of messages I left on Flyer22 Reborn's talk page

[The archive that was here has been blanked by request] WanderingWanda (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If this were me, I would not seek this matter further, Wanda. It's very troubling to say the least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean but, in any case, I have no plans for further action at this time. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious - why are you archiving and keeping a record of your harassment of Flyer? If I were you, I'd be keeping this as quiet as possible and hope that other editors soon forgot about it. Curved Space (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious why you chose to message me with an alternate account instead of your primary account? WanderingWanda (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice attempt to divert attention there from you to me. It should be obvious why: Your harassment of Flyer takes place on articles uniquely edited and watched by this account. It would be effectively outing myself to use my alternate (not "primary") account to message you completely out of the blue with no connection or obvious reason why I'd done so or been made aware of your actions.

Your edit history shows you to be a generally valid and good editor, so I presume Flyer has just rubbed you up the wrong way in this instance. Unfortunately, you also appear to be in the wrong (or at least the minority) with regard to such potentially controversial articles - hence I'd not draw attention to the fact. But, well, it's your call y'all. Curved Space (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether I'm right or wrong about "controversial articles" is irrelevant – my message was about Flyer22's behavior towards me, not about the content of articles. And I haven't engaged in harassment. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer probably thinks their behavior was acceptable as well. It's all down to individual perspective isn't it? Or, possibly more accurately - other peoples perspective of any given situation. And incidentally - talking about controversial articles, I've reverted you on Missionary position because changes there on wording (especially when qualified with a hidden note as they were) should really be proposed on the talk page before instigating Curved Space (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the archive where the term is discussed in more detail. Curved Space (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, thanks for taking the time to drop the link. See you around. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Polemic

I arrived here after noticing the attempt at Missionary position to promote a bunch of things that people might do to the lead. The above sections violate WP:POLEMIC and must either be used within the next few days to raise a case at a noticeboard against the named editor, or must be removed. Please do not make us go through the fuss of a deletion discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite notice. I'll go ahead and save to my computer and remove. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

[null]

Just letting you know (from those watching your contributions after your posts on my talk page) that I received emails that you are now clearly planning to target articles that I edit, like different editors have after getting into significant dispute with me. This never goes well for editors, as seen at WP:ANI. My talk page watchers were expecting this to happen after our interaction on my talk page because it has happened to me times before. I have received word from two admins that if you suddenly start popping up at articles that I significantly edit, then you can expect to be reprimanded for WP:Hounding. Just letting you know now. You clearly took what I stated in this edit summary as a challenge, and two admins thus far have seen it that way. You thanking me via WP:Echo for that edit summary was also seen as unwise. I am preparing a WP:ANI report since it seems likely you are determined to now fly right into my orbit.

Also, thank you, Curved Space. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in specifically targeting articles you edit as I'd rather not interact with you, given your extreme and unwarranted hostility towards me. (If you're referring to my recent edit on the missionary position article, for example, I found it by looking through Curved Space's history, not yours.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No. It is no coincidence that after our heated interaction, you went right to this, this, this and this. I predicted that you would go to a sexual topic article, likely the Sexual intercourse article, after our interaction. My talk page watchers predicted the same. Like I stated, a WP:ANI report is very likely coming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: filing an ANI report: either do it or don't do it, but I don't want to keep hearing threats about it, please. Re: all those edits, jiminy crickets on a cracker, they were all related to a single change I wanted to make the missionary position article. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Pop up at more articles that I significantly edit, and I will file that ANI report. It's not a threat. It's just that I have been through this a number of times, and I am tired of it. So predictable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have never, and will never, hound someone. I've never looked at your edit history and I don't care to look at it. At the same time, I'm also not going to avoid an article just because you happen to edit it, and if that's what you're hoping for, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to be pushed around like that. We both have the same right to be here. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what others stated as well. It's one thing to show up at an article that I edit or have edited. It's another to show up at one that I significantly edit, and right after we've gotten into a heated altercation. The community will not be agreeing with your "oh, I just happened to pop up at this article that Flyer significantly edits" explanation. They especially won't buy it if keeps happening, and so soon after our biggest altercation yet. But if you must test the waters...

Oh, and choosing to edit an article because you see that I significantly edit it is also WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've also never chosen to edit an article because I saw that you edit it. (What, you think I ever say to myself: "you know what I want to do today? Get endlessly and unfairly berated by Flyer22! Oh boy, I can't wait!") WanderingWanda (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Others have. Why do you think my talk page watchers predicted your actions before they happened? Some people just like to be in my orbit after we've had a heated altercation. It's like clockwork. It's why I mention it on my user page/talk page. One notorious case concerns the incidents I've had with the following editor: Here, here and here. It finally ended up with this. But, yes, I know you want editors to assume good faith with regard to you on this matter. We'll see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I want everyone to assume good faith with everyone because it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Like WP:Assume good faith states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary [...] Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." As for evidence, my talk page watchers do think evidence is there. Anyway, there are other things I need to take care of at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who your talk page watchers are and, in any case, I'm talking to you, not them.

I'll add one more thing: I said I stumbled on the Missionary Position article because I was looking through Curved Space's history. Perhaps it's worth saying why I was doing so: obviously, I thought they were a sockpuppet of yours. Who else would but you would care that much about my polite notice about your behavior on your talk page? And of course Curved Space is an anon alt account. And of course you've apparently been banned for sockpuppetry in the past, though apparently you were also cleared of wrongdoing. However, looking through Curved Space's history did not return any strong evidence that this was the case. In fact there was one back-and-forth between you two that at least seemed like a genuine interaction between two people, so I've pretty much dropped the idea. (They're not one of your apparently troublesome brothers, are they?) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. Almost any time someone unfamiliar with the sockpuppetry matter (the cases about me) is in a significant dispute with me, or has been in a significant dispute with me, that person tries to bring up the sockpuppetry matter as a way to throw dirt on my username. They do this even though anyone with good reading comprehension should be able to see that my small block log indicates that I actually did nothing wrong. The "Flyer sockpuppeted" route doesn't work when it comes to trying to paint me as problematic in any way. It doesn't work because, like you noted, I was cleared. Admins, including WP:CheckUsers, looked into the matter extensively. They know what happened. And Alison tried to reflect it as best she could in my block log. And, for the record, WP:Blocked and WP:Banned are not the same thing. I've never been banned, and I never will be banned. I also never will be blocked again. My talk page watchers? They are regulars like Curved Space, and admins like Alison. The minority are editors I haven't gotten along with. My talk page watchers following me to articles or popping up to argue something regarding me is nothing new, but it's usually not the ones I have issues with popping up to weigh in because they are mindful of WP:Hounding. My talk page watchers being passionate regarding me is nothing new. I have no idea who Curved Space is, and they don't have email enabled; so I can't email Curved Space. I'm certain that Curved Space watches my talk page, though. Feel free to start a WP:SPI on me and/or Curved Space; it will at least entertain me. And I doubt that (before looking into the block history matter) you've never looked through my contribution history...even though you looked through Curved Space's contribution history. Anyway, like I stated, there are other things I need to take care of at the moment. Sitting here going back and forth with you is a waste of my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitting here going back and forth with you is a waste of my time. Here's what you need to do: take this statement, and modify it to Being endlessly hostile to WanderingWanda is a waste of my time, and live by it. And then we'll both be a lot happier. :) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And I doubt that (before looking into the block history matter) you've never looked through my contribution history...even though you looked through Curved Space's contribution history. I haven't that I can recall. (Something tells me you've looked through mine, though!) Personally, I think looking through someone's contributions list is really dang tedious. Luckily Curved Space's list was short and sweet. My research into them basically just consisted of looking through their brief history and also Googling certain phrases that they used to see if you also used them. But as I said: I've dropped the idea that you two are the same person. I can admit when I've made a mistake! (A practice I generally recommend, if you've never tried it.) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake by stating "looked through" instead of "looked at." There is nothing tedious about looking at the first page of an editor's contribution history. But you are saying that you never looked at my contribution history. Somehow, Curved Space got you worked up enough to look at Curved Space's contribution history. But pesky Flyer who, per your comment below, is "trying to intimidate other editors" by noting that two admins have stated that they will take action if they see hounding from you? Nah. You never looked at my contributions. Even if you did, you can't let me know that; you must make it clear to me that I'm not someone you're concerned with. You must make this clear even though you've been very concerned with me; so much so that, in addition to the long post you posted on my talk page, you copying that long post and two of my edit summary responses on your talk page, and you documenting "Flyer did this" links on your talk page, you looked into my block log history, went on some "your brother" slight above, and have been focused on this Flyer material on your talk page since I've been off Wikipedia for hours. To look at my block log and learn about that history, you didn't click on my contributions; you simply clicked on the "My block log" collapse box on my user page or talk page and read that piece and/or clicked on my block log that way. Gotcha. This is why I and a number of others cannot consider some of the things you state to be genuine/honest. Enjoy talking about me via email. Oh...wait. I can't state that. You'll just say that you haven't been talking about me via email. Oh well. No need to state how unimportant I am to you on Wikipedia. I know, I know. I heard the same song from others even though their behavior displayed just the opposite. Time to stop responding on your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Time to stop responding on your talk page.

👋 WanderingWanda (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: regarding your statement two admins thus far have seen it that way: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines advises against trying to intimidate other editors by bringing up "admins you know". WanderingWanda (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Flyer's talk page is indeed on my watchlist, for the amusingly ironic reason (given the nature of this topic,) that I disagreed with them over an edit and questioned it on their talkpage: Sexual identity - a comment. By default Wikipedia watchlists when edited. Curved Space (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

---

People, please! Let's aim at being more collegial. Clearly WW should not be hounding FR, but one article is no indication that this is being carried out. At the event, I, myself, opposed their latest changes to that article (see my comments there), but am for limiting ourselves to arguing the substance of the edits at this point in time. El_C 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Because it's one article thus far, I've held off on taking this to WP:ANI. But it always starts off like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A thank you from me as well, El C. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Modifying others' words, expanded

What you quoted actually continues to say: to avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. This is your own talk page, you may blank whatever you wish, but modifying others' words should probably only be done if they contain actual insults and so on. And for better or worse, I don't think friendship with FR is on the table right now. But in the future, who knows? Hopefully. El_C 08:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was quoting the guideline in defense of my second edit, which was neutral and bland, and not my joke. :) But I won't press the point. As for a potential friendship with Flyer, sure, I try not to hold grudges. Thanks for your measured response to all this. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, WanderingWanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My very first article

Is about horehound candy, of all things.

Perhaps I should declare that I am not completely unbiased in this manner. I'm afraid I have a strong bias in favor of all grandpa candies. Licorice candy, Werther's Original... I love them all. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Could use your help

Congrats on the first article btw; mine was Cod Island. I'm with you there on the first-article-is-not-what-you-expected thing.

I could use your help with Draft:Genderfluid.

Also, you didn't miss much in the last few days.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look!

(As for my horehound candy article, I admit I've been having second thoughts about whether it's actually worthy of its own article. I'm considering undoing its creation and merging it with Marrubium vulgare.) (On the bright side, though, making that article did inspire me to order a big bag of horehound candies. Quite tasty.) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And merged. The horehound candy article, I mean. Alas, we hardly knew ye. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Links to Shakespeare site - reverted edits

Hi, you have decided to revert my edits for you have considered them as "possibly promotional" and you asked: Are you connected to this website? Please be so kind to note that I am not connected to this site. I simply use this site for my personal researches. In fact, in my view, the unique (?) full online readable text site reference you have considered for Timon of Athens on Wikipedia is particularly inappropriate; it has a poor editorial standard and is a website clearly based on monetised advertisements. http://www.maximumedge.com/shakespeare/timon.htm There are indeed several good Shakespeare sites proposing his complete works online but my personal choice goes to the advertising-free one I use. Allow me also to stress that I haven't found the the case for this specific site on a talk page with a consensus procedure. Could you please provide me with the talk page link showing the consensus of this specific case? I would like to propose the removal of this inappropriate site leaving up to Wikipedia administrators the choice of an appropriate external link. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert L. Crawford (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Robert L. Crawford, as you probably saw, Xover made a good argument at talk:Hamlet for linking to the Folger Digital Editions. And they removed the link to the site you had a problem with at Timon of Athens. Anyway, sorry I made a bad assumption about your motives. I hope I didn't scare you off from editing. Please stick around! WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for correcting me about Sonny Kiss at WP:LGBT. I will be like Roger Ebert, the one I admire, and Danny Woodburn. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ImmortalWizard :) WanderingWanda (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Lynching article

Please see Talk:Lynching. I am not a disruptive anon. Thanks and look forward to discussing there. 2600:1700:1111:5940:60E2:E9CE:A3E1:B38B (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Alert

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 (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 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.

Providing a standard alert for information per the discussion at Talk:Stephanie Hirst --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (This is my second one of these so far. If I get five can I trade them in for a prize?) WanderingWanda (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, if you had an alert in the last 12 months on the same topic, then the alert is unnecessary. I was probably confused by the layout of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AWanderingWanda, as I was only looking for a diff rather than the warnings. Maybe what info is in the log has changed slightly, not sure. It would be much easier if this were built into something like Twinkle which explicitly told you if a user was already relevantly alerted.

Thanks for pointing it out. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Deadnames

Thanks for pitching in on the curses talk page. I'm a little conflicted at the moment. I asked on the LGBT Studies page about this, and the only response I got was that this really was a reasonable place to use the deadname. My thinking is more like yours, that how you refer to them today isn't necessarily the same as how they were referred to then. But your comment is more in tune with my thinking. I'm wondering if you have any ideas as to how I can resolve this in a way more respectful to the person in question? Kcrca (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kcrca, I've made an additional statement in support of just using her current name. Perhaps that will be the end of it. If not, a compromise position would be to write her name as "Currentname (then Deadname)". That's what the Wikileaks article currently does when talking about Chelsea Manning. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I've found myself in editing disputes only a few times, it can be intimidating to simply act in the face of more experienced opposition. I appreciate your input and help! Kcrca (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I did put in an edit modeled on The Matrix crediting, which I notice you championed (yay!), so that might be a fallback. We shall see... Kcrca (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing disputes are never fun! But don't let them scare you off from editing. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric

Re this - you may want to retract some of it because it is wrong, notably the "cunt" claim. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You have misread the diff you added. This is old news and was hashed out at the time. It even predates more recent arbcom cases involving Eric Corbett and thus you are effectively relitigating. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And now you have got it wrong again in your latest spiel there. I didn't ask you to retract - please read what I said above. If you can't even get that right, what chance is there of you correctly understanding more nuanced issues such as those being mentioned as examples? - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is some real hairsplitting you're doing, but alright. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think that is hair-splitting then probably you should not even be editing. Academic sources employ precision in language pretty much all of the time and the precision is important. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I will give this opinion all due consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, even if there hasn't been hairsplitting there has, at least, been hairsplitting-splitting: hairsplitting, hair-splitting. (I know, that joke was so bad it might've been written by EEng.) WanderingWanda (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, watch it with the personal attacks or I'll propose an Arbcom case against you. Attack my editing, attack my integrity, attack my humanity if you will. But attack my jokes? Prepare to defend yourself. EEng 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: What would that case request even be called? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbComedy. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbComedy of Errors? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me, as in your latest diatribe, at least do me the favour of quoting in context. That means noting everything up to my response to Drmies. I am becoming increasingly concerned by your seeming inability to write fairly and accurately, which might well extend to your article writing also. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Loki (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not removing it because refactoring of ArbCom stuff by others is frowned upon. But you know you need to start writing things properly and stop flinging around out-of-context accusations and misrepresentations. It's disgusting. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yikes... Whatever happened to Don't template the regulars? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

< 2500 edits over three years is not a "regular" in my book. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

True enough. Just because I’m a better editor than most regulars doesn’t mean I am one! WanderingWanda (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamlet (1921 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horatio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There are apparently more Horatios in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi - your ANI regardling Sitush & MJL

I have closed the referral to ANI based mainly on the contributions received from both parties mentioned. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mario's Cement Factory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, monsieur bot! WanderingWanda (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist expansion

Recently added a metric ton of new articles to my watchlist in areas that interest me, by copypasting lists of articles from various categories. So, fair warning, you may be experiencing a bit more of my delightful presence going forward. 😊 WanderingWanda (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New goal: 88,888! El_C 04:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Haha, having that many pages on my watchlist might conflict with my occasional desire to leave the house... WanderingWanda (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

/15 years later. El_C 04:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson

Not just 80 but recovering (hopefully) from stage 4 lung and brain cancer As you, I am increasingly seeing WP as a waste of time The games these people play with the rules and guidelines, the farce of it all as they protect or perpetuate their ideology, religion, point of view It takes time to learn to play the game so that you can put on the act of AGF and NPOV, however most of these editors are as transparent as a pane of glass, their agenda bleeds through quite easily and you don't have to be perceptive. But challenge them and they get in an uproar, threatening and slapping warning templates on you. Mention that and you soon get a post on your user page demanding that you name them(how stupid, what a way to go to WP jail. And if you catch the attention of someone, usually an editor who throws templates and threatens (or take action) they will follow you via the Watchlist. No doubt there is more than one reading this comment. One thing is for certain, and it applies to me as well, stuck pigs squeal. Some zero posted a warning on my user page, after I made a blanket statement about some editors, in other words the shoe fit. I might hang around a bit more, but I will not get addicted to WP. I've overcome too many addictions in my lifetime, replacing one addiction for another, and then that for another and so on. I fear that I am nearing my expiration date, a lot of things to take care of, real projects to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oldperson. My grandfather had brain cancer. I'm wishing you the best. I think it's great that you're editing, but my advice is to spend more time with the people you care about and less at Wikipedia. :)

And, ha, I don't know if I've heard the phrase a stuck pigs squeal before. Reminds me of Andrew Gillum's great debate moment: My grandmother used to say: a hit dog will holler. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I love those old axioms. One editor, with little life experience - obviously, called them cliches. Axioms are what they are, or you can call them an analogy. My Dad's family has deep, deep southern roots (backwoods Arkansas), Mom is a Yankee. Spent half my early life with both. My backwoods relatives had a rich vocabulary, lots of wisdom and common sense, stuff one does not get from books or in a city, on the other hand I learned street smarts living in a government project in Philadelphia (that was an era when housing even in the north was segregated and red lined). I wish I could remember all the axioms of my grandparents. They raised their own hogs, thus "stuck pigs squeal". My mothers family was not racist at all, in fact growing up in an all white, poor neighborhood, I was not aware of racism. In the late 1950's they started to integrate the project, the loveliest couple moved in as neighbors, my single mother dated the brother of the neighbors wife, my sister dated a nephew (she still loves him), but they would not marry because they didn't want to subject my mother and sister to the racism that they knew they would experience. My fathers parents were not overtly racist, but culturally so. They had no clue, a common trait in the south. In 1964 Mammy, my grandmother, asked me "What are them coloreds all riled up about,don't we treat them well enough". She had not a clue, and although not vicious, she did not condone the treatment of blacks, but was blind to it. Strange because in the 1870 and 1880 census, my families neighbors were black, save for a son and his family in the 1870 census, in fact the names we used for our grandparents (Mammy and Pappy) were names used in plantation homes for the elder male and female slaves who basically ran the home and raised the kids.Oldperson (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I love those southern expressions. My favorite, out of the few I know, is "her nose is so high she'd drown in the rain." WanderingWanda (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, best wishes for your health from me as well. El_C 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Hello! I'm Cameron11598 and I'm one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. I noticed you removed some content and replaced it with (Personal attack removed), however the comments would not be considered a personal attack as they merely comment on a users editing and make no accusations about the actual user. In the future please refrain from editing comments of users who you have a history of strained relations with and instead contact the clerks team. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I disagree with your assessment that they merely comment on a user's editing. As to your second point, though, fair enough. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Mob

Because it listed only season 2 before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:7121:94F2:6530:B8F1:8FF5 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to believe anyone would turn down the chance to be involved in more Fram drama! WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Verb tense in articles

Saw your dummy edit re "awkward" phrasing and suggest you post it at WT:MOS. Jmar67 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, done. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s what YOU get!!

Nessie (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep those jokes coming on Discord. 🙂 --Nessie (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha, aww thanks Nessie! (But really I should be making less jokes and doing more editing!) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wordsmithing?

Could you have a try at some wording here? I’m sure there is some good way to handle the phrasing but not coming up with it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 🙂 WanderingWanda (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi WanderingWanda. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! WanderingWanda (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the new user right, WanderingWanda. El_C 05:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

you win

your comment on the goatse RFD was too good. Really, you made my day. Cheers! --The Cunctator (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I can never resist a good pun (or a bad pun). WanderingWanda (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you watched Upstart Crow

"They call me Puck. As in "What the?"" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I haven't seen it, but looks like a show that would be up my alley. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This one [2] may be too. Plenty of Shakespeare in it, and main character partly inspired by Richard III. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen that one! (Better than the American version, I think.) (When it comes to shows about evil British politicians I enjoyed A Very English Scandal.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, may have to look into that. And yes, the original is better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm pestering you, but this [link removed] is a fun take on the character. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Please continue to pester Wander considering all the bad puns they make in WP:Discord. lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's a fitting punishment. Anyway, I just dove into Sandman for the first time recently and was a fan of that section. (But, sorry to be a buzzkill, I have copyright concerns about the link so I've removed it.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't say you're wrong on that so I won't. Purpose accomplished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ciena

Hello! I've been working with Ciena to identify some updates and other improvements to the current article. I've disclosed my COI on my profile, the article's talk page, and my draft page, and I'm seeking editor review via talk page requests. In short, the current page is in poor shape; there's inaccurate content, inappropriately sourced text, and organizational issues. I've outlined some concerns specific to the History section here, and I've proposed replacing the current text with an overview of the company's early history I've saved here. I've also suggested merging of the stray "Recent Events" section (where "Recent" links to Holocene). I saw you edited the article a few times in 2019, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and update the article on my behalf?

Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Inkian Jason: I appreciate you being mindful of your conflict of interest. I'll take a look. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Mx. Bot! WanderingWanda (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

I have noticed that you have changed the name from Si Hui Dong(E) station back to Sihui East station. First of all this is completely incorrect, as due to a recent station name change according to the official map, it is now called Si Hui Dong(E). However, you seem to think otherwise, and reverted it back. While doing this, you created an obnoxious redirect page that would force others reading beijing subway articles to view the redirect page and click the link again. This is a serious problem because it has affected many articles, and even if the wikipedia community wants the article to be called Sihui East station, that would involve me having to change A LOT of articles just for your one move revert that does not even need to happen.

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Congratulations! You have won the extremely coveted award of being squished by a whale for making that move change that is very obnoxious. As a result of your redirect, I cannot find any way to get rid of the redirect page, and if the Wikipedia community still wants the name to be Sihui East station, then I would have to update a lot of articles, including every station article in Line 1. Please understand the effect you made by your edit and consider the effects you are making when you edit wikipedia. Yours truly, Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eti15TrSf. A few points:

1. Multiple people raised concerns about the move to Si Hui Dong(E) station on the talk page and you didn't respond. Moves need to be by WP:CONSENSUS. I believe it was appropriate, therefore, for me to revert your move.

2. After I undid the move, you should've gone through the Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves process, rather than the Uncontroversial technical requests process ([3]). The latter process is supposed to be for completely uncontroversial moves.

3. Regarding readers being forced to view the redirect page and click the link again, bots eventually fix any WP:double redirects, so that is not a major concern. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you are blaming me for making the move. It was not me who made the move but someone who goes the name FRDian who made the move. You should not be blaming me, and you failed to view the history of this page. A bot may have fixed the issue, but I was experiencing the issue at that time by the move, and that can't be denied.Eti15TrSf (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your points are fair enough, sorry for mixing you up with FRDian. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ciena

Hello! First, thanks again for your help with the History section at Ciena. I don't know if you've seen this discussion or not, but I've submitted a request to remove a series of inaccurate and otherwise problematic edits to the section. One editor has weighed in but has asked someone else to review. The edits were made on April 25, and I'm asking to revert to the March 11 version of the article, which is accurate and representative of sourcing. Do you mind taking a look?

Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been on a bit of a WikiBreak, but I'll take a look. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks again for your help with the History section and subsequent revert. I understand you've been on a break and this article falls outside your usual areas of interest, but I was wondering if you had a moment to review my proposed updates for the company's later history and acquisitions. I've identified specific problems with the existing text, and I've drafted accurate and neutral content for review here. I'm hoping you might be willing to help since no other editors have weighed in? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions

Hi WanderingWanda, I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you here. I wanted to speak to you about this diff, but I hoped we could do it in a less public and dramatic place than ANI. I also hope you don't mind if I cut to the chase and speak frankly. I don't think that it was a helpful interjection. Several of us have been trying, as diplomatically as we can, to find a way through the morass of heat and snark to work out a means by which editors from different positions can collaborate on building encyclopaedic content together. It's difficult, and there's a lot of bad blood, but we are doing our best to find a way forward. For you to come along and say that there is a larger circle of bad faith actors who contribute to a poisonous atmosphere on the site is not helping that endeavour; unless you are prepared to be specific as to who those editors are, and to provide diffs and have a discussion about them, that seems to me to be just casting aspersions widely (rather than towards a named individual). This came on top of your edit the previous day, which I replied to, where you again made what seemed to me to be mocking and snarky comments towards unnamed editors. Can I ask that you stop doing that please? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you trying to keep things constructive, and you are probably right that it would be more constructive if I got into specifics, with diffs, etc, rather than talk in generalities like I did. You have to recognize, though, that I was far from the only one making broad comments about other editors. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. ... our "encyclopedic" coverage is very WP:UNDULY dwelling on [an] extreme, echo-chamber, activist viewpoint, and suppressioin of material that does not support that narrative...the overall pattern of TG/NB-related PoV pushing against various BLP subjects is being generated by more than one editor ... I am agreed with SMcCandlish that articles related to this topic suffer from a lot of POV pushing, especially from the advocacy side. ... I'd only add that I think part of the problem is that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us - they respond with incredulity and disproportionate hostility at those of us who are only looking to try and keep things encyclopedic. Etc, etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a great deal of points in that thread could have been made more diplomatically, which is part of the whole problem in editing in this topic area. All of those comments you've quoted, however, were several days old, and thankfully people seemed to have either dropped their sticks, or started talking about ways to make things better. Your comment seemed like it was intended to fan the flames - perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that's how it looked to me, and describing people as "bad faith actors" is simply not on without evidence. I'm not sure how productive it would be to start producing evidence - I expect it would generate a lot more heat, and very little light - but that is what you need to do if you want to make accusations of bad faith. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Boomer remover" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Boomer remover. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Boomer remover until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. funplussmart (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vivian (Paper Mario)

Vivian (Paper Mario), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello WanderingWanda, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case dismissed

The Arbitration Committee has dismissed the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case per [4]. For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"not under any kind of interaction ban"

This is of course technically correct, and at this time there is no real interest in reopening the case. So maybe consider not giving any reason for anyone to reconsider that stance. Whatever your intent was, your message came across as insensitive and rather tone-deaf. You aren't alone in that regard, but not everyone was a party to the case either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WanderingWanda. The discussion is about the topic WP:ARBGG. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the sensitivity of the situation I'd suggest it might be best if neither Wanda nor any of their buddies respond. Editor Bilorv already made an excellent response & in another 10 mins or so I should be able to state the rest of what needs to be said. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Feyd. Take a break and get your head on straight over this whole hideous thing. Nothing good is going to come out of mounting a defense. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Opened relevant discussion re images of transgender individuals at MOS:BIO

Based on your edit to Maddy Thorson which I agree is a wholly appropriate removal in light of how we generally have handled transgender deadnaming, I have opened a discussion at WT:MOSBIO#Yet another consideration related to transgender aspects - images prior to transition based on that 2018 RFC you pointed to, to see if we should enshrine that principle in the MOS (as there's two related concurrent discussions on transgender MOS aspects). Just wanted to bring your attention to that. --Masem (t) 00:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. As you can tell from *gestures above*, these past few weeks have been stressful and draining, and so I really don't have much energy, but I'll try and take a look. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Hi,

I have reverted your recent edit to Same-sex marriage and have detailed the reason on the edit history and talk page of the article.

If you have any questions please let me know on my talk page.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikilove!

	Trophy
	Thanks for letting me test this button! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I noticed you reverted one of my recent edits- an edit to Potato Head. The title is under discussion to be changed to Potato Head, its current name. Thanks, PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ColumboSeasonOne.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ColumboSeasonOne.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 03:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits in Woman

I noticed you undid one of my recent edits to woman and was wondering if we could in the spirit of Ebert and Woodburn discuss the issue.

I was under the impression that it was simply more specific and not any less accurate as there a three kinds of woman from an anatomical perspective Transgender, Intersex and Biological and as only Biological women who are assigned female at birth possess the aforementioned psychical abilities I thought it less confusing and vague than "typically" If I am incorrect and it is less accurate I would love to learn why. thanks Transcendent Presence (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, but best to do so over on the article talk page. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, WanderingWanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Srey Sros^talk 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused.

Is there someone pretending to be me on Discord? Panini!^🥪 04:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Panini!, I'm afraid there is a rogue un-authed Panini! on Discord. I suspect the imposter may, in fact, be a sub sandwich. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

*gasp*

Nobody eats at Subway. Nobody.

When I get my toasted little fingers on them I swear I will dismember their corpse and turn them into two six inch sandwiches. Panini!^🥪 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, WanderingWanda. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Kzkzb (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy cow appreciation day!

(It's a holiday created by a fast food company which may not, I suspect, be a true friend to farm animals, but nevertheless.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you send this message to yourself? Panini!^🥪 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, talking to myself is a good way to ensure an intelligent conversation. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I should try doing that. Panini!^🥪 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Panini!^🥪 16:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ohio Valley-style pizza

Hello, WanderingWanda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ohio Valley-style pizza, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mama mia. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please cook your pizza fully for best results. Nick Number (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cold cheese pizza

Hello, WanderingWanda. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cold cheese pizza, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ohio Valley-style pizza

Hello, WanderingWanda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ohio Valley-style pizza".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cold cheese pizza

Hello, WanderingWanda. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cold cheese pizza".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Invited

 Invited

Hello WanderingWanda: You are invited to take part in my new game show. Previously, you took part in my last YouTube-related event, so you may enjoy this one! If not, I still appreciate all you do.
Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Oop, sorry I missed it. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Re. your page

Dear WanderingWanda

I love the cow with the crown. :)))

Adminship: I assume you do know that one does not get forced to become an admin, one is asked -- and only if one agrees to apply one might be elected.

Living people: Support. Did you simply do (move) it, (of course with a link to the better title)? Be bold !! :)

Toxic editors: Strong approval. I have encountered some too (more in de than in en). I have also found that they delete informations (from articles) which I considered valuable. This loss might even be worse than what they added.

Too many letters: We all know how to copy and paste.

Adding signatures:
Which IP do you "hide": the one of the non-signer (do you add time and date only?) or yours?
Does this "hide" mean, that you just don't sign such of your "posts"?
Maybe you could give a link to an example of what you did (not), or invent an example.

Although I looked up "blasé" in my "World Book Dictionary" (which only gives one meaning: tired of pleasures; bored) I don't understand how this word applies to your sentence and the issue. Would you take the time to explain it (what you meant and the attitude of the WP), please?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Steue, thanks for stopping by.

Adminship: Yes, I am aware of how editors become admins, I wasn't being very serious there. 😛

Toxic editors: Some of what I wrote on my user page is essentially subtweeting a long term abuser that harassed me for years. What was particularly demoralizing about that experience wasn't so much the harassment itself, but the way that so many community members saw that it was happening and chose to ignore it, or actively defend the LTA. Anyway, it can feel good to vent about that, but I might archive some of what I wrote there, to make my user page a bit more drama free. 😅

Adding signatures: So, if a comment from an IP editor on a talk page is missing a signature, you can add one using Template:Unsigned IP. This template expects you to plug in the editor's IP address. However, I don't like doing that: IP editors are often inexperienced users who may not understand that an IP address gives away their general location. Publishing their IP address feels a bit like doxxing. So, instead, I will sometimes add my own custom note to an unsigned message. This is unorthodox, but so far, at least, no one has complained. The note will look like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor 10:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this doesn't completely hide their IP address – you can still see it in the edit history – but it at least makes it a little less visible.

"Blasé": according to Merriam-Webster, "blasé" can mean "unconcerned".

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi WanderingWanda

Thanks a lot for the ping.

Toxic editors:

Your story shows others, that it does/did happen and that one can stand it, and - most important - how one can stand it.

Therefore I would not remove your "drama".

IPs:

I omitted the actual IP of contributors too, but out of an other reason:

As far as I know about my IP address: it gets changed automatically every day (in more or less parts of it) (without me having opted for this, but I don't mind this - rather to the contrary).

All my IP-a reveals, is: country and telephone access provider.

But for some even this (just country) might be dangerous/fatal.

And if I assume this automatic daily change for others too, the IP-a is of little value to readers, because already tomorrow it is a different one, if the same editor writes in the WP.

I knew there is/must be a template for this purpose, but I didn't know it.

But for the reason you gave, I shall continue to not add the actual IP-a.

As far as I know, only legals have the right to insist on an internet access provider to reveal the name and post/living address. Although I hold it possible that hackers might be able to get themselves such informations too.

Are there other things which I should know about IP-a?

Blasé:

Now -- with "unconcerned" -- it makes sense.

And I thought my "World Book Dictionary" (although already large size and two volumes) would be complete enough. Although I always wished I could afford an OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Although meanwhile, with the internet, the need for an OED is less. But even then, a search in the internet takes (me) more time than a look into a (good) book/dictionary (which I {thought} I have). But I have to admit: I try to cope without using "the big G".

On Biographies and living persons:

Did you ever simply do change the title? The worst would be a reverse (within seconds).

Steue (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you ever simply do change the title? The worst would be a reverse (within seconds).

I don't think an undiscussed move would go over well, but I might request a move at some point. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

On your secret/riddel

Hi Manda,
Sorry, but I still don't have an e-mail account, so I'm trying it this way:
Did you mean these editings about some bones and some stars?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Steue, no, I don't think you have it. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Would've been too easy.

Steue (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Good news on IPs

Hi Wanda,
in case you didn't already know:
User talk:DerHexer #How we will see unregistered users

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:High-on-Life-videogame-art.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:High-on-Life-videogame-art.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RM rationale length

Hello. The rationale for the SRS move request is somewhat of a whopper, and it leads to a monstrosity at Wikipedia:Requested moves#November 23, 2022. Perhaps this isn't necessary, but would it be possible to divide up a shorter rationale (e.g. the first paragraph) with your extended analysis after it, so that the request is a bit more approachable and the bot at WP:RM/C isn't having a fit? Up to you though I guess. Endwise (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Endwise: Please, mentions of Whoppers are considered offensive to my people. :P

Anyway,  Done. (I think.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks very much!

for your brilliant Gender-affirming surgery move request! Tom B (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Just an invitation

Hello! Since you helped edit Lucy Salani's article and nominated it for DYK, I just wanted to encourage you to join this project, so you can add the page to the list and get the right credit for it.

Cheers! : )

Oltrepier (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Been busy?

Hello! The proposal to merge sex reassignment therapy to transgender health care has gained support, and is now several months old. Have you been too busy to move forward with it? Can I help? – Scyrme (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scyrme, sorry for wandering off, I'll get back to work on that merge soon. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's alright, but it looks like someone else went ahead with the merge in the meantime. – Scyrme (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"My work is done here." – Leonard Nimoy WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

There's still the loose end of whether to keep the use of "MTF" and "FTM" terminology for Gender-affirming surgery (male-to-female) and Gender-affirming surgery (female-to-male) or whether to move to something more inclusive like Feminizing surgery and Masculinizing surgery (with adjustments to scope) to match Feminizing hormone therapy and Masculinizing hormone therapy. – Scyrme (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry if I'm coming across as pushy/demanding, by the way. If you're not that interested or just have more important things to do, I'll leave you alone.) – Scyrme (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it's good to get a push now and again. I will try and work on that move request. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)