User talk:Zumoarirodoka/Archive LGBT

Bisexualindex.org.uk, etc.

Hello, Zumoarirodoka. Regarding the bisexualindex.org.uk source that you are currently using in your WP:Sandbox for what appears to be a draft of this section for the Transphobia article, I'm stopping by your talk page to point out that it's not a WP:Reliable source. This is why I removed it from the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles some time back. Even if it were a WP:Reliable source, it would likely be argued by someone that the text in your WP:Sandbox gives WP:Undue weight to it with that big WP:Blockquote. After all, that source acknowledges that its definition of bisexuality is not the most common one. And as noted in the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles, as currently seen at Talk:Pansexuality, and as seen with my statements at Talk:Bisexuality, people define bisexuality differently, and so we should give WP:Due weight to that matter while still giving appropriate WP:Due weight to the most common definition (which is the binary model). Usually, the most common definition should get the most WP:Due weight. If you are wondering how I came across your WP:Sandbox, it was after I saw this edit by you at the Biphobia article.

Also, if you are planning to create a Trans erasure article, as is indicated by the "trans* people don't exist" link in your WP:Sandbox, make sure that it is not an unnecessary WP:Content fork, like this other recent WP:Content fork matter that you created...that I fixed. Trans erasure can be sufficiently covered in the Transphobia article, with no need for an article specifically devoted to that topic. Yes, Wikipedia has a Biphobia article and a Bisexual erasure article, but bisexual erasure is an aspect of biphobia, and it was seemingly split off into its own Wikipedia article to help keep the Biphobia article from focusing so much on the bisexual erasure aspect. That, however, has not kept WP:Merge discussions from happening in that regard, as currently seen at Talk:Biphobia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much for your input and constructive criticism! I'll re-draft my sandbox later and remove the blockquote.

I would change the link, but I cannot see where in the current article a clear section on trans erasure is (I know it's mentioned in part but not fully). If it's going to be included in the Wikipedia page, then there needs to be a redirect page "trans erasure" that redirects to the page, IMO. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask me about any LGBT issues, or other Wikipedia matters. As for the text in question, you can, of course, use some of the content/sources that I used for the Pansexuality article to make it clear that bisexuality does not necessarily have to mean "attraction to two," and that pansexuality may or may not be subsumed under bisexuality. However, while Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is allowed, there should not be much duplication between articles (not usually anyway). I see that you've already used a bit of the Shiri Eisner source from the Pansexuality article. I think that you should use the URL link for the page number (or page numbers) instead of a link to the information page; since the URLs don't show the page numbers in the text, you can identify a specific page number in the URL link (such identification is usually correct; in other cases, the URL page number doesn't match the text page number). For example, "pg=PT29" in the URL means page 29. And from that page, it's easy to deduce that the next page is page 30, and so on. As for the trans erasure term, if there is enough WP:Reliable content on it, I think you should add that to the Transphobia article, and redirect the term there. If there comes a day that the content should ideally be split into its own Wikipedia article, then that can happen. Like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, will do! I really appreciate the advice btw, I'm still a bit of a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia.

I actually found the Shiri Eisner book when I was looking for sources independently, but I'll try to use the sources that you added to the article on pansexuality to improve the text.

However, as far as my sandbox is currently, I've edited the link and added the page number for my quotation as in the URL (just like you said) – I've noticed that it now leads to a blank page for me... Is that an issue at all? I have the quotation from the page source to support my statement. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The link works for me; by that, I mean it's not blank. I'm using Firefox, by the way, as I usually do when editing Wikipedia or browsing the Internet. But another tip for the link is the following: Unless you want the words of a URL highlighted, shortening a URL is usually the way to go. So the URL in question can be shortened to https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CbJaZIosLwQC&pg=PT27. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've shortened the URL and made my edits – is it alright to be copied onto the section of the original article now? – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the bisexuality aspect of your sandbox, the section is almost ready to go to WP:Mainspace, but it needs a few tweaks first. To begin with, the Bisexual communities and Binarism heading should be lowercase after the word bisexual; if you are not already aware, per MOS:HEAD, "headings are in sentence case, not title case." Regarding your linking within quotes, MOS:QUOTES (also scroll down to its Linking section) generally discourages that; it can occasionally be done, but should ideally be worked around. If a term is already linked in the article, it generally should not be linked again in the article anyway; this is per WP:Overlinking (yes, complaints have been made about that guideline, as currently seen on that guideline's talk page and in its recent archives). The Yourdictionary.com source is not needed, and I'm not sure how WP:Reliable it is. For the "However, some bisexual individuals and scholars object to" paragraph, I wonder why you added the word occasionally for the "occasionally defined as such" part as opposed to the word sometimes, which is used for the "and the term bisexual is sometimes defined as the romantic or sexual attraction to multiple genders" part in the Pansexuality article. But use of occasionally in this case makes sense, perhaps more sense than sometimes does, since it's not often that bisexuality is defined as romantic or sexual attraction to multiple genders. Oh, and omnisexual redirects to the Pansexuality article, as it should instead of being its own Wikipedia article, so you should delink that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving articles

Regarding this and this, that is not the way you should move articles. This is because you moved the article content but left its edit history behind. The edit history is important. I will take this matter to WP:Requested moves simply to request a WP:Histmerge. In the future, simply move an article by hovering over and/or clicking on the "More" tab at the top of the article to access the "Move" function. If the article cannot be moved, it will let you know and suggest that you take the matter to WP:Requested moves. Keep in mind, however, that potentially controversial article moves should be discussed first; WP:Requested moves is clear on that.

On a side note: Looking at that article recently, I also thought about its inappropriate capitalization that goes against WP:Article titles; so you definitely had the right idea in mind on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll remember to do so in the future. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It'll be fixed soon. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See here in case you wondered why the fixing took longer than expected. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities has been accepted

Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome job Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not find a WP:DYK in the article and also go for a WP:GA? Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have found a possible DYK and nominated it. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the DYK nomination. Not sure about the GA status though, there's a lot of discussion on the article talk page of merging, but I really appreciate the help that you've given. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 10:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Then continue to make it better and better. The talk page chatter was prior to acceptance. To me it looks like a great stand alone article. Please will you monitor the DYK status. I may not have time to do so. Feel at total liberty to leap in and take over at any time. Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm monitoring the DYK status for as long as I'm on here & I'll be adding more to the article when I can. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a feeling you'd be monitoring the DYK. Check that the referencing for the entire article is tight as possible. We don't have to do things alone. Have you come across Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors yet? Lets; get the DYK reviewed, something that takes its own time anyway, and then ask the GOCE to enjoy bringing the article up to GA status. Of course I may be letting the topic material colour my judgement. I find the article of serious personal interest. Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will do. I've referenced as much as I can right now, and since the DYK has been reviewed now, I've made a request at GOCE (thanks for notifying me about them, I had not heard of the GOCE before you had mentioned them to me), so I'll see where it goes from here. Again, thank you so much for the help that you've given me, and I'm glad you appreciate the topic material :D – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 12:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Homophobia in ethnic minority communities has been accepted

Homophobia in ethnic minority communities, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TL22 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

Please look at this as a matter of importance. There is a problem with the hook. Get that right and you get a DYK out of this. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this! And I didn't realise the mistake which I had made in the article, apologies for that. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a formal way (no idea) to list new potential hooks. It might be sensible to ask the editor who is reviewing the DYK how to do that and then to be assertive and write out the new hooks as elements for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused now. I've changed the article text to reflect what the reviewer believes is more accurate. Provided they agree with this change, can't this hook just be reworded slightly? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It can, but I think you probably need to propose the rewording. These folk review, but tend not to suggest improvements. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have suggested alternative wording at the template above. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you achieved it. Now we wait for it to appear. Good job. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for nominating it in the first place :D – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 20:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's in the preparation area. Just a matter of time now. I nominated it because it needs to see the light on the front page. Some activism is best performed via the establishment Fiddle Faddle 09:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This is down to your hard work. Well done. You can now place {{User Did You Know|Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities}} on your user page if you like. I would!

Now, onwards and upwards. First GA and then FA.

Then get another LGBT article to DYK.GA and FA status, ideally from another obscure seeming area. Let's get folk educated! Fiddle Faddle 08:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh gosh, that sounds like a challenge! I'll try my best. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE request: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners

I just finished copyediting the LGSM article, as per your GOCE request. A few comments:

• In the History section, you mention that "there were reciprocal visits." Please clarify what these visits were.

• Also, I differentiated the History section into History and Legacy sections. I would recommend keeping the new structure as it makes the article flow better.

Otherwise, you should be good to go for a GA nomination. Good luck! Hampton11235 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hampton11235: Thank you for the copyediting! – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights opposition

Sorry to screw up your ref fixes D: I haven't used a tool to fix refs before, but I can try to help fix them again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Oh no, it's fine, I only use the refill tool because I find it really tedious fixing up references sometimes. I'm glad you reverted those edits tbh, and it looks like Aronzak has beaten us to filling in the bare refs. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 15:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, is it possible to include some data, like the Pew Religious Landscape survey ([1])

There might be other Pew stuff. (http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/section-3-religious-belief-and-views-of-homosexuality/) That would seem to discuss which denominations support/oppose LGBT rights like marriage, without needing editorialising over the sources. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the sources. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• "there is no universally accepted meanings of terms related to homosexuality" - I'm not sure this is a particularly useful addition. Differences in modern religious views of homosexuality are not overwhelmingly focused on whether "homosexuality" means an orientation or an action (accepting people/denominations are usually fine with either; non-accepting people denominations still describe the orientation as unnatural, a compulsion to sin, etc.) The issue of differing interpretations of the Bible isn't what that quote is about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, feel free to remove it. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your lead on communism and homosexuality

"Karl Marx spent very little of his time discussing sexuality, but was known to hold homophobic views towards gay men in private"

Entirely unsourced and presumably false statement.

"Friedrich Engels also condemned male homosexuality and associated it with ancient Greek pederasty."

If I recall that correctly, what actually happened was that he was gifted a book about Uranians (from a pro-gay viewpoint) that explicitly described a type of individuals who were pedophiles and homosexuals at the same time; he later, in private correspondence to Marx, attacked this type of individual as described in the book. This, of course, may be classed as an attack on LGBT rights, but the current explanation of the issue may not be correctly reflecting what actually happening.

Furthermore, talking about Marx and Engels' personal views, expressed only through private correspondence, in the lead is entirely illegitimate. For example, should we create a "Liberalism and homosexuality" with a lead that delves into the private views of the founders of liberalism from centuries ago? Liberalism is a movement with thousands of thinkers, some strongly opposed to each other, and hundreds of parties following it. The same applies to communism. Many of liberalism's supporters would argue that its stance is fully pro-LGBT. What some of its founders' private views may have been based on private letters from centuries ago would not be relevant material for such a lead.

"While some communists states historically claimed that homosexuality was a result of capitalist society and of bourgeois decadence (e.g. Cuba)"

Cuba is not a "communist state" - a term that simply makes no sense in the first place (communism is stateless). Many Marxists consider it a state capitalist state; Cuba itself does not claim to be a "communist state", merely "socialist". One of the biggest Marxist trends, Trotskyism, considers it neither socialist nor capitalist.

The lead must explain how many communists and tendencies of communism have theorized that all the attacks on homosexuality by the USSR, Cuba, and so on were merely the results of Stalinist counter-revolution, and how these communists consider Stalinism not to be an accurate representation of communism but its exact opposite. Of course, it must not explain this as the only possible view, nevertheless it must be explained as one of the most relevant viewpoints. Zozs (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me here.

1. Neither the Communist Manifesto nor Das Kapital mention sexual orientation at all, so I think it's fair to say that the issue was not of paramount importance to Marx himself. And Karl Marx's views on Dr. Karl Boruttau are mentioned in the article (I was just summarising in the lead); I think it would be adequate to say that calling someone a Schwanzschwulen is homophobic. As with Engels' view on homosexuality, that's what I recall was well. But his words were interpreted not just to refer to paederasts, but to all male homosexuals – I've not read the article for a long time, so I may be getting some things wrong here. However, if you don't agree that Marx or Engels' personal views be kept in the lead section, then fine. But Marx and Engels are considered the fathers of communism, and I think that their views are of importance to the topic.
2. I personally agree that the term "communist state" is a misnomer, but sadly it is a term used to refer to Cuba in many sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and Cuba is listed as a "communist state" on Wikipedia. I think that referring to Cuba as "state capitalist" would be POV-pushing (albeit a POV that I have sympathies with) and that in an article regarding Communism and homosexuality, referring to Cuba as a "socialist state", "socialist country" would be confusing to the reader without any explanation.
3. The lead should "...define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points...". The lead as it stood seemed to be pushing a particular POV, and equated communism and socialism as being one and the same (i.e. the quote given in the lead), with various statements which I felt were not backed up by what the article was saying. But I appreciate it's very difficult to not push POV on articles of this nature, and I greatly appreciate the help that you're doing on this article.

Thank you very much. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll bring another point to the table. Marx insulted Lasalle (and a few others) as a "Jew" in private statements; he was, however, a Jew himself, and fully aware of this. Engels also may have been involved in insulting Jews, yet he wrote an article on Anti-Semitism that talked about how anti-Semitism is entirely illegitimate and anti-communist, and how he was aware that Marx was a Jew himself. That is to say, while Marx and Engels may have used some racist insults in private correspondence, their whole perspective was not only fully anti-racist, but created the philosophical and political foundation for the anti-racist movement. So while their private existence may have been racist, their whole public existence as politically relevant individuals was the opposite. The conclusion: Marx and Engels may have acted like this or that in private, but this behaviour never gained a political existence. Their private existence is irrelevant; their political existence is relevant. Marx and Engels may go on infinitely about how they despise Jewish people (Marx being Jewish himself), but, when their whole existence as it is publicly concerned amounts to despising anti-Semitism, and when they recognized how communism leads exactly to the conclusion of despising anti-Semitism, then it is clear that as far as the topic "Communism" is regarded, the only relevant view of Marx and Engels to be stated is that of the strongest standpoint against anti-Semitism.

In a sentence: Marx and Engels may constantly have both said "I hate niggers", but when their whole political thought and action amounts to despising racism and advocating equality for people of all "races" to the maximum extent, then the only possible conclusion to have made on such a lead would be "Marx and Engels hated racism". Their private statements would belong in a tiny footnote.

While claiming that "Cuba is state capitalist" is indeed a violation of Wikipedia standards, claiming that "important Marxist theorists, parties, and tendencies consider the policies of the USSR, Cuba, etc. to have been born out of Stalinist counter-revolution; they believe that these policies were not an accurate representation of communism in the least but rather the opposite", would perfectly fit on the lead and would also be perfectly in line with Wikipedia standards, as long as it is cited with reliable, independent sources and described in an accurate fashion.

So in my opinion any references to the specific policies of Cuba etc. don't belong in the lead. What belongs in the lead is: "Historically, Marxist-Leninist states" (i.e. these run under Stalin's policies) "have applied anti-homosexual policies", followed by the sentence I have wrote above. Plus maybe the specific example of how the communist revolution in Russia in 1917 legalized homosexuality and the Stalinist government did the opposite. Zozs (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point with regards to Marx and Engels' personal views. I disagree that they should e in "a tiny footnote" (they should be mentioned with due weight in the article text, IMO), but I do agree that they shouldn't be in the lead of the article; I was wrong to re-add them there. Also, "Stalinist counter-revolution" seems to be a very loaded phrase IMO, but noting that many prominent Marxist theorists (as well as non-Marxist theorists, possibly?) disagree with Cuba being designated a "communist state" should appear in the article: I think it should be in the lead for now, but I'm not sure if it should stay there (it seems way too focused on Cuba as opposed to other countries). But overall, that seems like a good lead to go with – apologies if I too hastily removed the lead that you put in the article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

NAMBLA Needs looking over

Hello friend, it's great to e-meet you. I have noticed that you've been cleaning up the page noted above. Please refer to my post on the talk page. I would appreciate your help as stated there. Have a great day! olowe2011 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me here, I've already wrote a comment on the page. Honestly, I'm just glad we've got an experienced editor like you on the page right now. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States

Hello. I notice you do quite a lot of editing on LGBTIA topics on Wikipedia. I'm a queer studies academic at a research university in Texas and was updating and expanding the article "Legal Aspects of Transsexualism in the United States"

There is an old and large discussion of a need to retitle that article to "Transgender Rights in the United States" or "Transgender Law in the United States." It seems there is consensus on making that change now, but I don't know how to do so.

As you know, "transsexual" is not an inclusive term and hasn't been considered such since the early 1990s (at least). It would be good if we finally made this change on such an important topic. – 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk). 03:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) (Signed by myself; please remember to add heading and sign your posts using ~~~~ at the end of your messages.)

@2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3: I agree; "Transgender rights in the United States" seems to be the most appropriate wording here, given the consensus on that article's talk page and the scope of the article. As "Transgender rights in the United States" currently redirects to LGBT rights in the United States, I can't personally move the article now, so I've added a request to the talk page (I'm not 100% sure what I've done is right now, I'm not that familiar with this process...). BTW, Wikipedia does have a "Legal aspects of transsexualism" article, which is something to keep in mind IMO.

On another note: Looking through your edit contributions, have you considered getting a Wikipedia account? There are various benefits if you do, and I'm sure we'd appreciate an editor like you on board at WP:LGBT in particular. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question About Recent Edit

Hi! Just wanted to ask you about your recent edit to North American Man/Boy Love Association and ask why you changed all the links to their website to redirects through "www.donotlink.com"? Did I miss something? Was there a reason for this change that I don't understand? Thanks in advance for your help! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The website nambla.org is currently blacklisted, and so all the links to the article were using the {{code}} template. I've attempted to whitelist the links, but to nobody's answered my request in over a month, now: it seems fairly obvious that these links are neccessary, and were not removed in the page's most recent GOCE edit. Using the {{code}} template messes up the formatting of the page imo, and this was the next best thing I could think of. Feel free to remove them back to what they were previously if you'd prefer. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just wasn't sure! Thanks! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities

The article Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack Monroe

If we're both Jack Monroe it's quite odd that we don't know about it. :-)

(Am I alone in not entirely trusting the first-time-ever editor who changed all the pronouns to "they"?) Pinkbeast (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, we are just useful idiots for the Grand Monroean conspiracy, aiming to undermine Wikipedia's power as a neutral encyclopaedia by referring to someone by their preferred name. Sure came as a surprise to me as well.

(And I'm not sure about the first-time editor. I'm going to assume good faith on this one: Monroe has talked about gender-neutral passports and things like that before, I think. I don't think they're related to the ongoing *ahem* discussion going on at the talk page. Could very well be wrong though.) – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Jack Monroe has come out as non-binary. "They" pronouns therefore should stay. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken about Mattybrad. I'm pondering this one, but I'm leaving "they" alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

CHE support for PIE: Campaign for Homosexual Equality censored

Dear Zumoarirodoka,

Thank you for your recent thanks for my researched update of the PIE article. I can see you treat similar subjects in your Wikipedia contributions. Would you like to comment on my PIE-related edits discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Campaign_for_Homosexual_Equality#Reverting_sourced_statement?

I am afraid that my properly sourced work is not believed, and thus repeatedly censored for a number of non-encyclopedic reasons, e.g. not even reading the references that I provided in the both edits. Zezen (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion; I've made a rather diplomatic response in the talk page. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

After some toing and froing, the consensus seems to have been reached: 3 to 2, see the talk page. I have thus restored my edits, and saw that they tie in nicely with the existing section. Let's see what happens now...  ;) Arbitration committee? Zezen (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good, hopefully now these edits will stay. Thanks very much for alerting me to that article and the talk discussion. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Thank you for the barnstar as well! – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Zezen you might want to read up on WP:CANVASS. Zumoarirodoka your contributions on the talk page seemed balanced - hopefully you are happy with the balanced change that has been made. Please don't encourage other editors to believe that 3:2 votes allow them to edit war, or to ignore comments that only support a brief mention. I quoted one of your comments on the talk page of the article to make this point ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: it certainly was not my aim to promote any edit warring. As you mentioned in this edit summary, the only way to do this was to create a separate section for this information, as I cannot see how it would fit in the article otherwise (hence why I said "hopefully these edits will stay"). Thank you very much for your edits on the article; I think that the current section appears reasonable, although maybe still a bit too long considering the detail given to other aspects of CHE in the article. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fully understand and thanks for the changes you made. If you can see a way to shorten it a little that would be good. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, so that I am not accused of canvassing for votes herein this time, I asked uninvolved third-party editors about their opinions here this time. It's the first time I am testing this tool. Zezen (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea: Let's see how this goes! – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Minorities and LGBT

Hello in 2016!

I tried to add this to page discussion but UI of Wiki on my phone throws an error so trying to paste it here, sorry for no URLs:

I also cast my vote for globalization here.

Otoh, I find this section wp:undue

Hak-Shing William Tan was one of the original five "official proponents" (sponsors) who voted in favour of Proposition 8,[59] stating that unless it was adopted the states would "fall into Satan's hand", children would "fantasize marrying someone of the same sex", thus becoming gay themselves

as this Mr Hak does not even have his wiki entry. Zezen (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Zezen (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the section about Mr Hak as I agree that this may be WP:UNDUE. With regards to the scope and globalisation of the article, I fully agree as I have stated on the talk page. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)