User talk:WanderingWanda: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:49, 11 April 2019

"Talking to yourself is said to be a sign of impending mental collapse." -Zork WanderingWanda (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

-- 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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 an 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 stated 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 see WP:Advocacy like yours since Lightbreather. Not that you edit exactly like Lightbreather, 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 and 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)[reply]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 :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: {{tq| 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.}} [[user:WanderingWanda|Wandering<span style="color:#e3256b;">Wanda</span>]] (they/them) ([[User_talk:WanderingWanda|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/WanderingWanda|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?"  [[user:WanderingWanda|Wandering<span style="color:#e3256b;">Wanda</span>]] (they/them) ([[User_talk:WanderingWanda|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/WanderingWanda|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 an 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 stated 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lightbreather Lightbreather]. The editor stated that they hadn't see [[WP:Advocacy]] like yours since Lightbreather. Not that you edit exactly like Lightbreather, 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 and 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. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 03:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)