User talk:Raladic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people

Can you please explain why the article is sufficiently different from the two you linked in the hatnote? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It is the umbrella term for it as some discrimination is targeted at both aromantic and asexual people alike.
It was mainly a starting point since the article on Discrimination against asexual people claimed that aphobia was just against asexual people, which is incorrect.
But if you feel the new page I created should instead just be a disambiguation page for starters as it doesn't have much content, that's fair too. Raladic (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
You may want to create the Arophobia article instead (this currently points to a section of Aromanticism). Then aphobia would become a dab for both articles. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I just tagged the new page Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people as the more precise title per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguationas a DAB page a bit earlier, since that's what is mainly is right now (though the intro-section explaining that aphobia encompasses both sub-topics still feels relevant to leave on the page) and per the precise title guidelines it still feels more appropriate to have the full text page be the page and aphobia just redirecting to it.
I don't think the content that is currently the sub-page on Aromanticism#Discrimination and cultural erasure is enough to need it's own page just yet, so I think for now having arophobia redirect into it is fine and I've added the disambiguation links accordingly for now.
Let me know what you think. Raladic (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Discrimination against aspec (aromantic or asexual) people. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Discrimination against asexual people. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Discrimination against asexual people. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Alalch E. 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, regarding this edit, please carefully review what you're restoring before you revert, especially when dealing with BLPs. Thanks! Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted, apologies that I missed that the birthplace was still unsourced, I saw you corrected it. Raladic (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy

Hello, Raladic, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Shushugah, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Shushugah}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the material you added back is your WP:onus

Hello. I'm happy to work with you on Xenophobia in the United States. Since you are adding everything back that was never discussed in the first place, Wp:onus is yours personally. I have reservations about the npov, the unclear RS connections to xenophobia, and the issues with synonymous use of the term anti-immigration policies, especially in the Donald Trump section. You need to discuss before adding it.

I've made many edits in about 5 materially different ways and opened 3 discussions, but you decided to revert all without addressing the cited policy for any of them. And again WP:onus is clearly on the previous additions for much of it, not on my removal. There are no previous discussions on this article.

I've reverted back to my most recent edit, then I welcome you to manually revert any specific area and provide policy based reasons. Then we can discuss. I'll pause and wait for you.

If you just wholesale revert everything again without citing policies I'll consider that edit warring.

I look forward to making a good article with you. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:preserve is a strong motivating policy here also. The article needs much work. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
In your reversion you've referred to yourself (as a different IP) as consensus of a previous editor which is a violation of WP:BADSOCK of pretend consensus.
Just saying something is WP:onus doesn't mean you can just go and remove content when it is generally agreed upon by the cited sources that some of the anti-immigration policies come from an origin of xenophobia by its very definition and thus passes the onus on inclusion. Raladic (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have control over my IP and it keeps changing this week for some reason. I'm petty clear on IP talk pages which ones are me, especially when edits by two IPs are ending up on the same page. There is other IP activity on that page that is not me, going back a ways, so there might very well be sock activity or something else, but it ain't me. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm eager to discuss anti-immigration vs xenophobia, including how that might affect a Trump admin section. I made a discussion section for it. There's been no discussion on the talk page until me, so yes, I do think you need to make, there, the argument for that Trump admin section. Then I can pick the section apart more glandularly, if you make a good argument in the first place.
As to my other edits, maybe address those at least a little, here or there. I think a made some pretty good edits in keeping with WP:preserve. The version you've restored is pretty bad in a number of ways. If like to quickly determine which of those things are least likely to get your revert, then we can snowball into the bigger things. Thanks. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I did reply on the article talk page with an article by the Washington post that links the two issues hand in hand, thus providing the Onus of why the inclusion of the section is relevant to the article.
What I mentioned above was because the words in your edit summary were "Made edit per user talk page of previous editor." which makes it looks to others that you are saying a different editor created the talk page content and you agree with it, which makes it appear as if there were two editors agreeing, which can be mistaken as sockpuppetry. Raladic (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
That message refers to you. You were the previous editor on whose talk page I posted. I could have been more clear, sorry. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
When in doubt, diff. I should know that by now. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I must say, I'm really disappointed that you immediately went to trying to block my participation with a low stakes page protect, since I prefer to edit by IP. Like I said above, I made so many edits that I think you'd not revert. I can't even try to sweep up the little ones. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
If you traced the time, you'd find that I requested the page protection right after your first re-reverted of the changes by @RolandR instead of following WP:BRD to avoid further WP:DISRUPTIVE editing.
You then did it again when you again re-reverted the changes a second time, despite my ask in the first edit summary to please first actually get consensus on the talk page, which requires you to wait for people to actually have a chance to respond and not just going and making the same changes again. Raladic (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit summaries are a reply. RolandR's summary was "no improvement". That's flippant and I certainly can't expect he would go to the talk page. Editors simply don't, when they leave flippant edit summaries. They go by edit, revert, ignore. So I revert, and leave another detailed edit summary. That is discussion and that's why 3RR is the generic recommendation (so you eventually go to the talk page when things get sticky). Nevermind that I created the talk page preemptively. That article has zero concensus because it's never been discussed, so "you can't edit this without consensus" is a specious argument. Yes, it's true, but the process of finding consensus necessarily requires editing throughout. Wp:BRD. Read it again. You're treating it like it's regimented policy, instead of a theory of collaboration. A revert of a revert, with an applicable and detailed edit summary is BRD. 3RR is the policy. I revert a flippant revert once and you're trying to block me?
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. A pattern, not an instance of two reverts. Bold, revert, and ignore is disruptive. Your own revert, if you actually put in a little effort, should have been to look at all the work I did, consider the edit summaries, which reference policy and the talk page for more, and then you add back the Trump admin section as a manual revert with a detailed edit summary. Reverting in one go 15 or so edits that are materially different in 5 ways is disruptive. It robs me of the effort I put into the edits you probably would like. You made no attempt, just jumped to revert with a specious summary, and then the shortest path to preventing my participation. It was easy, but did you accomplish anything or collaborate with an enthusiastic editor? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The way you do it is WP:BRDWRONG. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
And the you go and make your own lede edit. That was my suggestion and initial edit effort for the article. And there's an open talk page discussion about that. Where's your talk page message about it? You need concensus before you edit that. Do you see how that's hypocritical? And maybe you see how disenfranchised you've made me? You should be discussing my edit, not blocking me then making your own. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have replied in the article talk page, presenting citations that show that the content is relevant to the topic of the article. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but it means that you can't just go and erase it all because you don't like it in its entirety. Instead you should refine it or tag it.
The reason why I have improved the lead of the article is precisely because of your talk page request to do so and I agreed with that it can be improved, so I compared the existing lead to your change and made the change. Just like I re-included the change by another user about internments (which you had also erased in your second re-revert).
No one argued that all your changes were bad, but your actions were clearly disruptive and instead of improving things by tagging them or refining, you just erased large chunks and are now leaving large essays on peoples talk pages, so you may want to read WP:FILIBUSTER.
Please take the discussion to the article talk page so that it stops being splintered between here, the other editors user page and the actual article talk page where the central discussion on further changes should happen. Raladic (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you aren't already aware, you might want to have a look at WP:ANI#Incivility_in_talk_and_edit_summaries_from_MrOllie,_ultimate_result_is_disruptive_editing. where there is some discussion of this IP user's editing. - MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor edits

I see you tagged two edits to Rainbow flag as minor while both edits changed the meaning and content of the prose; this is not correct use of the minor tag. Please read WP:MINOR carefully and only use it per the guidance. You should also consider leaving more descriptive edit summaries than "lnk"; see WP:EDITSUMMARY. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I tagged them minor as the understanding of
  • correcting wikilinks
per WP:MINOR - in this case, correcting them to the now agreed upon term of the renamed page, but I hear your point that it does also technically change the prose. Raladic (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Pride vs Gay Pride

Tnx for the edit to PFLAG's page. I almost reverted on assumption that back in 2004 the San Francisco parade was probably still called "Gay Pride", but then realized that your edit was to avoid a Wiki redirect and didn't affect the verbiage on a viewer's screen. (My wife & I were honorary grand marshals of Houston's Pride Parade in 2002, and I think locally it continued to be styled colloquially as Gay Pride rather than LGBT Pride for a number of years. Also when we joined P-FLAG in the early 1990's the initialism was GLBT rather than LGBT.)

And note that I wrote PFLAG's name with a hyphen, which I still tend to use for pronouncability. The hyphen was dropped with a restyling of the logo some years ago. Shortly thereafter a group from Houston was in DC advocating for hate crimes legislation and a waitress seeing my name tag asked "What is "Ploough?")

Irv Smith, Austin TX Casey (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of rainbow crossings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of rainbow crossings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rainbow crossings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

SPÖ leadership election

Hi,

do you know how "candidates" and "total votes" can be moved from center to align left ?

In the table code, it already shows up as "align left", but it's still center. Others are left-sided.

Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears correctly left-aligned to me and the results are correctly right aligned. Raladic (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No, the 2 words "candidates" and "total votes" are in the center on my tablet, not left. The names of the candidates are correctly on the left. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah the columns headers, you mean.
I think those can't be changed and are always center aligned - Help:Table#Horizontal alignment in cells Raladic (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah sh*t, but thanks. It would definitely look better if everything in the left column would be left-aligned ... Glasperlenspieler (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Hindu rate of growth: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Opal|zukor(discuss) 10:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Fürst (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Paul Fürst (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable Reference

Swanley (Parish, United Kingdom) - Population Statistics, Charts, Map and Location (citypopulation.de) https://citypopulation.de/en/uk/southeastengland/admin/sevenoaks/E04012399__swanley/

Was the reference used for the page and is the same reference used by Swanley Town Council who I work for! Swanleytowncouncil (talk) Swanleytowncouncil (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As you may have found on your User talk:Swanleytowncouncil#June 2023 page - I have added some links to what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia and there is no consensus for citypopulation.de - it would be preferred to reference the census bureau directly from https://www.ons.gov.uk/census.
please also note that I placed a warning regarding your username on your talk page and it appears you have been blocked for said username by an administrator now to address the concern. Raladic (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Split attraction model

Hi, one of the sources I added (https://www.aromanticism.org/en/news-feed/splitting-attraction-history-j4y96) was already cited at the bottom of the page under "further reading" before I edited the article. AUREA is one of the leading advocacy organizations for the aromantic community. Tdmurlock (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't split discussions, I already left a note on your user talk page about the revert.
And while I agree that AUREA is one of the leading advocacy organizations for Aromanticism, it didn't conclude what your concludion in the edit was, that came from the student blog, which is both primary and unreliable.
And while AUREA has some good resources, most of their content is also primary, which unfortunately without other supporting reliable secondary sources backing it up, also doesn't make it a good WP:RS and should only be used sparingly by itself. Raladic (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
When you posted on my talk page you said "If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page". I've added some additional sources demonstrating evidence of the split attraction model's controversy. Tdmurlock (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from LGBT. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Irrespective of whether a reference can be accessed or not, the sections of alternative terms contains subject that is NOT neutral. There is no "according to so and so" instead the description looks like the point of view of the editor who made the respective addition. Can you tell me why should I not tag the article for being non-neutral?

Note - Just a polite request for clarification Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Note - as of now the template is not reverted Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on WP:RS and when and when not attribution is required. In most cases when we have reliable secondary sources, no attribution to who said something is made.
The article is watched by many many users and the consensus is that it is written to Wikipedias standards and policies. Please first get consensus on the article talk page after you've read the policies on attribution.
Please also take a look at WP:DONTTEMPLATE. Raladic (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination sidebar

I recently added Ethiopia and Eritrea in Template:Discrimination sidebar. and you delete them. Why do you think they are not for talking about discrimination in spite the list says "Ethnic/national"? AsteriodX (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You have the wrong user - Please contact the person of this change which removed them. Raladic (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Oops!, sorry for the mistake. AsteriodX (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I am LGBT person and need help of the community

I am LGBT old man. I like to write biographies. 4 years ago I did the biography of the most famous transvestite in Argentina who suffered death threats during the military dictatorship for being LGBT. Articles about him have just come out in magazines in Argentina and they are preparing a series on his life. He is a third generation artist, his mother and grandmother was famous singers and actresses.

A well-known writer made the mother and grandmother Wikipedia and the mother also.

In the middle of that, an editor appeared and changed the name of the famous transvestite by his own decision, I complained and he reversed it. But later he attacked the biography of the mother and grandmother with absurd excuses. My friend complained and I also attacked him.  At this point I believe he does not like LGBT people (as most people that lives in Florida State), He is an explosive person.

He asked that the biography of the grandmother who was very famous last century be deleted, the other editors asked not to, they want it to be kept on Wikipedia, so he added on the page

"Stop accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop WP:HOUNDing me ! I am extremely upset over you and your comrades making ridiculous WP:ASPERSIONS against me in response to this AfD. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2023"

and no one have said nothing wrong to him… Since that was not enough, now he accuses that all those who asked to KEEP are puppets?? and wrote this mentioning the 3 bios. ( He only asked deletion of Anita but I know he will return for one by one)

"Re: Anita Bobasso, Jorge Perez Evelyn, and Hilda Dehil

To the users involved in these subjects: please leave me alone! I'm upset over all the WP:HOUNDing and WP:ASPERSIONS cast against me in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Bobasso. Also, to watchers, if you're interested in the extent of this abuse, I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragazzodeitalia. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)".

I was very curious about his violent personality and opened his profile to find that he suffers from something similar to autism (asperberg syndrome) which justifies his explosive character and bad mood AND I FEEL SORRY ABOUT IT, but does NOT justify all the evil he wants to do and gets angry if they don't let him do what he wants.

Now he posts on his page that he has a lot of stress and will move away from wikipedia...but an hour later he comes back to write something else. It's incredible.

Can you help me to get him away from me? Let the biographies alone? I am sure next, he will attack again the “Jorge Perez Evelyn” bio because is LGBT (he is going against one by one)… I don't know everything about Wikipedia and I don't know what to do. I'm very frustrated and so is my friend.

Please help me I'm a very old LGBT. I hope your help! Thank you Ragazzodeitalia (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

aspec

Even though you reverted my edits with regards to "aspec" meaning "asexual spectrum", these terms should still be discussed. Iterresise (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aromanticism (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Aromanticism (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Aromanticism (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aromanticism (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aromanticism (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hi, Raladic. I wanted to make sure you understand why I declined your request for page protection for the article Adam and Eve. Most vandalism gets handled exactly the way you're doing it: keeping an eye on an article and reverting the problems as they occur. For the most part, this works out fine. Page protection is generally reserved for times when the problematic edits are hitting so fast that simple reverts become really difficult. Here is an example from an article that another admin protected, that shows rapid-fire vandalism from multiple accounts and IPs. Joyous! Noise! 05:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joyous!: - It's a designated contentious topic per WP:ARBPS, so WP:CTOP applies, which includes standard set including increased page protection, I have warned the user that you pointed out that semi wouldn't have fixed, about it. But nonetheless, if you look at the history of the article, it is literally just a series of repeated vandalisms until semi at least shut most of that down with the summer protection that just expired.
So whether you protect it now, or in a week, it will be back on RPP in short order for sure, with just extra work for users to remove the vandalism, so I think it's time to invoke CTOP and protect it for good. Raladic (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User Warnings

Hey this is a bit belated but I'd like to ask you please be mindful of how and when you warn new users or IPs. This was a little heavy for an editor who made one reversion and was by all accounts communicative in edit summaries. There's precious little guidance on using UWs and I won't pretend for a moment that you've violated any policy I'm aware of but regardless please give new editors a little more slack. Thank you for your time. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted - Fair. It appeared to me without a warning that the user would have ran straight into 3rr as both their initial change and the first revert of your change were very strongly worded in WP:IMRIGHT territory, so I figured warning them early rather them running into 3rr was the right call of action based on my judgment call at the time. But I hear you about considering grace. Thanks for your note. Happy editing. Raladic (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Transgender

All of my edit have valid sources. Why did you revert them? Please help meRudrik88 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your message. I read your message and I want to talk about it. I Joined Wikipedia in few days ago, and I do not have much experience. I only want to add some countries to the "Legality" section (because only two or three countries in this section). Can you revert my edit, if some sections are incorrect, you can remove them. Please!Rudrik88 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the guidance I gave you on your talk page, you can raise an edit request on the article talk page for changes and someone will review them and can add them to the article. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!Rudrik88 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"slurred names"

Please do not retcon the citation record as you did here. The name of the journal when the publication happen is what should be used, not updated names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Raladic, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you are interested in helping us to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When you feel inspired to create your first biography of a woman, you'll find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sentence case

Whatever the outcome of all this is, the title should be in sentence case - queerphobia does not take a capital q. Best Girth Summit (blether) 18:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, good point. Moving it now to sentence case. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for commenting on my help page

much appreciated Peckedagain (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good edit, wrong reason

Hi, Raladic. Thanks for your edit at Feminism, which was an appropriate change which improved the article. But there was a problem. Your edit summary was:

Replace two noun uses of female with women since females as a noun is often dehumanizing and disparaging, refer to Female#Etymology and usage.

This gets the reasoning for this beneficial edit all wrong, and is not a sufficient justification to make the change that you did, for multiple reasons: it amounts to your original opinion, is backed only by reference to another Wikipedia article which is an unreliable source, and it sounds like some kind of private campaign. It was still the right move, but not for that reason, but for a different one: even though the source in question (Roberts (2017)) used both words, including the term females without any of the kind of dehumanizing tone that you claimed in your edit summary, the source also used the word women, and used it more often, and more to the point used women in the context of the dress standards being discussed in the part of the source which was being summarized at that point in the article.

So, the edit was an improvement, but for the wrong reason: the right reason is WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which is the part of our WP:No original research policy. Going forward, please base your changes exclusively on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. And once again, thanks for your edit to Feminism. Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I’ll keep it in mind to make sure my edit summary is accurate and in line with the policies as you called out. Raladic (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

My undo on the No queerphobia talk page was unintentional, must have hit something while dragging my cursor. (I was surprised when I hit my watchlist and saw I'd edited the article, but you beat me to fixing it.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah no worries, happens to all of us sometimes. Raladic (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raladic/Archive_1&oldid=1224489303"