User talk:Skyerise

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Hi, are you sure it is appropriate to make an article with the stage name as title and make the real name a redirect to that article, instead of the other way around? So you have actually an article about a name and not a person, but the article contains all the information about the person. Sounds wrong to me. Wouldn't it be better to use 'Leah Smith' as title? When I created the article about Raising Appalachia I was thinking hard and long if there is enough info about the sisters (especially Leah, as she sings also solo) outside of the Raising Appalachia group for an individual article. Unfortunately I didn't think so and there is little new info apart from the Raising Appalachia connection.

I also have to ask you, where you see the advantage of linking inline references first to an extra Note section and than from there to the Reference section (using sfn) instead if directly from the inline ref numbers to the references (using ref)??? Seems to me this wastes space on the page and makes it more complicated for readers to get to a reference. Isn't the sfn template mainly useful if one reference is used several times in an article (I might be wrong as I didn't know that template before and just quickly read it's description)? Optimale ^Gu 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case, per WP:COMMONNAME. She actually goes by Leah Song in general, and the majority of articles about and I think all the interviews, the bio on her own site and pretty much everything refers to her as Song rather than Smith. Of course, with a last name like Smith it's hard to do a valid comparison using Google search. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the citation style, the creator of the article gets to determine it (see WP:CITEVAR). I find that it is much, much easier to build an article from scratch using Harvard-style referencing. Sorry if it's not what you prefer. Skyerise (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two images added; there are a bunch more in a Commons category, which I've linked via a template. - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe! Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skyerise, I recently set up archiving for Talk:Ada Lovelace, but I didn't realize that using the monthly archiving system was going to create such a mess (lots of tiny archive pages instead of a few large archive pages). I was hoping to redo it with a simple sequential archive and then delete the monthly archives. What do you think? Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any particular reason you aren't an administrator? Seems like you should be :) Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think monthly is fine. They are searchable, right? So people can find what they are looking for regardless of the structure. It doesn't look like you are an admin on EN so it creates a lot of deletion work. If I'm mistaken and you can do the deletions yourself, then I guess go ahead, but I don't see the problem....

As for reason I am not an admin? I have received a lot of harassment from IP editors. I mean a lot. Don't really want to have a higher profile as it attracts more attention and I'd probably get in trouble for just stomping any such IP harassers with tools rather than following process. Have no patience for them and think we shouldn't even allow IP editing. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad to hear, but not surprising. If you experience more harassment, you may want to consider emailing someone on Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. If you don't know anyone on that list, I recommend User:FloNight. She's super helpful. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, sometimes I do paid editing. Despite the fact that I am legit about creating cited, non-promotional articles, I don't expect I would be successful at an admin bid because of it, even if I wanted to be an admin. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to RIPM. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did get the email. I'l complete the form tomorrow. Things suddenly got very busy and I wasn't able to attend to it, but they have calmed down... Skyerise (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Sundayclose (talk · contribs) is not welcome to post on my talk page. Other editors feel free to revert any further harassment. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: one can not ban another from posting appropriate warnings and notices. See WP:NOBAN Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read more closely: one cannot ban an administrator from posting notices. Non-admin editors have no special privileges when it comes to canned notices, especially when they are using them to harass rather than to inform. See also WP:DTTR. Skyerise (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to". The "or" separates the two. As an example to the difficulty of an "admins only post request", If X could put a "everyone (but administrators) is banned from posting here". Then nobody but admins could warn X for vandalism. As posting on AIV generally requires four warnings, it would be difficult to get X properly listed on AIV without a reprimand for violating their request. DTTR is an essay on behavior (with good recommendations), but not a policy.

If someone posts inappropriate warnings on your talk page and won't stop, take it to ANI. If someone were to remove an appropriate warning notice from a talk page, it might be construed as vandalism. Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, editors are allowed to remove anything from their talk page, including valid warning. Removal means "I've read it". And nobody is talking about banning all non-admins from a talk page. Only about banning single non-admin editors, so your reasoning is just a bunch of red herring! And ANI is a complete joke when it comes to such matters. Skyerise (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was not aware that MOS:IDENTITY was so severe - or that it even existed at all. At the French wikipedia, we are still trying to find an acceptable way to treat such cases. IMHO, the use of female (or in other cases male) pronouns during the person's whole life is not a good idea, as in some cases it just makes him/her look kind of silly. That's especially the case with Jenner's sports career. However, I just don't have the time or interest to debate that. Best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing sex and gender. Pronouns are gendered, not sexed. And to the subject, it does not make them look silly: it acknowledges their lifelong gender identification. Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the gender issue : it's just that in some contexts, writing "she" when the subject was still legally a man - and in Jenner's case, was performing as a male athlete - is just odd to the reader. The result is that the article looks silly, which unfortunately makes Jenner look silly. But then again, that's just my point of view. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the point of view of someone uneducated on gender issues. Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is entitled to his own opinion. My point of view is that we should avoid to expose trans people to potential ridicule by uneducated readers, but you have every right to think that I am being too pessimistic. Take care, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think mixing pronouns is more ridiculous than sticking with a single gender. On top of that, the facts of transgenderism support the latter, not the former. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one point of view, although I have been taking part in debates at the French wikipedia where the opposite POV (about pronouns, that is) has prevailed for now. Then again, if the majority here has a different opinion, I have no interest in challenging it. I think both of us are concerned with protecting trans people from ridicule and callousness, but we have different opinions about the articles' presentations. That's not a major problem, though. No hard feelings, I hope. Take care. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very civil editor, certainly no cause for hard feelings. Have a great day, or night, or whatever time it is where you are... Skyerise (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we are having a bright sunny day here in Paris. :) Best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...the use of quotes around the term role model was not used maliciously.Fine to remove the quotes if you misunderstood the purpose which means that other readers could misunderstand the use of quotes there or claim they are some kind of spite quotes....jftr that is a somewhat difficult editing fix and I edited the quotes to refer to the quoted ref. To try and distinguish spokesperson athletes from box cover athletes. This is now the 3rd time that you have abf with my edits to this topic and I do not appreciate that.ChangalangaIP (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use quotation marks unless someone is being quoted. Who are you quoting? The citation for a quotation should directly follow the quotation. Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the Wheaties ref which follows the statement but never mind putting quote things back since it could be misunderstood. When I get on my PC maybe I will add a quoted section to the cite. I cannot even remember why I rm the previous quotation marks from "spokesperson", so it may be better to not quote single words there anyhow, since they are not helping the section.ChangalangaIP (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't duplicate your comments (or post similar one) from conversations elsewhere on WP. I'm watching those pages. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. [1]. The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions. [2] Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. [3]

So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism. Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions. Skyerise (talk)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Veni, vidi, vici 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Skyerise reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Please note that, despite your request, I am required to notify you of this report about your edit-warring. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]