User talk:A145GI15I95

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

MrClog (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you had any knowledge of writing which focuses of Detransitioning people which doesn't touch on the politics of anti-/pro-transgender stuff. It would be nice to not have to vade through tons and tons of angry and hateful pieces to find info on these peoples experiences.★Trekker (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:*Treker, and thanks for writing this pleasant message. May I ask please what sort of writing or topics you might more specifically be hoping to find? Unfortunately, most everything I've seen is blogs, vlogs, and support groups, from detransitioners struggling with their unique healthcare and legal needs, calling for help from professionals and advocacy orgs, and getting ignored due to political fears; from healthcare professionals speaking up and getting fired, or wishing they could speak up without getting fired; or from activists suppressing discussion of detransition. That's basically where the situation is right now. It looks a lot like transgenderism did ten years ago. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to read pretty much anything that doesn't devolve into "this proves being trans isn't real/gay agenda blabla" or similar.★Trekker (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:*Treker: The closest thing that comes immediately to mind for what you're asking is the recent additions under "Individual accounts". The Belovitch bio in particular pleads earnestly for the trans community to see detransition not as a threat, but as "the ultimate trans freedom" (and it was written by a trans person). Maybe his summary within our article could be expanded. Another noteworthy and recent entry to the field in general is this group of vloggers and podcasters, the Pique Resilience Project, which of course, isn't itself a reliable source, but their first YouTube entry seemed calm and positive. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, I'm working on the page List of LGBT-related slurs, feel free to add any anti-detrans terms if you know any (I think the "other" section would be best).★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your positive interactions and contributions on this delicate topic. A145GI15I95 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has declined the request for arbitration "Transgender-related POV editing". You and the other parties are encouraged to pursue other dispute resolution methods as necessary. Bradv🍁 04:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From your knowlege would you say that most detransitioners would consider themsleves LGBT after their detransition?★Trekker (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most detransitioners are homosexual or bisexual. Some are heterosexual. Most are gender-nonconforming. Some adopt identities such as genderqueer/nonbinary. Some abandon all identity labels. Many become gender critical. Some continue to support the validity of others' trans identities. Some find alternative talk therapy or simply time is the cure for dysphoria. Some make peace with lifelong dysphoria. Many experience perceived or internalized homophobia (which can make transition to a more straight-appearing presentation appealing). A few experience autogynephilia/autoandrophilia. A few are on the autism spectrum (which can contribute to either/or thinking and hyper-focus on end goals). These all could be worthwhile data to add to the article when properly sourced, but I've not had the time lately. Work by Cantor, Marchiano, Yoo, and Callahan could be starting points for research, but you've found others that are new to me that I appreciate seeing. Thank you for contributing. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. :)★Trekker (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, ★Trekker, you might also confer with gnu, who's been good at contributing reliable data on this topic. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2019 (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:A145GI15I95 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: ). Thank you. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, with respect to your use of correct search engine result count statistics in this edit at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. And good for you for figuring it out so quickly, from not much information. One of these days, I'm really going to have to write an essay explaining this, because search results counts are regularly misunderstood, and misused. Now you're one of the few who understand it, so I hope you'll help watch out for this sort of thing in the future (it's almost always a good-faith misunderstanding) and correct them, at least in cases where they might have important consequences for the outcome of an Rfc or discussion that might be based on incorrect or poorly analyzed data.

Since you assimilated that so well, you might also enjoy reading the discussion at this closed Rfc, about a similar search issue, this one concerning Google Trends data, which should never be used for questions about common name or notability, for example. I doubt you'll need any further explanation than what's already there, but feel free to ask. I hope you can help out monitoring this misunderstood search feature as well: if you see Rfcs or discussions getting bogged down by incorrect application of Google Trends data as if it were a reliable source about anything, please help nip that in the bud when you can. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your support might be even more appreciated on the talk page, where another user immediately responded Google searches are not a reasonable test, and the conversation quickly spiraled off topic again, if you might feel comfortable and inclined. Cheers, A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw that; I can barely keep up with this stuff. It didn't seem as crucial as in an Rfc, so I sometimes let those ones of lesser impact slide, or I'd be doing nothing but responding to comments like that one. But if you think it's important, I will. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that while you and I disagree in some cases, we agree in others, and we seem to keep civil.

My greater concern is cases like Mooeena:

• See her latest action – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:A145GI15I95_reported_by_User:Mooeena_(Result:_Page_protected)

And now Fae:

• See her latest comments against my person on that noticeboard – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=892711140&oldid=892667877
• On this noticeboard – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&curid=31934316&diff=892722738&oldid=892714634]
• And on the thread that led to your comment here above about Google searches – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&diff=prev&oldid=892707809

Anything you might feel comfortable doing to return talk-page conversations to discussions of articles not editors would be helpful. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason I didn't respond to it, was that users must commonly see results of web searches posted by other users, and they can tell from the searches they have done previously, or just from common sense, that something is very wrong with the search counts being given (e.g., like the 7.2 million results thing; everybody knows that can't be right), but they don't know why it's wrong, and so they just give up in frustration, figuring that you can't possibly ever determine anything out of search engine result counts. Which is wrong, but I understand why they feel that way. (Another reason for me to write that essay.)

In the next post there, at Mention of "gender critical" in article, you've correctly generated the search engine counts (138::131, etc.) but missed something on the analysis part. I'll address that separately in a new subsection below. Wrt to your points about other editors' comments, I'd prefer to keep this discussion focused on correct technique wrt search engine queries and not respond to those points here. Content disagreements should go on the article TP, and any editor behavioral issue can be raised at their User talk page. Sometimes, it's hard to tell which is the case, or it's a combination of the two; like if someone sees something differently than you and is brusque, is it basely just a content-disagreement wrapped in some ornery language which is only incidental and based of frustration, or is it really not about content at all but strictly editorial behavior? Not always easy to make that call.

This is o/t for this discussion, but since you raised an issue above, rather than address the dispute specifically, I'll just say this: If you're convinced that a portion of the discussion is truly not about content but is off-topic or becoming personal, there is an option to collapse it, but I'd be cautious about doing that, especially if you are involved in the dispute. Better to ask an uninvolved party you trust to have a look, and carry it out if they deem it appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you lost me a bit with the nonstandard abbreviations. My point was, if you support the content I added on the talk page, I'd rather see your support there than here, especially since it seems that any content I present there gets refused because it comes from me. Either way, thank you.

Regarding how I should respond to this apparent personal problem with Mooeena and now with Fae: I've asked on the most recent noticeboard that Mooeena raised (her third against me),[1] and I was advised to open mediation, which I plan to do. For Fae, they opened four different side-threads about me last night; my response has shifted from answering each point (which has become tedious and repetitive) to a request they and I discuss the matter in a single and more appropriate (not tangential) place. I might eventually pursue mediation with Fae, depending on how Fae responds to my requests this morning, and on how mediation goes with Mooeena. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urls with a query string may need to have certain reserved characters url-encoded, in order to display properly.

You ran into this problem in this edit in section Mention of "gender critical" in article, as observed in your comment, "Wiki formatting stripped due to display error in URLS". At Wikipedia, you have two options to fix this:

• for a simple search, use a template like {{Google}}; e.g., "gender critical" (normally, should be subst'ed; not substed here, so you can see it in operation)
• for a more complex search that includes additional features in the query string not supported by the Wikipedia template, you have to use an escaped url and link it yourself.

The reason you got a "display error" with your urls, is you didn't escape ("url-encode") them. Here's your first url with all the extraneous junk removed, escaped, and placed into a wikilink: "gender critical" [p.14]. You can copy that to the page, if you want, and turn the other urls into links the same way.

Note that the browser may play a role, too, because it might encode certain metacharacters under the hood, so you might think an url is good and works for you, but someone else pasting the url into another browser might not see what you do. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is very helpful. I wanted to ask about this, but I've been too busy with nonsense.

I've wondered, is there a search anywhere within the Wikipedia domain for templates, guidelines, and other docs? I looked and found none; I've relied instead on Google (eg searching `wikipedia quote template`). A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean, to add as a link on a Talk page, you can try {{Google Wikipedia}}, but it leaves some stray text; e.g., Search Wikipedia with Google for: quote template (Arg2 will add your own anchor text.) If you mean, to search for yourself when you're looking for something, use Advanced search. For example, search for templates called Quote or similar like this. See also, Help:Search. Searching google directly is fine. Rather than add the word wikipedia as a simple search term, though, encode it as a domain restriction: search site:en.wikipedia.org quote template, i.e., site:en.wikipedia.org quote template. Looks like result #1 is the one you want.

This discussion section is starting to look like it could be converted into the kernel of that search essay I've been meaning to write. Maybe we could collaborate on that. Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind invitation, but in my first six weeks here, this site has proven exceptionally too toxic (far beyond anything I've experienced anywhere else online) for me to feel inclined to join a writing project here presently. Best wishes, A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Testing. A145 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Fæ (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A145GI15I95:, it looks like you stopped editing shortly after the Arbcom D/s Alert notice above was posted. If that in any way scared you off, don’t let it. That notice has nothing to do with your editing behavior, and is not a warning of any kind about past actions. You are more than welcome to continue editing here, and I hope you do. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello A145GI15I95, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you for your contributions to LGBT related pages!★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]