Jadepraerie, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Jadepraerie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome Jadepraerie!
I'm Mathglot, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Sorry it took so long for someone to welcome you properly, so, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}}
on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes
~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Detransition
Jadepraerie, I wanted to thank you for your recent edits to Detransition. This is a tough topic, and threading the needle of neutral point of view is very difficult on a topic like this. I might have done it slightly differently, but then so might anyone; and that doesn't matter anyway; what's important, is that you are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, and the article is the better for your efforts. Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to contact me on my Talk page if you have a question or comment. And once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, a whole lot of edits since that point, from more than one editor; unfortunately, some of them are now getting unbalanced. I'll take these up at the article talk page; just remember to assume good faith among other editors, follow WP:BRD, and don't edit war (that goes for everybody, of course). Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -sche (talk • contribs) 21:37, January 29, 2019 (UTC)
- @-sche: when placing a {{uw-3rr}} template, please use the article param so that it links to the article in question:
{{subst:Uw-3rr|Article name|optional comment}}
Also, I added the {{unsigned}} for you above. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
When you forget to sign
Hi Jadepraerie, when you forget to sign a post, SineBot will come along eventually, and sign it for you. When it does so, then your post is attributed, and there's no longer any reason to sign it yourself, so you don't have to waste your time. In this edit of yours at Talk:Detransition, SineBot had already signed, so you didn't have to bother. If you *do* notice first, then by all means sign, becase who knows what corner of the encyclopedia SineBot might be busy with; but you don't have to. Just a heads-up. Mathglot (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Merges and moves can be tricky
I think you've probably already figured that out, what with the creation of Gender binarism, it's migration from a redirect to an article with merged content and back again, and similar at Genderism and at Gender binary.
These things can be pretty tricky, and I heartily recommend planning it out and writing it down first. I write out all the merges and moves I plan to make, in a numbered sequence. Each step has the source and target pages, action (move, merge), and in the case of a merge action, an indication of the start/end of each chunk to be moved, and the insertion point. For each step, I include the Edit summary to be used for that step. (Sometimes the how-to guides have a model Edit summary you can copy, for example, at WP:PROMERGE.)
It's really only then, after it's all written down, that I can look it over and see if it makes sense, or if I've forgotten something. As likely as not, I have to go through a few versions, before it all looks right. After that, I write up my move or merge proposal, and I include the step sequence right in there with it. This gives other people the chance to view the step sequence and comment on that, too, if they want to. (They usually don't; but putting the steps out there helps keeps me honest, and also if I did make a mistake, I'd rather know about it in advance, rather than end up going through the wrong procedure later.) There's no requirement to do this, but I find it helps me, and I hope you find it useful. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know the A->C/B->A/C->B pattern. I'm new to Wikipedia syntax. The challenge was to move talk with article, and then as you discovered, not to lose history of article or of talk. Jadepraerie (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. The challenge was that you need an administrator or a page mover to do these round-robin moves because every move leaves behind a redirect - and when you move A to C, you cannot yourself move B to A afterwards because the redirect pointing from A to C is in the way. Cut-and-paste "mergers" of talk page content didn't help. I've spent quite some time fixing what you did there. Please don't try something like this again; instead ask someone with the relevant permissions to do it for you. That's easier for all. Huon (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did no "cut-and-paste mergers of talk-page content". Perhaps that was the previous editor, whose mistake I attempted to correct. Thank you for finishing the work. Jadepraerie (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Jadepraerie, you may have seen by now the multi-step rescue that Huon performed, as documented at #Talk:Gender binarism. This hopefully brings everything back, I think, to status quo ante, but perhaps not precisely as you wished it to be after discussions about various mergers and moves you were in favor of. Please leave everything as is, for now. You're welcome, of course, to add comments on any of the talk pages, if you want to highlight anything you think needs doing following Huon's rescue effort, or anything you think now needs doing (or redoing) to implement results of previous Rfc's or discussions about moves and mergers that may have been undone as part of the rescue.
- If you see stuff that you think needs doing, please write it out in that step-by-step fashion and post it to one of the discussion pages, and we can all talk about it there. I am a page mover, and if and when there is consensus to move stuff around again, I can perform it once we are all in agreement. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've just now replied on that thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_binarism#Revision_history_lost Jadepraerie (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Desistence listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Desistence. Since you had some involvement with the Desistence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Huon (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Detransition in See Also
Hello Jadeprarie, thank you for the complicated merge of Genderism into Gender binary. I am reverting some of your edits to the See Also sections of certain gender-related articles regarding your inclusion of the article Detransition. As noted previously, there is not sufficient evidence for a Detransitioner (gender identity) page to be notable, and as such it is not relevant to most gender-related articles. Wikipedia is not the place for WP:UPANDCOMING content. If, in the future, there are clear scientific studies on the prevalence of this identity, such an article will be useful, we must operate under the assumption that detransition is a fairly uncommon social/medical practice. You appear to have been overly-zealous with linking to Detransition in other articles. Many of these articles, such as Genderqueer and Gender, are tangentially if at all related to detransition. MOS:SEEALSO notes that articles linked in the See Also section must be relevant to the topic and "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." These inclusions do not. I appreciate the instinct to link widely to something you've worked hard on, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these links are not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooeena (talk • contribs) 03:07, March 4, 2019 (UTC)
- @Mooeena:, Just to give credit where it is due, if we're talking about the same complicated merge, that was thanks to Huon. See this discussion for details. Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don't make edits just to prove a point
Hi, Jadepraerie, I noticed in a couple of articles lately, that someone reverted an edit of yours in the See also section, and that you subsequently made further changes to other elements of that section citing the same reason given in the edit summary of the revert. This may be viewed as disruptive behavior per WP:POINT.
For example, at Gender, you added "Detransition" to the See also section in this edit, which was later undone by Mooeena in this edit, with the edit summary, →See also: Detransition is not relevant to the topic per MOS:SEEALSO. Right after that, you made another edit to that section, removing two items, and adding a bunch more with the edit summary →See also: Add/remove relevant/irrelevant/broken links. (This was also reverted, here.) You made the same kind of POINT-y response in this edit at Gender identity, in response to a prior edit there.
Just because someone reverts a change of yours citing topic irrelevancy or some other reason, doesn't mean you should come right back and make an edit of the same type but in a slightly different form, citing the same rationale, as a sort of backhanded response to your displeasure at the original revert. Your second edit at Gender was a WP:POINT-y move, and should not have been made. Ditto the one at Gender identity. Whether or not the original reverts of your changes were correct or not, is irrelevant here; if you disagreed with them, the proper response is to talk it out. For sure, nobody likes being reverted, but it's part of editing a wiki. Content disputes happen all the time, and sometimes an editor disgruntled by someone else's edit or revert and knowledgeable about the inappropriateness of edit warring, can be tempted to make a point-y edit nearby. Please don't succumb to the temptation; follow normal dispute resolution protocols, which means observing WP:BRD and using the Talk page to discuss any disagreements. All edits to Wikipedia should improve the article in some way; please don't make edits just to illustrate a point. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) and give more time (WP:NORUSH). Jadepraerie (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
- Mooeena, don't make accusations without proof. The other editor who accused this was wrong and was doxxing. Please stop dog-piling me. Jadepraerie (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Other accounts
Hi, could you please explain your relationship with Jargonparaph? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’d appreciate if you answer this question before continuing to edit other pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please give me time to reply to you. I'm getting attacked by several editors the last twenty-four hours. It would also help if you gave some sort of introduction as to who you are, and why you're here. The user you link is a friend. Why do you ask, are you doxxing him too? Jadepraerie (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I haven’t doxxed anyone. I’m asking because I am a CheckUser, which means that I have access to technical data about accounts. Someone came to me with a legitimate concern about abuse of multiple accounts, so I looked at the technical data. Your two accounts came up as Likely to be the same, and I wanted to know what your explanation was. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please give me time to reply to you. I'm getting attacked by several editors the last twenty-four hours. It would also help if you gave some sort of introduction as to who you are, and why you're here. The user you link is a friend. Why do you ask, are you doxxing him too? Jadepraerie (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)