Snokalok

J

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Snokalok! Your additions to Blanchard's transsexualism typology have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

BRD

We clearly have a different understanding of how WP:BRD operates. User:Sideswipe9th Boldly added the musician tweets with this edit [1]. Then I Reverted that bold edit here [2]. Next step was Discuss. But you reverted me here [3]. So you took it to BRR. Just to reiterate, per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WWGB (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You removed the musical tweets, I restored them, you largely removed them again with slight alterations, without discussing to my knowledge. That’s your violation of the BRD cycle. I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit long in case I missed soemthing, but by my account of events, you just deleted something, it was reverted, then you deleted it again just a little less.

Again though, I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit log. User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said, you re-added the tweets without discussing. That's your violation of the BRD cycle. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because in the absence of a consensus, the status quo wins out. That’s your violation by re-removing it. Therefore, your violation of the BRD cycle. Snokalok (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagging again because I have no idea if you get notifs for this or not User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For your wonderful efforts documenting trans right and history, particularly your efforts to Transgender rights in the United States!

Hey @Snokalok, just wanted to leave you this and thank you for the work you do! I've seen your contributions to that article on my watch-list often and am always very thankful for them, and checking your contributions your work is even more impressive!

A sidenote, I recently started WP:USALGBT to try and help divvy up the workload covering LGBT rights across different U.S. states, so please feel free to join if you're interested! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is so nice of you, thank you! Of course I’ll join! Snokalok (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

NY Times

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Two reverts and a reference to BRD is not an edit war, as I’m sure you’re aware Snokalok (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is all coming from the editor that referred to posting about the NYT’s history of bigotry as ‘a woke attack on a 150 year old newspaper’. Snokalok (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Also the New York Times is not a person. Snokalok (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBT rights in Hungary

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Hungary, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. = References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Zooey Zephyr

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Zooey Zephyr, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBT rights in Florida

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Florida, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBT rights in Montana

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Montana, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBT people in prison

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT people in prison, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Transgender rights in the United States

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transgender rights in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Killing of Brianna Ghey about the trial

Hey. Could I convince you to self-revert the content you've just added to Killing of Brianna Ghey, and then start a discussion about it on the talk page? I'm uneasy on WP:BLP grounds about including direct quotes and summaries of what the prosecutors and defence teams are saying, especially with regards to statements that the jury may or may not find proven. I think it would be better to err on the side of caution here, given the nature of the crime, and the ages of the accused. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to ask - though I would like to lodge a counterpoint, that the defendants' identities are thoroughly shielded both in reporting and legally and thus, it's not really BLP because it's not describing, anyone, just a boy and a girl age 16. Additionally, as to the nature of the evidence itself, everything presented (as the sources will reflect) was in the form of written text messages, meaning there's no degree of hearsay here, short of the UK police faking entire text conversations. But of course, WP:ONUS is on inclusion, so if you believe it wouldn't be good to have, you do have the high ground.

Tagging because I'm not sure if these things send notifications. @Sideswipe9th Snokalok (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to lodge the addendum that the jury's findings and the case each side presents are not inherently the same matters, and that for sufficiently notable cases, both things should be recorded. The most prominent example is the OJ Simpson trial. Simpson was of course, ruled innocent, and yet Wikipedia still presents the cases brought by both the prosecution and defense. Snokalok (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

you do have the high ground Very much resisting the urge to make a General Kenobi joke here :)

So on the identifiability of the accused, this is one of those borderline areas where there isn't a consensus on whether or not an unnamed but otherwise described individual is considered identified and covered by BLP. There was a similar issue that came up a couple of days ago on 2023 Dublin riot, relating to the alleged nationality of the assailant in the stabbings that preceded the riot, that I ran into when requesting RD2 of some content. There's good faith arguments that can be made by either side.

Personally I fall into the camp that BLP must cover any content relating to the accused in this case, even if their names are subject to court reporting restrictions. They are, through indirect means, identifiable individuals, and I think there is probably more than enough information out there in general that someone determined would be able to find out their names.

However the issue here is more to do with the nature of live reporting of a trial in progress, than the accused being identifiable. From the sources you included, we know some of what the prosecution said when opening their case, and the basis for making those remarks. But we don't know everything of what was said today. Nor do we know how the jury is going to consider that information. We don't know if they're going to find it convincing, and we don't yet know how the defence is going to react to that. While it's an essay on notability as a whole, WP:TOOSOON touches on some of the concepts I'm trying (and maybe poorly) to impart here.

With regards to the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, while it is true that the article covers the events of the trial in great detail, it is all written primarily using sources published after the trial had concluded. That article benefits greatly from having access to both the judgement of the case, as well as interpretations of it by legal scholars writing after the judgement had been issued. We know from those sources what aspects of the prosecution and defence cases were found convincing, what aspects were found proven, and what aspects were found unproven.

I'm not saying that we can't ever include this information. I'm just saying that now may not be the right time to include it. If we wait until the judgement is issued, we'll have a much fuller idea of the case, and the proven facts relating to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Could I convince you to go halfsies for now as have us make a "prosecution case" subsection the way they did on the OJ trial page? Wikipedia is of course a living document, so for any event or any span of time information is going to be added and trimmed as it becomes notable and relevant compared to other information available, and having this much detail so far is no guarantee that the same information will be held in the same detail in future.

If that doesn't work for you, say the word, I'll delete it, and we'll wait

@Sideswipe9th Snokalok (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue for me isn't really the header used for the section, it's the content that appears within it. If all we were saying today was that something minimal like "the prosecution opened its case on 27 November 2023", and potentially including the names of the prosecuting barrister and sitting judge, that'd be OK. The issue is that we're going into detail about things that may not, by the time the case ends, be considered proven by the jury.

At the end of the case however, when a judgement is issued, and analysed by reliable sources, that would be the time we could start summarising details like this. We'd have the benefit of hindsight, in that we can summarise what the key findings are, and what evidence those findings are based upon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Very well. In the meantime, I shall revert. Though I still believe that whether or not the case is considered proven by the jury is only part of the story, and that the government being able to convince 12 people of something is by no means a determinant of objective fact. Snokalok (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but this sort of proceedings is something that we have to be very careful with summarising, particularly when it is in progress. We have a bit more freedom once a judgement has been issued, as we generally have much stronger sourcing shortly after that happens. Covering trials in progress, no matter the nature of the proceedings, is always difficult.

Thanks for self-reverting, we can discuss the particulars in more detail over on the article talk page. Maybe consensus will be against me on this, and the section can be restored. I just prefer to be more cautious when it comes to BLP content :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 27 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gender-critical feminism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gender-critical feminism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBT people in prison

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT people in prison, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Transgender rights in the United States

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transgender rights in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP warning

You've already been given a BLP contentious topics alert so consider this your only warning. If you make BLP violations on talk pages again like here [4] I will ask for you to be topic banned from BLPs. I can understand this is an emotive issue but making such claims when there hasn't even been a charge, let alone a conviction is unacceptable. As I'm sure you're aware the talk page is already messy enough with transphobes misgendering the deceased subject and insisting on mentioning the dead name any chance they get. You've been a part of the fightback against that which is good, but it in no way excuses such serious BLP violations. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Pasting my ANI answer here for the peanut gallery)

You do know we have admins in that very talk section saying the same thing: “kill”. We have an admin there saying that it was a kill. [5] Snokalok (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Related WP:TPO violation concern at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. Thank you. Note that I have not asked for any action against you but have asked admins to keep an eye on the talk page given the problem shown by your edits (and others already discussed). Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maxim Magnus has been accepted

Maxim Magnus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TLA^tlak 05:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)