User talk:Agent Win

Hello everybody! Any aliens (or human) can leave a message down here. Here are the rules for making a comment: 1. Leave a line below the last comment down the page from yours. (If you made the first comment, put it below the title "comments" with a line between the two.) 2. The title of the comment should have two equal signs on the left and on the right of it, making a total of four. 3. Sign your comment (instructions shown when editing the page.)

=Comments=

February 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Flag carrier, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WA Gender Reassignment requirement
Hi I'd love to get the situation in Western Australia sorted regarding sex reassignment surgery requirements. As far as I can tell, SRS is NOT optional if a person wants a legal change of gender recognised in the state. Your source here and the gender board of WA's website make clear "A person who has undergone gender reassignment and wishes to have their new gender legally recognised can apply for a Recognition Certificate for an Adult." That is a quote directly from your source. The scope of the 2011 High Court decision suggests SRS is not required full stop nationwide, though the author opens by noting "The High Court unanimously found that the GR Act did not require these men to undergo further surgery", which would appear to be key. Perhaps we should just simply try to record what WA statute says, rather than interpret High Court decisions. After all this time the board is still saying gender reassignment of at least some surgical kind is necessary. Global-Cityzen ;(talk) 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 of Western Australia states that 'reassignment procedure means a medical or surgical procedure (or a combination of such procedures) to alter the genitals and other gender characteristics of a person, identified by a birth certificate as male or female, so that the person will be identified as a person of the opposite sex and includes, in relation to a child, any such procedure (or combination of procedures) to correct or eliminate ambiguities in the child’s gender characteristics.' This has been determined by the High Court of Australia to mean '...a surgical procedure to alter the genitals or other gender characteristics is not required of an applicant for a recognition certificate. The definition of "reassignment procedure" refers to a "medical or surgical procedure". A medical procedure would include hormone therapy, such as that undertaken by the appellants.' Also the Gender Reassignment Board of Western Australia states that in terms of the evidence required to be included in an application to them, an applicant must include 'A letter from the medical practitioner who carried out or supervised your reassignment procedure. The letter should contain details of the reassignment procedure, including where and when it was carried out if it was a surgical procedure. If it was a medical procedure such as hormonal therapy, the letter should contain details of what changes have occurred.' The fact that the instructions clearly distinguish between the two types of procedures allowed to constitute a reassignment procedure, surgical or medical, means that either one is acceptable. Hence, while the WA requirement of requiring a medical procedure, including hormonal therapy, is more restrictive than various other Australian jurisdictions, namely ACT, SA, NT and soon TAS, it is more lenient by not solely requiring a surgical procedure as is the case in NSW, VIC and QLD. To conclude, WA does not force an applicant who wishes to legally change their gender to have surgery. Agent5514 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ms Dhu
Hi AgentWin. Thanks so much for updating the information on legislation at Death of Ms Dhu. Just thought I'd give you a handy tip for the future. If you have a source, please reference the information in the body of the article (everything below the lead) and not the lead itself, instead of the other way around. As per WP:LEAD, the lead does not need to be sourced (providing what is stated is sourced in the body) unless it is a direct quote (that's why the other source is there at that article) or what is being cited is controversial and likely to be challenged. I've moved your source from the lead to the body. Also as per WP:REALTIME, don't use terms like "currently" on Wikipedia. Have a lovely day. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Just some more advice. As per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, not contain copy and pasted paragraphs from the rest of the article. There's no reason why the lead should have more than half a sentence about the updated legislation, and since the article is actually about the death of Ms Dhu, rather than fine legislation, there's no need to go into great detail about minor aspects of the new law changes even in the body. A short summary is all that is needed there anyway. In addition to WP:LEAD, you may benefit from reading WP:UNDUE AND WP:TOPIC. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)