User talk:Ethanpet113/Archives/2018/October

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gender variance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gender_variance check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gender_variance?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Manspreading. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Shouldn't need to warn a user with a 10 year old account but your edit was blatant OR. If you're unfamiliar with this, please review the linked policies above. ''  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, I can see in hindsight it's a little too tangential, I shouldn't edit late into the night.🤔 Additional note, account age has very little to do with understanding of edit policy, Wikipedia is notoriously bad at providing precise instructions regarding edits.  It has many many articles on what not to do, but if it has a shortlist it cannot easily be found.  The alternative is I just have to edit and have senior editors rollback until I learn. I imagine this is especially bad for unregistered users.  Ideally on the main page or side bar there should be linked a very quick synopsis of edit and citation policy, so everyone knows the big faux pas.

Drive-by tagging
Hi Ethanpet, please don't engage in any more drive-by tagging. If we were all to do that, every single article would have multiple tags, because all articles are imperfect. Please first try to improve the article, and tag only when you genuinely don't have time and the problem is such that readers and other editors need to be alerted. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The tagging is not drive by, all articles are imperfect, but some articles are significantly more imperfect than others, I could understand if you didn't want me to tag bomb a B-class article, because they've been determined to be reasonably good, but I'm evaluating new articles for their structure, citations, and use of unestablished or fringe statements.  I use sparkle to tag the top after I have evaluated and made corrections to an article to indicate that there are still errors which are beyond my skill or scope to correct.  So I have made attempts to modify the article either before or immediately after tagging them.  Sparkle generally tries to automatically group these taggings into a multiple issues, automatically.  If a section is particularly egregious I may tag it with the corresponding section tag.  The trouble with asking me not to do that is the articles in question are start or c class, and they are the entire reason for which those cleanup templates exist, so to argue that I shouldn't doesn't make any sense to me. Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize when I wrote the above that you're the editor who wanted to merge Womanism into Third-wave feminism. I think you need to be much more careful when editing articles about feminism. Regarding the tagging, there's nothing to suggest that The NeuroGenderings Network is a hoax; a few seconds looking at the sources or googling it would show you it was genuine. Likewise, there's nothing to suggest that the author has a COI. Your tags on White privilege were also baffling and were removed immediately. When you see other editors regularly remove your tags, it's a sign that you're over-tagging. These tags are better left for situations where you've tried to fix an article but someone has prevented you, and the tag is a last resort because the article is seriously deficient. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll incorporate your advice on tagging in my edit strategy, and instead list the problems with the article which I don't have the expertise to fix on its talk page. I legitimately cannot find what is distinct between womanism and third wave feminism(they seem to have exactly the same set of goals). And the Neurogenderingerings network is primarily manifested as a wordpress blog, which anyone could have created.  It's description seemed to be a mashup of various sciency/sociologically sounding words, which did not seem to impart any actual information.  Legitimate conferences tend to at the very least be able to afford some domain name space, it was perfectly legitimate to consider that suspicious.Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for agreeing to list problems on talk pages. As for merging womanism with third-wave feminism, that would be a category error; womanism is a philosophy, while third-wave feminism is a period within feminism. Re: the network, it's an informal group of female academics who study feminism and neuroscience. It emerged out of a conference, but it isn't the name of a conference. SarahSV (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the network, Being that the page is about the academics and not the conference itself, wouldn't it be more well served as a Category page?E.g. Category:Feminist Scholars that Emphasize Neurology
 * That's a bit like creating "Category:People who write news for the UK's state broadcaster", instead of BBC News. SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Votestacking at WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network
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—in order to influence WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network. 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. This message also applies to selectively pinging other editors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)