User talk:LibrePrincess

Discretionary sanctions alert concerning broadly related to gender-related disputes

 * We need to fix the wording of this message. I know it's been on your page for months, but just in case it still feels like a "warning", the meaning of this message is something more like this:  "Because of a years-long history of behavior problems caused by editors who are NOT YOU, some admins may be strangely quick to block editors who make mistakes in some of the articles you've been editing.  We're sorry that this mess is going on, and we hope you will please be a bit more cautious around that mess than you would in a normal article, so this mess doesn't get on you."
 * Also, for the real reason that I came over here, I thought that you might want to read Advocacy. For a number of years, advocacy was treated mostly as a type of WP:COI, but it was mostly split out into its own thing a few years ago.  And since Nobody reads the directions, you may see some editors use the terms interchangeably.  Good luck,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Transgender history
I generally support your change at Transgender history, which is mostly a deletion of material related to drag queens. However, at -3,135 bytes and changes in multiple sections, that's a pretty big change, and if someone has a problem with only a portion of it, you're inviting a revert, even if the clear majority of it is fine. Next time, if contemplating a similar change (or, if someone else reverts this one) please consider limiting each change to one section of the article at a time. Nothing wrong with going into an article, and making a dozen different edits to a dozen sections. For one thing, this allows you to add a separate edit summary for each one, explaining what you did, which may be enough to forestall a revert. And if something does need to be reverted, it might be limited to one of your edits pertaining to one section, instead of everything all at once. Let's see how this one goes, but please keep this advice in mind for next time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


I know you've been here over a year, but it seems like nobody's ever posted a "Welcome" message here. That sucks. So, allow me:

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LibrePrincess. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey
Get some sleep, okay? Wikipedia is not that important, and the world won't end if things aren't settled today. When you're feeling a little more rested, try taking a trip through Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays. It might put you in a better frame of mind for figuring out what you want to do, and some of the pages are surprisingly informative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender-related edits
I see you've become embroiled in some controversy due to some of your recent contributions to Gender dysphoria in children, James Cantor, and Species dysphoria, as reflected in two discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Remember that writing from a neutral point of view is Wikipedia's second pillar; if you feel too close to the subject, or are having trouble editing without feeling that you need to right great wrongs, maybe consider take a little wikibreak from this topic, and edit in some other of your interest areas for a bit. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Socialist Rifle Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist Rifle Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Socialist Rifle Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Public exposure"...
Does not equal "interest", but you can easily verify that it certainly gathered sufficient media attention with a Google search. Try "criptomoneda+Puerto Rico" as well. Now, I figure that perhaps economy is not your cup of coffee or that you haven't been following the crypto bros. (who are admittedly pretentious)... That is fine, but they are definitely AnCap (especially Pierce). I actually assumed that the relationship between cryptocurrency in general and anarcho capitalism was clearcut and well known. The term "crypto anarchists" (which can replace AnCap, if that term bugs you) was coined for their particular brand and is discussed here by an UCLA professor (in a piece that also conveniently deals with their incursion at PR): https://radarzero.com/article/323/bitcoin-yuppies-in-puerto-rico-crypto-utopia-or-authoritarianism

If that still doesn't satisfy you, actually try rewriting it to accommodate the piece to your tastes without blanking because that particular reference doesn't mention the concept by name or verbatim, even though the topic has been widely discussed elsewhere. Because maybe, just maybe, that bit was added to counter-balance the rest of the article and it has a purpose. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, it seems like Wikipedia has a (rather underdeveloped) piece on the topic: Crypto-anarchism. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)