User talk:Peckedagain

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Flounder fillet (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks @Flounder fillet Peckedagain (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello, I'm Raladic. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Transgender rights in the United Kingdom seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The report cited grouped countries in cluster 1 and 2 as least accessible. Raladic (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. The report grouped cluster 1 and 2 as "least accessible", so saying anything than that is pushing a WP:POV - you may also want to familiarize yourself with MOS:QUOTE for when we use quotes and when we summarize instead and especially in the WP:LEAD - the lead should summarize, briefly what the article is about, but not have more details than the article itself. Raladic (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Peckedagain! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Transgender rights in the United Kingdom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And again, at Talk:cass review. I'm talking specifically about your section titles here, which are incredibly POV-pushy and come across as calls to action in support of a cause, which is not allowed under WP:TALKHEADPOV. Please be aware that POV pushing for long enough inevitably ends in a ban. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Licks-rocks - many thanks for the tip - I'll take it on board.
 * Wiki editing has different rules to what I'm familiar with.
 * In my day job, I've learnt a style which recommends that a sub-heading is more helpful if it summaries the point, and is not just the subject matter; as that helps the reader know the 'outcome' of the paragraph, without having to read the detail if they don't want to.
 * ie
 * Analysis of combustion engines - diesels produce most NO2
 * is better than
 * Analysis of combustion engines
 * Peckedagain (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * wikipedia generally prefers a neutral posture where you argue towards your position from a neutral starting point, whereas I suspect your job has taught you a more aggressive posture, because the end goal in writing for a job is usually to get people to do a thing, (buy a product, join a project etc.) whereas the end goal here is usually to arrive at a consensus based on logic, and that means you can only state your position after  you've logiced your way toward it. It's kind of like how you need to show your methods during a math exam so you can still get points even if your solution is only part correct 👍 --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (also, be aware that the notice below is also meant to warn you about prior consensuses! Wikipedia as a whole has already had a lot of arguments about this, so a lot of things are set in stone already, and arguing against those things is seen as disruptive, because it's re-litigating a settled issue. This includes things like MOS:GENDERID, but also a lot of the medical stuff, where we've already collated hundreds of sources to figure out what a "correct" representation of the literature looks like.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that's a very helpful analogy, thanks @Licks-rocks Peckedagain (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx, where can I find a list of issues that are "set in stone already... a settled issue.. medical stuff... a "correct" representation of the literature" Peckedagain (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly that's the kind of thing that ends up being really crucial but also spread out over the entire encyclopedia without necessarily a single place to check it. Which is why we always recommend new editors start in the less controversial topic areas until they get a feel for how everything works. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While you are here @Licks-rocks:, perhaps you can help.
 * Whats the URL of the WPATH report you had in mind when you wrote:
 * " (Cass) is not the most credible and important source out there. WPATH for example publishes similar reports, which are read and used worldwide, and released at regular intervals to keep up with the state of the science." Peckedagain (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the SOC's. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Licks-rocks
 * Thanks, that's helpful. The actual report is this URL
 * I realise you have said that SOC8 is more 'credible and important source' than Cass
 * I'm not sure I'm seeing that: in what wwy:
 * 'credible' than Cass - and why?
 * 'important' than Cass -and why ?
 * Also - what did SOC8 do that was comparable to York University.'s review of published research? Peckedagain (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)