User talk:Persicifolia

David Lucas
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Disambiguation pages
Please note that disambiguation pages like David Lucas are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:


 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
 * Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Leschnei I don't know if this is the right place to reply - new to this and I'm sure you're right. I got there through Hampshire Book Awards which has red links for a lot of winning and shortlisted authors, illustrators and their books including David Lucas. (Perhaps wrongly) I added a few of these. Perhaps I needed to link back to Hampshire Book Awards to justify it? Persicifolia (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Persicifolia, this is exactly the right place and the right way to reply. Since entries on DAB pages are supposed to lead readers to existing information, an entry with just a red link (or no link at all) is basicallly useless. Also, an entry with a blue link that doesn't mention the entry subject (like 'David Lucas, English author') is also not good - if the reader goes to author looking for David Lucas, they will be disappointed. Kind of like the index of a book; if it's not in the book, don't list it in the index. So, yes, you might want to make sure that your entries have an existing article listed. Also, keep in mind that not every red link is wp:notable. DAB pages shouldn't include every mention of the title, no matter how trivial.


 * As an aside, when you want to get another editor's attention, a ping template might be a better choice than Leschnei, like . This lets the editor know that you are addressing them, as opposed to just mentioning them. Have fun! Leschnei (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polly Dunbar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bubble Trouble. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Hoot Owl, Master of Disguise
Hello, Persicifolia,

Thank you for creating Hoot Owl, Master of Disguise.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"The main issue is the lead. Rewrite it to match WP:MOS. Perhaps expand the adaptation section and adding a plot section."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

1TWO3Writer (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm quite new to wikipedia so sure my style & format is off. Will look that up and rewrite re your suggestions. (Probably trying to be too clever in mixing quotes from reviews for citations in with plot summary!) Persicifolia (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Firth
Thanks for tidying this up, but please take care, if you split a long paragraph, to make sure you repeat the reference if needed. You left the "early life" section unsourced. Thanks. Pam D  04:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated thank you and I am sorry about leaving that section unsourced. (Still working this all out - including how and where conversation works! Apologies if I'm @ you incorrectly.) I did have a look to see if I could find out where that photo of Barbara Firth was originally from too, in case there was a date - I think you mention that in the edit history - but drew a blank apart from finding it was used in 2005. Persicifolia (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nick Butterworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ina Caro
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Oh! Thank you very much indeed ! Persicifolia (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wheelchair-bound!
Well done with your little crusade on this – I came across it here – and likewise the disabled and all the rest of it. I strongly approve. I do worry that you will get a bit of a kicking sooner or later from some linguistic dinosaur who thinks it's all PC nonsense yadda yadda yadda. When/if you do, I shall be there with sympathy and support. And maybe, miracles, we have moved on a bit and you won't get challenged! Anyway, good luck and many thanks DBaK (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the support DBaK! Yes I unintentionally ended up going on a bit of a mission... So far I've had only positive responses - which probably won't last. I found a style guide somewhere in WP itself which is clear that 'wheelchair bound' and 'confined to' aren't satisfactory, I wonder if that would help. It's such a strange term, and I think unhelpful in its real life implications. Because nobody is actually 'bound' to a wheelchair, and it leads people to believe that all wheelchair users literally never leave their chair, leaving ambulatory wheelchair users who can walk a bit having to cope with suspicion. Anyway, just spotted you've been here since 2002 and I am terrifically impressed! Persicifolia (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I just remembered your kind message and of course you were right DBaK. It's been quite a week over here. Maybe someone made of sterner stuff will prevail at some point. Persicifolia (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes! Sorry – it is so hard. I find I have to ration my involvement ... there are so many things that can get quite tricky quite fast. Deep breaths and go and do something else, works for me. And yes I have been editing this thing since 2002 but I still do not feel like I have much of a clue. Because I can't/won't devote a lot of time (I have done once or twice in the past but I think that is over now) I will never be that deeply in. I think that to really change things would require reserves of time and energy that I don't have ... so, meddling and muddling it is! Thank you for the nice note, and happy editing. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * a style guide somewhere in WP itself—Unfortunately MOS:DISAB is currently just a guideline and not an "official" manual of style entry so it can't be mandated, but it's a common-sense and empathetic approach that shouldn't receive serious pushback. If it does, don't be afraid to stand firm on it in talk-page discussions, and although consensus isn't a vote, you're always welcome to ping me (Grapple X should do it) to add a second opinion. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ for the kind offer and clarification - I couldn't even remember where I'd seen it. I'm pretty new to WP as you can probably tell, so that's very helpful to know. Yes a guideline is definitely better than nothing. It's such a small change that I'm hopeful... *crosses fingers* Persicifolia (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted one instance - it is odd to apply this change to articles on fictional comic-book villains. There are sources which describe the fictional character as "wheelchair-bound" in this appearance, and since you point out that apparently "wheelchair-bound" and "wheelchair-using" mean two different things, changing the language introduces innacuracy into the article. I expect this is the case with respect to other changes you have made to articles on fictional characters. BD2412  T 05:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BD2412  and thanks for commenting here. Yes of course you're right, many sources out there use 'wheelchair-bound', but then many sources use language we now consider offensive when it comes to race. Surely the question is, is this is outdated language or isn't it? I'm not sure why the character being fictional is a factor either way... If it is important to convey the information that the character cannot walk at all, then either 'cannot walk at all' or 'full-time wheelchair user' can communicate that, I would argue more effectively than 'wheelchair-bound'. Persicifolia (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about a real historical person, I think it would matter more. For a fictional character, it becomes awkward and distracting wording. The phrase can hardly be called "dated"; there are newspaper headlines using it within the past week (e.g., "Wheelchair-bound climate change activists are passing out in front of the White House in hunger strike" The Hill (Oct. 28, 2021). BD2412  T 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is outdated, which is different to 'dated'. That does not mean all journalists and editors have caught up. There are numerous guidelines and style guides out there recommending against the usage - if you're interested, here's a guideline here in WP MOS:DISAB and here's one from the UK government "". I do remember 'wheelchair user' sounding jarring to me when I first heard it a couple of decades ago, largely because it was unfamiliar. (And not half as jarring as 'wheelchair-bound' is in its implications, to me.) Persicifolia (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Literature describes characters as "wheelchair-bound" for reasons, because the creator of a fictional character wants to provide a sense of the character's sense of being "bound", even if this counters the sensibilities of those who don't feel that way. BD2412  T 16:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is perhaps part of the conflict BD2412  - as a wheelchair user myself I would be pretty stuck without one, language like 'bound' and 'confined' could not seem more inapplicable. I think you're right on the reason writers have used 'bound' - but I believe wheelchairs are often used by authors to symbolise something that has very little to do with actual disability. Do you consider the UK government guideline at all persuasive as a source, out of genuine interest? Persicifolia (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The UK government is a data point, but they have long ago ceased representing the English-speaking world. BD2412  T 16:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I quite agree BD2412  - here are a couple from the US   and one from Australia . Persicifolia (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about a paralympian or a real person in some typical profession, I would agree. I'm saying that this is inapplicable to defining fictional characters defined or depicted as dealing with a limitation. BD2412  T 16:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment
Obviously you don't need to contribute if you feel the conversation is detrimental to you, but a formal request for comment (RFC) has been started at the manual of style page; this may be the first time you've encountered one but it's basically a formal survey process to gauge community consensus rather than a back-and-forth debate or argument. It's not a simple vote and numbers aren't the primary driver of results but you may still wish to add your viewpoint to it. Hope you've been well. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - I was actually just looking up RFC because I'm not familiar with it. This is really helpful, I shall definitely contribute (when my children stop pulling at my skirts). Persicifolia (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Persicifolia, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us reduce the gender gap by writing about women authors and historians. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. You'll also find some interesting links on writers in our Redlist index. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Ipigott! I've been watching the Women in Red page for 6 months or so and found such interesting stuff through it, but only just joined the official list - I'm not sure why I didn't before. I'll certainly have a look through that primer, I have created very few articles and found it pretty hair-raising so all guidance is gratefully received. Thanks very much for the welcome message! Persicifolia (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your input is helpful
This is useful and helpful input. I'm sorry it's unpleasant, and that it feels like you're at a disadvantage. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What a lovely message to find - thank you for going out of your way to say that. I talk about disability a lot online but have found that discussion uniquely gruelling. I genuinely don't know if it's just par for the course when disability comes up on WP - I'm pretty new and my experiences in article space were very different. I did enjoy reading your comments over there, it's very nice to meet you. Persicifolia (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a lot to address there, actually.
 * It's definitely not disability itself that is the trigger, it's any hint of political correctness. Some editors are just hostile toward that.
 * Some editors don't like that language changes, period.
 * Some editors think we've got enough rules already and are hostile to any new rules.
 * So this RfC hit the trifecta.
 * You'd said at this edit that "I've been keen to discuss them, in part because only one (that I've found) was reverted. This has confused me, because there is so much opposition on this page, yet almost none in the actual article space." And the above is why. You probably could have just continued on your merry way in article space and in 99% of cases not even sparked discussion, as you noticed. But once a discussion of new rules surrounding a language change that represents something that could be perceived as PC gets announced, dozens of people will show up to argue against it for one or more of those reasons. :D
 * That was an unusually long and frustrating discussion, but yes, sometimes discussions here on WP can be unpleasant, especially when you aren't used to the way we do things here. Discussion is how we decide literally everything, from the manual of style to the content of articles to behavior we won't put up with. We discuss and debate, trying not to lose our tempers with one another but sometimes speaking rather sharply, and obviously it's worse when you yourself have a very personal stake in that discussion. —valereee (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thoughtful and thorough reply . I had read through some difficult talk pages (eg Tulsa race massacre) so was not completely green, but hadn't come across those MOS talk pages. I'm sure you're right about the context, and that in the main it's not really about disability. I do think we're a group still considered fair game and not expected to speak on our own behalf, so people who are anti 'political correctness' may dig their heels in particularly hard.
 * In terms of personal involvement.... there's a particular resonance to decisions like these being made in non-disabled spaces, as you probably know. (The slogan 'nothing about us without us' is an enduring one in our community for good reason.) But when the tone of the discussion is that othering and unpleasant, I imagine I'm not the only wheelchair user who'd have to step away. To be part of that discussion I have to cope with bodies and lives like mine being picked over like that, the hostility, AND because I'm a wheelchair user anyone looking for a way to needle me has an easy one on a plate (eg 'lame'). But without actual wheelchair users in these discussions, many people will be considering disability and language for the first time, so the level of debate will often be painfully basic. And well-meaning people will jump to all kinds of conclusions with no idea they're opening a can of worms (eg person-first language).
 * I'm sure I'm saying nothing new, but I suppose across WP the editors who prevail will be the ones with the thickest skins. And when it comes to editors from marginalised groups we'll always be at an inherent disadvantage in discussions about us, so will frequently end up silenced even if we happen to be far better informed.
 * I get the impression there's an 'if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen' thing here at WP. I've never been called lame or a liar in any other online (or real life!) space. If that's the prevailing norm I have to accept the kitchen is too hot - it isn't something I can cope with. I'm not sure what to do going forward. I have a lot of respect for WP, but this has got to me far more than I'd like to admit. Persicifolia (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Size of English Wikipedia (1000 vol).svg Unfortunately that's all true. Things have improved a lot in recent years, but having a thick skin is definitely an advantage. We have rules about civility, but the person who said those things to you knows where the line is. You made statements they saw as intentionally misrepresenting the case to try to prove your point -- and here on WP, if you can provide proof someone has done something not-okay, it's okay to point it out -- and that pissed them off. That's a person who, once pissed off, doesn't pull their punches and who would see humor in the fact the AP says "wheelchair-bound" is not okay but "lame" is. (The fact they posted that "lame" jab at you in smaller print like this was meant to indicate it was a joke; clearly it's a mean one.) I'm not excusing the meanness, just trying to explain where it came from and why no one else seemed to get up in arms about it. You pissed them off, they got up in your grill, and to others who saw it at the time, it apparently didn't look like it quite went over the line.
 * And yes, sometimes it's very surprising just how basic you have to start with, and that you sometimes can't win even when you know damn well you're in the right. But it's all about consensus here, and unfortunately the vast majority of editors represent a very specific demographic, and sometimes that affects consensus in unfortunate ways that magnify that demographic's typical point of view. It's sort of a Catch-22.
 * Plus I actually enjoy as a hobby writing articles about subjects that aren't as deeply interesting to the average member of that very specific demographic. :D And that was a really unusual discussion for so many reasons. You could literally make thousands of edits and never end up in a discussion that unpleasant ever again unless you go looking for them. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to go through that. I wanted to leave it a while before replying, to let my thoughts settle. Yes it's clear there was a lot going on I'm unaware of, in terms of where the lines are, and the status of long serving beloved editors. Objectively, in terms of civility there is very little point me railing against where those lines are on WP - they aren't something I can change. But if I stay around now I know where that line is, I can't help feeling I'm accepting it.
 * Lots of language about disability has double meanings, generally rather basic ones: substandard, crap, etc. I'm not going to complain about unthinking uses of the word 'lame' to mean 'bad'. But having that word used against me specifically because of that double meaning feels like a line for me. It seems an extraordinarily low blow, kind of the definition of punching down: haha you're lame and so's your grammar?
 * Humour is often used in unpleasant ways against disabled people - I have a friend with dwarfism who somehow has to cope with strangers pointing and laughing at her and her children every time they go out. The humour bracket doesn't help, from my perspective. Honestly, if that was within acceptable lines - and I'm sure you know your stuff - then I rather hope other disabled editors stay away.
 * I was also surprised that accusing someone of lying in that way is considered fine. I don't remember ever seeing either that accusation, or a cut and paste of a large number of someone's edits like that on any other WP pages. Taken together it all feels like some kind of public shaming. (Which may just be the nature of WP?)
 * That's good advice, about the best areas to edit in. I'd been having a lovely time editing - largely women I found on the Women in Red project, authors, and books till a month ago. I don't know if I'll feel able to go back to that.
 * It looks like a new account has started rewriting my edits, the same one who left a long comment on the RFC yesterday. It's probably best if I don't stick around to watch. I do appreciate your time. Persicifolia (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry that this has got so difficult. The paragraphs above have been an interesting, if depressing, read. I perhaps could say more but probably shouldn't, so I will just wish you all happiness and success in whatever you decide to do next, whether or not it involves Wikipedia. Addendum: I have found that an editing break, with no permanent decisions made, can often be very helpful. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which new account, which long comment, and which edits are being reverted? —valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw this on the RFC and this edit  and stopped looking. Persicifolia (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very curious now about an IP editor immediately beginning what seems to be a single-purpose campaign and knowing within three edits about the edit-filter noticeboard; I'm not as paranoid as some but I'd be willing to bet that this isn't someone's sole account. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ayup. —valereee (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both, I'll try to dig in. Persi, no one should be reverting those edits before the RfC is over, and frankly I think the RfC is likely to support at minimum putting language up for discussion/no consensus to prohibit change. No one should be reverting wholesale at this point. —valereee (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

interacting with other editors
So in one of your above posts, there was again a lot to unpack, and I thought I'd just open a new section about how we deal with people identifying themselves as members of a group. The problem is, people lie. Please understand that I am not accusing you of this. But there are actually multiple editors here whom I completely believe are lying about their gender, gender identity, and ethnicity in order to give themselves some sort of authority in certain discussions about those things. As in, "I have identified as female, so don't tell me X is offensive to women because it's not offensive to me."

Here on WP we don't know who you are. You could be telling us you're a wheelchair user who finds "wheelchair-bound" offensive because you want to sow dissension. Or the opposite. That's why we go with what reliable sources are saying. Re: an editor accusing another editor of lying. Being able to trust one another here is very important. If you're willing to misrepresent things, even occasionally, other editors actually do need to know it. I don't personally think you were trying to misrepresent -- you're very new, you have an incomplete understanding of how things work, you quite likely did not intend to misrepresent -- but it wasn't an absurd conclusion the other editor came to that you were intentionally misrepresenting.

Re: low blows. I agree, the "lame" jab was a low blow, and I don't approve of it. As I said, this is an editor who, once pissed, doesn't pull their punches. I think it's reasonable to characterize this as punching down because you are a new editor, but I think it's likely this person would not have done this in pretty much any other case: they thought you were being disingenuous. At that point this person, in my understanding of them, thought "anything goes here." —valereee (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For some reason it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would doubt I'm a wheelchair user. (Perhaps because I'm not used to anonymous spaces - on other platforms there are literally photos of me, sitting in my wheelchair.) It's a useful perspective. It makes sense that someone might falsely claim to be from a marginalised group on WP, but I hadn't followed that through re my own identity.
 * Discussions look so different from different perspectives. The 'lame' jab was very early, before the RFC. I'm not clear what provoked it. I was deeply upset by it and basically withdrew. When it then became a RFC I was pinged, and was frustrated I'd ended up silenced. I tried to contribute while avoiding that particular editor. Which I did till they accused me of lying, and then I was out.
 * The 'liar' comments were right at the end of my involvement. Given the whole discussion started because of my edits I was completely thrown, and not immediately clear what the lie could be. (And it felt very shocking, not helped by it being 5am here.) To me, my earlier remark that the new language dominates on WP was an unoriginal aside in a longer reply. Other editors had said the same. I'm sure there are WP policy issues I'm unaware of here that made my aside relevant in a way I was not aware of. It was (and is) my firm impression that the language I was replacing already did not appear in the majority of the most current WP articles. (I didn't know what the numbers were re usage of 'user' - it's not something I'd searched for till that accusation. It's unsearchable really, because 'user' isn't a direct substitute for 'bound'.) It hadn't occurred to me till reading your comment that there might still be any contention I was lying.
 * It feels like an impossible situation. The space was so hostile I could not stay in it. But it sounds like my bowing out could be read as confirmation I was here with some agenda? A total catch 22.
 * I felt sure of my ground because of the sources, not my identity. But part of the reason I made sure to mention I'm a wheelchair user is that - in the same way I use photos on very different platforms - people are then aware before they say something thoughtless. Which clearly did not work here, to say the least. If some editors' presumption from the outset was that I might not actually be disabled I can see how very different their perception of the situation might be. I would have thought you'd have to be really sure, on both things. (I'm not confident citing policies but I see WP:AGF a lot.) And I think utilising the double meanings of words like 'lame' is a really bad plan. I had no idea quite how distressing I'd find it honestly - I'd got through 20 plus years of being disabled without it ever being thrown at me till this. Persicifolia (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no one is making an assumption that you aren't disabled and are lying about it. My point was solely that we focus on the argument rather than giving authority to the person who is making it because of their stated identity. It doesn't matter whether you use a wheelchair or are a POC or a woman or have a PhD in astrophysics or not if your arguments are sound. Because of your identity you may be more familiar with the topic, but that just means it should be easier for you to find the sources to support your argument.
 * No, bowing out doesn't mean you'll necessarily be perceived as having come here with some agenda. A lot of people might decide to leave after a negative experience. The space is not as friendly as you'd like to to be, and particularly in an area that's very important to you. So again, I won't try to convince you in either direction, but also again I will say that as upsetting as this was for you, it doesn't mean working here is going to be one long series of such experiences. In fact if you choose to you can avoid them altogether, and then in a few years when you are on firmer ground w/re Wikipedia and how a bunch of people with widely differing points of view can manage to actually get anything done, you can always decide to move into that territory. Or you can decide it's just not worth it to risk another experience like this.
 * (Paraphrasing here out of laziness) The lame thing, to me, looks like it came from the fact the AP says no to "cripple" but yes to "lame" when describing disability. Which seems bizarre to me, too, and kind of funny. The joke was in the language, and any kind of play on words is pretty much irresistible to this particular editor. When you pointed out that you found it offensive to be referred to as lame, they asked what your point was -- I interpreted that as, "You're asking us to go with the AP's MOS on language surrounding disability. The AP says lame is okay. Why therefore are you offended by being called lame?" Again, just explaining what it looks like to me, not excusing a joke I wouldn't have made.
 * (Ditto) The lying thing: you said that WP already was primarily using that language, which while other editors may have said the same thing, they hadn't personally made those changes and so may not have realized that 100+ of them had been made recently and by a single editor, you. That was the first thing that could be seen as disingenuous, although I personally interpreted it as you echoing others and possibly completely innocently. The second thing you said was that you had RS for the changes. As the other editor pointed out, it wasn't possible for you to have had an RS for each change, which would require you to go find a source that is using that language instead, and which then you'd have ostensibly added as a citation. What you had was evidence that RS's MOS are increasingly advising to use this language. Again I can easily assume that a person with your low level of experience may have made that inaccurate statement in complete innocence.
 * Bottom line here is that, yeah, sometimes discussion here becomes unpleasant for a variety of reasons, and yes, if you aren't particularly thick-skinned, you might find it not worth that. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your time, that clarified some things. I don’t want to pick over this endlessly, and I’m sure you have more enjoyable things to do. I obviously misjudged where WP is on disability, in terms of the type of discussion I might expect and the sorts of jokes that might be seen as acceptable. I think I also misjudged where WP is more generally on using language that marginalised groups consider offensive. All of which is pretty depressing.
 * I feel like I should attempt to salvage the AP Stylebook’s reputation on ‘lame’, in case anyone reading this thinks it’s actually listed as an acceptable word. As far as I can see it’s used once, in their explanation of why a different word is offensive: ‘“Cripple” is considered offensive when used to describe a person who is lame or disabled.’[]
 * (Why on earth they thought it was a good plan to throw it in there I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps they presumed anyone who needed to be told 'cripple' is offensive exists on such a different plane they wouldn't recognise 'disabled'?! I understood the point behind the joke but, yeah. I could write an essay on the lines it crosses for me but won't put either of us through that.)
 * I need some serious distance from this, but I think the advice from DBak further up was good about not making permanent decisions. At any rate I wish you absolutely all the best Valereee. Persicifolia (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Edith Prentiss
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging