User talk:Qatnip

May 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Kerli has been reverted. Your edit here to Kerli was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/Kerli-Kerli/release/9542247) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi there Qatnip, I happened to see your username on the Glitch (music) page and just wanted to stop by and say thanks for your edits. I know the big welcome message that the bot left above is a little intimidating, so let me know if you have any questions, if I can help with anything, or if you'd like to work with someone else to build up a specific page, but yeah, I just wanted to say good work on a lot of fixes there. Cheers, Nole  (chat·edits) 01:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nolelover, thank you for your nice message! As a copywriter who uses the Chicago Manual of Style, I was delighted to see that Wikipedia has its own manual of style and cares about using correct English (or Mandarin, Spanish, etc., as the case may be). I have been reading Wikipedia for years, but started editing just this past month, after I came across an entry in which a controversial topic was described in a subjective and biased way. Regarding glitch hop, I became interested after I found the music of Doctor P on YouTube in 2013! I think it's an important topic (not as important as solving world hunger, but still), and I want to make sure its story can be told, so to speak, even if it's a little confusing. Over the years, I have seen a few entries on interests of mine become greatly reduced (Kito & Reija Lee) or even deleted (Finnish DJ 501, a.k.a. Jussi Leväsalmi), and I don't want that to happen to glitch hop. I think the next step is to remove the "odd phrasing" template. Do you think I should consult the talk page, or simply remove it myself? I actually went on the talk page and didn't see any remarks specifically about the language/phrasing.

I was a little startled by the bot. That said, I figured out what the issue was -- I had put in the source URL alone without the title, publisher, or date accessed. Once I added those, it wasn't reverted. Live and learn! Qatnip (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I absolutely think you can remove the tag! You're welcome to leave a note on the talk page, but it doesn't seem to be controversial and most times it's fine to remove the maintenance tag in the same edit where you make the fixes. Quick point on the bot--the issue wasn't actually that you had used a bare URL as the citation, it's that the bot is trained to revert edits that include links to, because that is considered an unreliable source. You can see some discussion that led to that here and here. I'm not terribly familiar with the site, but it seems that there's no quality control there, so it's not appropriate to be used as a reference in the text of most articles. Do you know of another source that could be used as a citation there instead?  Nole  (chat·edits) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I put in another source and everything is working fine. Thanks for your help! Qatnip (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hi Qatnip! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ''Actually, it appears you're marking virtually all your edits "minor", and they really are not. Please take a look at the policy pages; I think you'll find them helpful.'' &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns
Hi, Qatnip, and welcome! I undid your changes at Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns, because you didn't include an edit summary with a reason for your changes, or any sources that supported them. But don't worry, all your changes are preserved in the History of the article. You can reinstate them, simply by adding some citaitons to reliable sources that support your changes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot! I made the changes to "Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns" to correct male-biased language. The widespread tendency to list "male" before "female," and "masculine" before "feminine," is biased and unfair. It is a knee-jerk default that has resulted from thousands of years of sexism. The fairest way I can think of to correct for linguistic bias is to list such terms in alphabetical order. Alphabetical order is relatively arbitrary, compared to the method of listing anything male first every single time, and it creates outcomes that favor both genders (for example, "female and male" but also "men and women," "boys and girls" but also "daughters and sons." It's more subtle than changing the portrayal of facts based on information from a new source, but the combined effect of seeing "female" and "feminine" before "male" and "masculine" across the board -- while still retaining "boys and girls" and "men and women" -- would gradually shift people's minds away from perceiving maleness as the default. I apologize for not including an edit summary. That was irresponsible. I will add "listing gendered terms in alphabetical order for fairness" to my future edits of this kind. Qatnip (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Qatnip
 * I appreciate the need for gender equality, but this is not the way. Wikipedia itself is not for language- or thought-reform advocacy or for righting great wrongs. Putting in that order is not that common and will therefore distract the reader. Even if we say that either is acceptable, WP:STYLEVAR states that we are not to change text that could be written either way just to match a personal preference. It could go back and forth endlessly and results in disruption. Please do not make further edits to just change the order of these words. Crossroads -talk- 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's odd that you would say, "Putting in that order is not that common and will therefore distract the reader" in a discussion regarding the page "Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns." Every gender-neutral update to a traditionally gendered language was initially not that common, and therefore undoubtedly distracted readers a bit at first. It's also contradictory to think that expending time into making gender-neutral updates is political (not for language- or thought-reform advocacy) but expending time into reverting these updates, and/or writing to justify the reversion, is not political. To expend effort into keeping things the way they are is just as political as expending effort into changing things. Qatnip (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Qatnip

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) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)