User talk:RoxySaunders

Welcome!
Hello, RoxySaunders, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! RegentsPark (comment) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
I don't know why the other user is so heavy about the climate of my city if he first used an unrealiable site and also unsourced data.

I have tried to explain why is he wrong (the data was there from 2015 by the way) and I have also added useful information about the climate of Elche made by the Universidad Miguel Hernández which is the university of the city of Elche. I don't know why he wanted to change that data and I kindly explained why he shouldn't.

I have also received bad mood messages and he called me dumb in one of the edit summaries, I just don't understand why he changed 5 year old data and he just reverts any data he doesn't like, even if I kindly explain why that data is actually closer to reality as Elche doesn't have any long term recording station. He should be more kind when editing, insults are not necessary. --31.4.227.63 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. I have also replied in Elche's talk page. --31.4.227.63 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Celliant
Interesting deletion nom. At the company website there are descriptions of clinical trials, but as best I could discover, only one actually published in a science journal. (And I neglected to check if that one is considered a 'predatory' journal.). Curious to see how this ends. David notMD (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AeroPress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold brew. 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) 06:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Transparent (TV series): you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ping functionality
I saw this edit, as I'm watching the debate develop. So you know; pings don't work unless they are done in a post that includes a signature being made at the same time (see the third paragraph of Help:Notifications). I found this out the hard way too :) --Hammersoft (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for the tip! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , not only that, but it has to be on a new line. If you tack it on to the previous comment with no newline between, it won't ping either. Now you've got the full story, I think... Mathglot (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Opposites at Tg
This was a good call; thanks for that. There's something else that could be said about this in that article, if we found the right reference to back it up. It's about the concept of markedness, which is about how until someone names a group or population divergent from what is seen as some larger "norm" (trans+gender, homo+sexual, inter+sex), there's no need to have a name for the larger majority group, because "they're just everybody" (aren't they?). Some time later, the unmarked term gets coined when it is needed, usually so scholarly publications don't have to awkwardly keep using the negative ("not homosexual", etc.). This *always* happens after the minority group term is coined first; thus cis+gender, hetero+sexual, endo+sex; and so on. I don't have time to do this right now, but I'm pretty sure you can find something about it if you poke around, and based on your edits, I trust you'll get it right, so if you're interested, it's all yours. If not, happy editing! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sherd vs. Shard
Please review what the term sherd means. Shard is not a term generally used in archaeology to refer to pottery. I will be requesting the assistance of the Arbitration Committee if you revert this article again.

2A02:1810:B406:D600:148C:20CE:49A9:DEEF (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy
Thank you for your terrific edits to Conversion Therapy 92.10.13.209 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * An editor just accused me of adding original research and not sticking to sources for my edit - even though I obeyed the guidelines and our changes were accepted by multiple others, including yourself. For some bizarre reason they reverted my edit rather than the most recent one. I'd recommend watching the page. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! It's natural for WP:BOLD edits to get reverted like this. I'd recommend opening a discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy and gain consensus for the best possible phrasing of the lede. I personally think that including homosexual or bisexual is made redundant by my recent addition of LGBT earlier in that sentence, and I basically agree with you that it's not the most inclusive turn of phrase—I'd very slightly prefer non-heterosexual. Keep in mind that I'm only an autoconfirmed editor; my approval doesn't carry any special weight to override other editors' consensus or the WP:BRD cycle.
 * (ping) is certainly editing in good faith, but the reference to WP:STICKTOSOURCE in their edit summary admittedly confused me—what source? The older sources tend to just say "homosexual", and the more recent ones (cognizant of the fact that terminology is often changing) don't attempt to encapsulate every possible form of non-heterosexual orientation. I don't think there's a real WP:OR concern with the insertion or removal of homosexual or bisexual here. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 05:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; it crossed my messages at the article talk page, and at 's UTP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A discussion has been started at Talk:Conversion therapy. I thought I'd let you know this since you have thoughts on the article and expanded upon one of my edits multiple times. Although, you have no obligation to ofc. And thank you for being so nice to me 92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not weird
Yes, ahem, sorry about that, I don't think I really read what you wrote, or paid sufficient attention to what was being discussed. Plus, I'm a little overly sensitive at the moment I think, also I was probably a bit tired drunk when I replied the first time. So, yeah, mea maxamissima culpa, sorry again...  Tewdar  17:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I happily confess to being A Bit Weird, but admit your removed comment caught me off-guard and hurt my self-esteem a little. Thank you for changing it, mea culpa very much accepted. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I woke up at around 7am, looked at my reply, and realized I had actually written a load of auld bollocks, as my Dad would have said. Please ignore it and I hope my grovelling apology goes some way towards repairing any damage to your self-esteem. All the best,  Tewdar   17:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page problem

 * Referring to about.

Sorry about that; there's a long and boring technical explanation, but since the stupid December 2019 encryption protocol update, I've only been able to view or edit Wikipedia from home using a somewhat indirect method which is unfortunately not fully Unicode compliant. Often I create a new section at the end, and then delete the section header, to avoid problems, but I was having problems with that yesterday when I added the "euphemism treadmill" pointer, because the Wikimedia software recently threw in an extra wrinkle (with respect to my personal setup) into the process of creating a new section on a page. I didn't figure out how to handle this extra step until today... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, I figured it was something like that. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Up for another definitions subpage?
Hey. I was wondering if you'd be up for doing another definitions subpage? While we see it less often, we do occasionally get comments at Talk:Trans man about how the definition is wrong, similar to those at Talk:Trans woman. And unfortunately we have one such comment now that would be more straightforward to address with such a definitions subpage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That might be worth a go, although I'd wager that nearly every source given at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions also provides a suitable equivalent for trans men, so I'm not sure it's necessary to have two separate pages. If the goal is to reduce repeated discussions, I think we'd get more mileage out of adding an FAQ, which basically says that the current lede reflects a long-standing consensus at Talk:Trans woman. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT slang
I get the oversight (blanked section); we all make mistakes. But this? What's going on&mdash;another oversight? If so, no worries; has already been undone by Adakiko. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I intended to perform all of my actions in that revert. My initial slip-up removed the section heading for “Terms related to” (not describing”) transgender people, the section “TERF” and “chaser” belong to. The resulting bodytext (where TERF was erroneously listed under terms “describing” transgender people) caused you (and now ) to move it into general slang. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Delicious, thank you. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Good refactoring at ROGD Rfc
Thanks for the refactoring at the ROGD Rfc, in particular, moving long, threaded discussions in response to !votes from the Survey section to the Discussion section. I know such refactoring can be tricky, and I appreciate the effort you expended in carrying it out, which I believe significantly improved clarity and comprehensibility of the Rfc as a whole. I not infrequently add "Survey" and "Discussion" subheaders to Rfc's when it looks like the !votes might get encumbered by too much discussion; I was late to the game here, and it ended up the way you saw. (Even with the subheaders, it happens to an extent, anyway.) In any case, thanks again, and any time you see an Rfc that looks like it might be heading that way, I'd certainly encourage you to add subheaders, in the hope that it might help keep things better organized from early on, and save refactoring later. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with NOTFORUM criticism by victimhood-claiming, chilling effect-bleating editors
I wandered over to Talk:Transphobia, and read through the stale discussion, started by an anonymous OP back in October, and joined by others, full of bad faith, soapbox opinion, and worse. The more I read, the more annoyed I became. This was clearly rampant WP:NOTFORUM territory, and had I been around at the time, I would have collapsed it, and been tempted to delete it (but per WP:BITE, I would at least have resisted that temptation). However, one editor specifically invoked "chilling effect", which would've probably made me pause and perhaps not collapsed it. And my Gedankenexperiment about my own probable reaction made me even more annoyed (first at myself, then more at them), as I realized the chilling effect their invocation of chilling effect would've had on the proper use of approved tools like collapse for dealing with off-topic threads. And yet, there's WP:BITE, and I wouldn't want to give them the opportunity to say, "See, there ya go; I've been canceled. Again." which would be B.S., but I also wouldn't want to give them any excuse to wallow in their imagined victimhood. So, I was stewing for a bit on how to effectively deal with such a situation.

I came up with an idea, and wanted to run it by you (and by who was also involved and may have thoughts about it). What if we simply moved the discussion over to the OP's user talk page, leaving just the original section header, and a Moved discussion to template? Alternatively, move the whole thread to the OP's User talk page, keeping a copy of only the section header and OP's initial comment in place at the article TP, embedded in a closed discussion box using ? That keeps the not-forum thread off the article TP where it doesn't belong, spares other editors the time and trouble of reading the off-topic bleating at the article TP (while still leading them to the OP's thread if needed), and keeps the OP's discussion at their UTP where they can rant or expound all they want (within reason; not including PA, etc.)? Or do you have a better approach? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I can see this being a good maneuver in certain cases, primarily for disputes that are mostly focused on editor behavior and not on content. However, UTPs are still not an acceptable place for POLEMIC. Whereas collapsing/deleting off-topic soapboxing (DENY) accurately communicates to the soapboxer that this is not the place for that (NOTAFORUM), relocating a disruptive discussion into a user's talk-page sends them the unintended message that "Actually, unproductive grandstanding is fine, so long as you only do it in Usertalk space".
 * I consider the possibility of transphobes feeling vindicated about their FREESPEECH being censored by the evil Wikipedia cabal to be substantially less important than the ability for productive, good-faith contributors to build an encyclopedia without sifting through pages of self-righteous dogwhistling. If a thread/comment seems unlikely to produce useful consensus, and very likely to attract further disruption, then a neutral party collapsing/reverting it is the kindest possible outcome for everyone (as it strongly encourages participants, including the vandal, to not waste any more time on it). When performed judiciously and in accordance with WP:TPO, this is not WP:BITEing any more than reverting an edit in article-space or rejecting an article draft. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One possible downside of moving the discussion to User Talk is that it moves it into a space where the OP has a degree of ownership and is more able to "hold court" over any other participants, creating a degree of power imbalance. (Whether anybody wants to attend that court is another matter.) That's not to say that there might not be occasions when it could work but I don't think it is a generally applicable approach. A broader problem here is that it is hard to tell when somebody is acting in good faith and calibrate a response appropriately. Sometimes we get people who genuinely believe that their contributions are helpful, even when it is obvious to us that they are not, and sometimes we get people who are deliberately being exhausting and trying to suck all the air out of the room. Often, you can't tell which you are dealing with from the initial interaction because the best indication of the latter is subsequent repetitive kvetching about "free speech", "censorship" etc. So, I agree with RoxySaunders. Roll stuff up if it is not helpful. (Remove it completely if it is abusive.) It can always be unrolled, or discussion restarted on a better basis, if people disagree. If the OP is being intentionally disruptive or otherwise acting in bad faith then warn them. If the OP is a new user plausibly acting in mistaken good faith then make sure they got a welcome message and maybe drop them a polite note about NOTFORUM. Finally, I don't think there is any point in worrying too much about giving them an excuse to wallow in their imagined victimhood because the kvetchers are going to do that anyway, whatever we do. So long as be are not giving them a legitimate excuse for complaint, I think we are OK. DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Roxy and ; really good responses, both. I think you (pl.) have hit the nail on the head with these clear-headed responses about what is really important here, and I'm going to quit worrying about 'wallowing' etc., and inform my future actions in similar situations based on this. Good work, and thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

TERF quote & citation
Hey. Good editing on TERF. I get it, but I cannot find a reference/citation that backs up the quoted "*", other than quotes that are copied from Wikipedia itself. (circular quotes)

Have you followed the footnote listed in the quote? It does not lead to the germane or cited source. It is also paywalled.

Here is your edit & rationale and since this article is under one-revert per 24 hours discretionary sanctions, I am not going to kick that in. Let's discuss!

Also, the acronym TERF is now a word in the parlance as terf so I'd like to work that into the prose and lead. Can you help me figure that out?

In conclusion, where is the quoted citation you see?

By the way, can vouch for my good faith, motives, and integrity. They are awesome folk! Hoping they chime in here too, as they are a major editor to this article, the topic, and the wikis. My name is Wayne, IRL.

We all learn from each other. I am an honest ally, and always learning. Cheers! 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! Worry not, I have full faith in your good intentions. I attend one of those prissy liberal arts colleges, so I have access to TSQ through my library. From p. 255, 258 of Radical Inclusion (DOI link):
 * "Viv Smythe (Williams 2014a): “It was not meant to be insulting. It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral, because we had several years of history of engaging productively/substantively with non-TERF RadFems.”"
 * That footnote points to:
 * "Williams, Cristan. 2014a. “TERF: What It Means and Where It Came From.” TransAdvocate, March 15. www.transadvocate.com/terf-what-it-means-and-where-it-came-from_n_13066.htm."
 * Following that link, the quote appears sic erat scriptum in the 6th paragraph of the original interview. While Williams' side of the interview exclusively uses, Smythe consistently uses , indicating it was an intentional choice on her part.
 * The use of was touched on in a discussion a few months ago about whether or not it should have a Wiktionary link, so it's fairly fresh on my mind. I've gone ahead and added a reference to that interview, which should hopefully clear things up for users who can't access that source. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NB article
Did you delete my comment from the talk page of the NB article? Sardaka (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I did. Judith Butler’s pronouns are off-topic for that page, and (barring any other rationale) your personal disregard or dislike for their gender identity looked like simple soapboxing. Whatever discussion proceeded from your comment would likely have been moot, as the only possible answer is that MOS:GENDERID very clearly applies. Therefore, to avoid other editors having their energy wasted, I removed and answered on your talk page instead.
 * At the time I was not aware that Butler accepts she/her pronouns (but prefers they), so I might have responded to your message more harshly than I otherwise would have (misgendering WP:BLP subjects is a no-no). I’m sorry. However I do still stand by its removal. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to see a more conciliatory tone, but I would draw your attention to the following passage in Talk page guidelines:"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by Sardaka (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)]". In short, discuss before deleting. A bit of simple discussion in this case would have avoided a lot of angst.Sardaka (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:AE
Please move your comment at WP:AE to a new subsection, "Statement by RoxySaunders", copying the formatting used on that page. Preface your comment with a ping to the user you are replying to. There is a strict bureaucracy on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, my mistake. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi RoxySaunders :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Explanation

 * Response to a message I left at, with respect to this revert. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I accused you of a personal attack because the administrator who nominated the page for deletion was affiliated with that WikiProject. I should have WP:AGF and asked you first. Scorpions1325 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks re: Sophie
Hi Roxy, just wanted to thank you for your insightful commentary on the Sophie talk page. I echoed your sentiments exactly, and I'm grateful to see your dissenting perspective among a sea of "agrees." You rock! Violetstork (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)