User talk:TrynaMakeADollar

Welcome!
Hello, TrynaMakeADollar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Other problem articles?
Hey,

On your comment over here you mentioned "other articles like it" and said "this is just one of the many articles on Wikipedia that are related to this subject that were heavily influenced by banned users who had very obvious agendas, and sympathetic views towards the subject matter."

Please let me know what other articles you have in mind. If you click my user name, on the far left side of the page there should be a link that says "email this user." You can use that to send me an email, or you can comment on my talk page.

Don't be afraid to speak up on any talk pages. It is especially important on biased articles that others can see what people think. I have seen multiple occasions where later editors pointed to years' worth of different comments criticizing an article as grounds for overthrowing stubborn and lengthy bad material.

Lastly, a word of advice. It is rather common for single-purpose accounts or vandal accounts to have red linked user names (that is, they didn't bother to create that page). Even newer editors like me have run into accounts like this. Having a red linked username yourself may lead to you being taken less seriously in disputes due to conscious or unconscious bias. Sad but true. I suggest you put something on your user page, even just "Hi". -Crossroads- (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, I’ll heed it. Also, I will get the other articles that I view as problematic over to you soon. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this? -Crossroads- (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have been pretty busy lately which is why I have only been making small edits on WP. I did put something together for you a little while back which I can email to you but I'm afraid it may be a little sub par. But it should give you a good understanding of some problems that certain WP pages have.TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the "email this user" link anymore. Do you still want me to email it? Or do you want me to leave it on your talk page?TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone else emailed me the other day... But you know what, if you like, you could leave it on my talk page. That way others can see it too, and I already have a discussion there about a similar matter. It is up to you. Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters has been nominated for discussion
Category:Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Heterosexuality category
I think that if you are reverted on your additions and removals to that category, you should leave it be. Purely biological topics like reproduction don't really have much to do with "heterosexuality" as typically studied, as it is a psychological and sociological term. The sociological aspect in particular goes beyond the sexual orientation and has to do with the identity of heterosexuality and how society has tended to assume and privilege it. If you reply to me, you can do so here. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. For example, this? I reverted because it does not belong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess this can be considered as a reply to both of you. As I am writing this, Flyer22 has reverted only a few of my edits. I think I can mostly live with those edits being reverted. As far as I can tell they mostly removed the "See also" links, hopefully because they thought that the articles do belong in the Heterosexuality Category. However I don't think that a reasonable and objective observer could see Reproduction, Breeding, and Mating as having absolutely nothing to do with Heterosexual behavior. I do think that heterosexuality and sexual reproduction need to be related in WP articles more. Apologies if there are any errors in my reply, I'm a bit flustered. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Biological sources don't usually refer to reproduction, breeding, and mating as "heterosexual" behavior specifically. It is of course; however the term is usually just used about humans, and then only when discussing other sexual orientations alongside it, or discussing social identities. Neither of these are the same field of study as biological reproduction. Mentioning reproduction in heterosexuality makes sense, as we do, because sources do. But the other way around doesn't really, because biological processes don't care about psychological states or social dynamics, and so it is actually off topic. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we could go back and forth for a little while. But if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, it would be more appropriate to mention sex between a male and female as being necessary for sexual reproduction or breeding rather than heterosexual behavior. Also I don't think that anything you wrote in your reply contradicts my edits. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * After getting some time to think about things, here are my thoughts:
 * First I just want to say that I am not trying to get into some kind of edit war, nor am I trying to be difficult. But I do have some salient concerns. Also, please forgive if there any errors, I had to do a lot of typing.


 * Reproductive System Article: I don't understand how the “Human Sexuality” and “Human Sexual Behavior” articles are allowed to be included in the “See also” section, but Heterosexuality is not? Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation and is a part Human sexuality. The Reproductive System, especially when related (in the article) to sexual reproduction and offspring relates to Heterosexuality much stronger than just Human Sexuality as a whole. Also, this article is included within the scope of Wikiproject: Sexology and Sexuality. If this article was purely biology related then it would fall only within the scope of Wikiproject: Biology and Anatomy. But this does fall within the scope of Wikiproject: Sexology and Sexuality and once again, Heterosexuality is a part of Human sexuality because it is a sexual orientation.


 * Sexual Selection Article: This article does mention humans. Humans technically also engage in sexual selection. Sexual selection only involves males and females. Thus it is heterosexual behavior. There are no animals or humans with a homosexual inclination that are engaging in sexual selection because it only relates to heterosexuality or heterosexual behavior. If the Heterosexuality article is not linked in the "See also" for this article then it most definitely needs to be included in the Sexual Selection in Humans article.


 * Live Birth Article: I totally agree with the edit that you made to this article, @Flyer22 Reborn.


 * Mammalian Reproduction article: Again, the arguments that I made above for the sexual selection and the reproductive system articles work for this article as well. Reproduction in mammals is only possible through males and females copulating, AKA Heterosexual behavior. Heterosexuality is not discussed within the scope of human sexuality only. Heterosexual behavior (mating only with members of the opposite sex) is observed in all mammals and is the norm. Also, it's a bit weird that Heterosexuality is included in the "See also" section of the Pregnancy (mammals) article but not the Mammalian Reproduction article because the subject matter of the articles is quite similar.


 * Sexual Intercourse article: Heterosexuality and sexual intercourse are very closely related. Sexual intercourse is not primarily heterosexual sex because that is what is mostly studied by researchers, it is heterosexual because that is in fact what it is in the strictly biological sense. That is actually what the sources used in the article say as well. Britannica goes even further in it's definition and specifically states that it is a reproductive act between a male and a female. The Discovery.com source states that in the strict biological sense it is sex between a male and a female (heterosexual sex) but that in recent years it has come to include different types of sex acts. That should be explicitly stated in the article and that's why I think that the focus on homosexual sex is undue, but that is besides the point I'm trying to make right now.


 * (continued) The Merriam Webster definition (which is one of the sources used in the article) specifically mentions "heterosexual intercourse". If sexual intercourse is considered to be primarily or exclusively heterosexual sex, it needs to be included in the heterosexuality category. How can heterosexual intercourse/sex and heterosexuality be considered mutually exclusive? That is ridiculous. Also, including the article in the Heterosexuality category does not imply that sexual intercourse is ONLY heterosexual sex...which, really, it is, but including it in the category wouldn't and shouldn't imply that. Finally, the article is included in Wikiproject: Sexology and Sexuality and at the bottom of the article the template explicitly states that Human sexuality is related to Sexual Intercourse. Like I stated before, Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation and is a part of Human sexuality. It also states that the article is related to the Human Physiology of Sexual Reproduction (Human Reproduction). Kinda weird to have the Human Reproduction article included in the Heterosexuality category but not have the Sexual Intercourse article included in the Heterosexuality category since they are pretty closely related (as the template at the bottom of the article states).


 * For these reasons and more, I think that all of the articles I mentioned should be included in the Heterosexuality category, and they may need to have the Heterosexuality article included in their "See also" section. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey again, TrynaMakeADollar. As is clear from the sources you've pointed to and which I've cited in the Sexual intercourse article, sexual intercourse is not only defined as penile-vaginal sex. That penile-vaginal sex is the primary definition of sexual intercourse is made clear in that article (in the lead and lower). Yes, the Merriam-Webster source states "heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus." But it also states, "intercourse (such as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis." And lower in the source it cites the "sexual activity between two people"/"especially : sexual activity in which a man puts his penis into the vagina of a woman" definition. It states "especially," not "solely." The Sexual intercourse article doesn't lend undue weight to other sex acts. It lends just enough weight to other sex acts. And it's the way it is after years and years of debate and tweaking, and I really don't want another debate about it.


 * Furthermore, per WP:Not a dictionary, our Wikipedia articles are not about terms unless they specifically are about terms. The Sexual intercourse article is not about a term, although it briefly mentions definitional aspects in the lead and has a section devoted to definitions because sources, researchers, and the general public can vary in how they define the term/topic. You stated, "Also, including the article in the Heterosexuality category does not imply that sexual intercourse is ONLY heterosexual sex.", but one might also argue that Category:Homosexuality belongs in the article (despite any assertion that the addition would be undue).


 * Like Crossroads stated, Category:Heterosexuality isn't for sexual acts or reproduction (not generally anyway), just like the Heterosexuality article isn't about penile-vaginal sex or reproduction. The Heterosexuality article is mainly about sexual orientation. And that is because the literature is, regardless of some acts being referred to as heterosexual. And while discussion of sexual orientation often includes discussion of sexual behavior and is often an aspect of the definition of sexual orientation, it is also distinguished from sexual behavior. Someone will eventually remove your addition of the heterosexuality category to the Pregnancy article (in the same way that Doc James removed your "See also" addition from the article). Your remaining heterosexuality category additions may be removed as well. And look at this another way: You don't see editors adding all of same-sex sexual acts to Category:Homosexuality.


 * I think you should read all of WP:Categorization. And if you still think that most or all of your category additions were valid, then post about it at Wikipedia talk:Categorization for other opinions. Similar goes for your "See also" additions. You can post about the matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout since WP:See also is an aspect of WP:Manual of Style/Layout. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I came here having reverted more of the same categorization edits (I hope all of the biology articles affected, as it applies across the board, not just to the articles named above), which it seems that all of us biology editors consider mistaken. I endorse most of Flyer22 Reborn's comments (though I believe the category is inappropriate throughout, it's a level confusion - see below), and would point out that while the biology permits all the human aspects of sexual behaviour, sociality, orientation, and so on, they do not entail them, as biology is considering matters from the viewpoint of mechanisms and verifiable experimental science, not from the viewpoint of society. In any event, we really don't want to categorise everything at the lowest possible level, as this would introduce enormous and hopelessly confusing redundancy. Here's why:

Think of biology and sociology (etc) as different layers of explanation: the world is explainable by physics (particles, forces); by chemistry (atoms, elements, molecules, reactions); by biology (biochemistry, cells, organisms, populations); and by sociology (human society, social interactions). All of these are "correct" within their areas of interest, and while it might be true that chemistry can be explained by physics, etc up through the layers, it's much simpler to treat the layers separately, and - importantly - while ultimately all human sexuality might be explained as physics and chemistry, it is not true that heterosexuality is "physics". Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate both of your responses I think that they are quite insufficient and do not address most of my points. This statement that I have made here can be used as a placeholder while I work on my actual response. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "quite insufficient": I've told you that you made an error of level, confusing different levels of structure entirely. A philosopher would call that a "category error" (nothing to do with Wiki categories), the worst kind of confusion. Please leave your "quite insufficient" out of it - in plain language, it was a total mess. Human-related Wiki categories are completely inappropriate for evolutionary biology-related articles. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the upcoming days I will be unable to dedicate enough time to this discussion or these edits. I'll be ok with how the articles stand, at least for now. I may restart this discussion in the future, but if I do I will probably do it on the talk pages of the articles. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Also, Chiswick Chap, eat a snickers and read WP:BIGDEAL. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Heterosexuality, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KNHaw  (talk)  23:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please ignore my error above - I missed the reference you cited in your edit. My apologies.  -- KNHaw   (talk)  23:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for correcting it. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. Obviously not true. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk)  11:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Concubinage
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.ancient.eu/article/623/women-in-ancient-egypt, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me, I'll reword and add it. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Human male conflict over females has been nominated for deletion
Category:Human male conflict over females, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not obstruct consensus on a category deletion
Regarding this edit, if you know that consensus is to delete a category it really isn't appropriate to immediately recreate the category under a slightly different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. You're right. I went about it in the wrong way. I wasn't trying to sidestep any rules. I was trying to do something that would take too long for me to explain here but it doesn't matter now though because I'm ok with the categories being deleted. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you have been warned. Following Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 22, consider your future edits carefully, lest they be considered disruptive which can lead to a block. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It won't happen again. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Your recent editing history at Wartime sexual violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. Obviously not true, and was predicted by me. Obviously retaliatory. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at Xerxes I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bride and Groom Lie Hidden for Three Days


A tag has been placed on Bride and Groom Lie Hidden for Three Days requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://hellopoetry.com/words/inlays/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Article size
Edit summary ="No reason to have them there. No reason was given by editor who added them. An article about the United States is expected to be this long. Apart from that, country articles that are featured like Canada are as long or even longer...."


 * 1) See Article size
 * 2) Pls join ongoing talk about page size
 * 3) Article is 2 times lager then any other FA or GA country article Special:Longpages ‎United States ‎[404,516 bytes] - ‎Canada ‎[207,091 bytes]
 * 4) WTRMT
 * -- Moxy 🍁 06:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Henry_VIII
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Emperor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Take to talk, i.e. Talk:Emperor: there's currently 100% consensus to remove the image, so without enough support for swaying the WP:CONSENSUS otherwise (see also WP:BRD), the image stays out per current consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is obviously retaliatory. I reverted the image to the status quo of what it is supposed to be. You and Guardian101 both gave very limited reasoning for why the lead image should be removed. Also, you interestingly did NOT give this warning to Guardian101 who has reverted SIX different times. Guardian101 made a small and nonsensical reasoning on the talk page for why it should be removed and then you also gave a very limited reasoning and quickly removed it. During a discussion like that, the status quo of the article is supposed to remain. That means the lead image should remain. There's only 100% consensus for removing the image because you made the comment less than an hour ago. You are engaging in some pretty shady practices. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Beauty
I've reverted your proposed changes. Although your edit summary was "I don't need to take it to the talk page if I'm reverting it to how it was before", your edit changed a long-standing section heading and eliminated two long-standing sources that you term "ridiculously old and primary sources". Things need to be sourced, and old primary sources – certainly for quotes as in the Hutcheson case – are fine; please see e.g. Charles Darwin, Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, Nostradamus, and Jesus, all of which are WP:Featured articles and can be taken as good models of the best of Wikipedia. You also removed sourced material that I added specifically to address the {Globalize section} tag you added. It went into a separate section because Chinese philosophy does not belong in the "Ancient Greek" section. It makes sense to separate Eastern and Western traditions this way, as seen for instance in the FA Atheism (specifically in Atheism) because they developed independently. Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood what I meant. I called for the newly added "Chinese Philosophy" section to be integrated into the existing history sections above it. There is absolutely no reason for there to be a separate section for Chinese beliefs. Ancient China, Medieval China, 1600s China, and Modern China all were and are a thing. It would be ridiculous for us to have a separate section for every single society from different time period's idea of beauty. That would mean we would need to have a section for Turkish/Ottoman philosophy, Japanese philosophy, American philosophy, Islamic (the medieval caliphates such as the Abbasid) philosophy, Mongol philosophy and on and on. That would not make any sense. Instead of doing that, it's best if we simply integrate the ideas of beauty that several cultures and societies had into the existing history sections. That would mean cutting down some of the existing statements of the sections and adding info about the Chinese Philosophy.


 * The globalize tag I added was specifically for the "Ancient Greek" section as it specifically mentions ancient Greece while ignoring other ancient societies. The existing section needs to be cut down a bit and the Chinese philosophy section simply needs to be integrated into it so that the Globalize tag can be removed and the section can be re-titled. And by the way, my edit which had the summary "I don't need to take it to the talk page if I'm reverting it to how it was before" only removed the Chinese philosophy section and nothing else. It was my other edits that changed the section title (the reasoning for which I have already explained), and removed the old sources. WP:AGE MATTERS states that old sources should be replaced by newer ones if they are available. I'm sure you could find newer sources to replace them with. Also, some of the old sources I removed did not just source quotations they were used to source statements. The Atheism article that you mentioned is not comparable to the Beauty article. As the Beauty article already separated ideals of beauty through time periods. Western and Eastern ideas did develop separately but they did not develop independently. There was significant give and take between them. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I understood what you meant, and it's not a good idea. It is customary to present ancient Greek ideas as the basis for much of Western thought about beauty, and we should follow sources. As the section on Chinese philosophy says, "Chinese philosophy has traditionally not made a separate discipline of the philosophy of beauty", so there's little to be added there in a general survey of the subject. If you think I ever proposed adding sections on Ancient China, Medieval China, 1600s China, and Modern China, you are misremembering. "American philosophy" is part of Western philosophy and is unlikely to need a separate section. Encyclopedia articles about abstract ideas are expected to cover the history of the idea: see Love, Time, Wisdom, and Truth for an idea of what a proper article might look like. At 44,000 bytes, Beauty is not unwieldy, and you have not explained why you think trimming the history section helps the reader; your suggestion looks to me like a case of WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. You are correct that the Atheism article is not comparable to the Beauty article; it's a much better article because the history sections haven't been reduced to a single section of no more than 800 words, which seems to be your plan for Beauty. And WP:AGEMATTERS does not say what you say it says.  Ewulp (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles
TrynaMakeADollar, below is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there is a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial topic areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

edit at Karen (pejorative)
This wasn't really necessary. She got it out of her system and the post was five days old. Please don't bite the newbies. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are not places for her to get it "out of her system". That was a totally inappropriate use of the talk page. The post may have been five days old but she may come back and also other users who read the talk page need to understand that what she did was not correct. I didn't "bite" any newbie. I was a bit curt because she created two large sections in the talk page for her rant. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, talk pages aren't for rants. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat a well-intentioned person new to editing with kindness. She was clearly upset, and understandably. It costs us little to try to empathize. She isn't being chronically disruptive. Those posts will archive, and they didn't start a big problematic discussion. Let's err on the side of kindness to people who don't know how we work. —valereee (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
FDW777 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films about misandry


A tag has been placed on Category:Films about misandry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material at Lost Cause of the Confederacy
You claimed the sources don't support "pseudo-history" but both sources in fact do. It's hard to understand why you didn't see it in the Washington Post article, and I'm surprised you had access to the other source - how did you get access? Doug Weller talk 19:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear that I personally agree that the Lost Cause of the Confederacy theory is total BS and also morally wrong. But the Washington Post article appears to be in their magazine and written by a staff writer. The writer of the article is Paul Duggan and he does not appear to have any type of degree in history or any credentials in the study of history. The article also reads more like an opinion piece that is backed up facts, but not really a serious history resource. This article written by Paul Duggan in the Washington Post magazine cannot be reliable in this issue in my opinion.


 * I honestly did not see the second source. It is probably because I made that edit while I was a bit tired. This source appears to be far more reliable because it is written by Tony Horwitz, and he is a distinguished historian. That being said, I think more sources are needed if you are going to totally discredit a theory or belief that is (sadly) held by many Americans in the beginning of the article. The WaPo source needs to be thrown out and replaced with a much more credible one. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ~ to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
gnu 57 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)