User talk:Scientelensia/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

November 2022

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kyle Walker, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have done so, thank you. Citations have been added which I believe along with the statement will improve the article. Scientelensia (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary alert for J. K. Rowling

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

See also WP:WIAFA, WP:FAOWN and Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1; please gain consensus before adding content previously discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Please engage Talk:J. K. Rowling and do not continue inserting text without gaining consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough – but I also support demonstrating how Rowling is supported by some as well as condemned, and I feel that the article rather unhelpful lay only concentrates on negative reactions. However, she has been nominated for the Guardian Person of the Year (twice) among other things, and I believe that more than one view can share a place on an article to avoid misleading people. Scientelensia (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Scientelensia. Thank you.

I am concerned that you are not understanding how Wikipedia works, and the importance of gaining consensus for your edits on the article talk page. Please respond at the thread above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry yes! I am quite new to the platform. Regarding new edits, should I ask people on the talk page before I add information? Thank you :D Scientelensia (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Scientelensia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah thank you!! Scientelensia (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tol were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't think reactions specifically are notable enough for their own article; this should likely be folded into existing content.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you but after suggesting this on said page it was determined this was not needed. However, I think this information is useful and interesting, and as there are so many actors who have commented, I thought it should be its own page. Scientelensia (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Scientelensia you just don't seem to be understanding Wikipedia yet. The best thing you can do for yourself is to slow down, and stop re-instating edits once you have been reverted. This is occurring across multiple articles now. You are also mis-stating (above) the issue about the actors who have spoken out re JKR's stance on the proposed changes to Scottish gender laws. The content is in the article, and given its due weight, in a footnote, where each actor is mentioned. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Hollywood tabloid, and content here must not only be well sourced for example, Washingtontimes is not a high-quality source), it should also be written with due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I just realised I confused the Washington Times with the New York Times, thanks for pointing it out. I can assure you I will slow down. Recently I've been working on a village I know a lot about, maybe that sort of this would be better suited for me. Scientelensia (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lord Voldemort, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. Scientelensia (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll do that now, sorry and thank you for your civility (which is somewhat rare on this platform)

D Scientelensia (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to LGBT in Islam. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132

Your edit to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132 was reverted by another editor. At the top of that page it says: "This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page". - David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed that before and have moved the edit to the relevant position. Scientelensia (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from gender-related disputes and from people associated with gender-related disputes for twelve months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Best wishes for the New Year

I’m sorry to see you have been topic-banned from gender matters. But you must now observe this very strictly, or you will be blocked from editing. If in doubt, don’t do the edit. I sympathise with the problems you have been having with the other editor – I have had similar problems. They are impossible to deal with. But look on the bright side – anything to do with gender is contentious on Wikipedia, and there is an enormous amount of unpleasantness in this area. Since you will now not be editing in this area for a year, you will be avoiding all the unpleasantness. In other areas, Wikipedia editors can be quite pleasant. I hope you don’t give up editing Wikipedia. And have a happy New Year! Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that’s really nice of you! And I agree, this way I avoid all those unpleasant sorts of people and I won’t disregard this ban. I don’t think I will give up on Wikipedia, the majority of it is very nice and it is users like you that make it this way!

Happy New Year! Scientelensia (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saldanha. 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) 06:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Scientelensia!

Happy New Year!

Scientelensia,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! You too!! Scientelensia (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth Brontë (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources cited are all primary, with the exception of the Oxford Companion, which alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.

There has previously been an article on Elizabeth Brontë, which suffered from the same problem of lack of notability, and which was a couple of years ago replaced with a redirect to Brontë family. Therefore, unless sources can be found which establish notability beyond any doubt, my suggestion would be to add the salient points of this draft to the existing Brontë family article instead.

I will also add a personal note: given that Elizabeth died at such a young age, I suspect she is genuinely not notable, despite coming from such a noteworthy family; alas, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elizabeth Brontë and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Scientelensia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo

I suggest you revert your recent thoughts on the article on the bill. Topic bans cover Talk pages as well as articles. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Scientelensia (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you've given considerable thought to this - but as I should have said, topic bans apply to all pages. And please see WP:PROXYING. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you. Scientelensia (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Scientelensia, my concern about your editing continues to be principally one of WP:IDHT—that you just don't seem to read and take on board the seriousness of our policies and guidelines here, nor do you appear to even read the things posted to you.

After your topic ban from gender-related subjects, you were warned about your edits at Kate Forbes above, and your response was to lodge a personal attack on the editor who informed you (i know you are obsessed in such topics). You can strike comments that you should not have made when problems are pointing out by enclosing the comment in strike tags (<s> text </s>). Or if you don't know how to use Wiki markup, an apology can fill the gap.

Now, in this section, another editor has informed you that topic bans apply to talk pages, and suggested you revert your talk addition at Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland). Now worse, you asked another editor to proxy for you, which has the effect of skirting around your topic ban, and had they done so, would have gotten Sweet6970 into trouble as well. (Sweet6970 removed your request to them to proxy and I see that an IP reverted the talk page post.)

I am willing to accept that you may not yet understand all of our policies, and they can be a lot to take on, but I continue to be concerned, not so much with the quality of your commentary and content additions (which can be quite good), but that you do not seem willing to read, digest, or take on the board the need to take Wikipedia seriously. I'm happy that Sweet6970 is watching out for you, but you don't seem to be internalizing the need to slow down or understand how serious a topic ban is. I was going to notify the admins from your arb enforcement case about this, and you would likely have been blocked, until I realized you probably had removed the talk page post as an IP, which is good;[1] I suggest you also might deal with the personal attack in the section above, and please read thoroughly all of the info posted to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that I couldn’t post my thoughts on this subject on my talk page.

Have a good day,

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban means don't touch or comment on gender-related issues (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. That is, as the notice above said, when in doubt, don't post it. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it does! I was mistaken as I thought it only applied on the pages themselves. Scientelensia (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, may I ask whether a ban from “gender-related disputes” relates to sexual violence or anything concerning sex – for instance, information on a trafficker. I thought not as the first is about culture wars whereas the second is not, but just thought to check. Scientelensia (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)