User talk:Raladic: Difference between revisions
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
:Just a general observation. |
:Just a general observation. |
||
:The evidence I presented makes it pretty clear that this would typically pass just fine as a primary redirect, but the bar is sadly just often dramatically higher relating to gender or LGBTQ topics. I spend most of my time improving queer representation on n Wikipedia, so at this point, I have had my fair share of such encounters. |
:The evidence I presented makes it pretty clear that this would typically pass just fine as a primary redirect, but the bar is sadly just often dramatically higher relating to gender or LGBTQ topics. I spend most of my time improving queer representation on n Wikipedia, so at this point, I have had my fair share of such encounters. I think the most markedly one was the wild ride that the discussions of the essay of [[WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA]] was and the attempts by some users to get it deleted. |
||
:I would have appreciated a more detailed close rationale on your close, instead of no comment close, though of why you discounted the presented PT1 and convenience without comment, which did see support from some people, even someone with a weak oppose. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
:I would have appreciated a more detailed close rationale on your close, instead of no comment close, though of why you discounted the presented PT1 and convenience without comment, which did see support from some people, even someone with a weak oppose. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 02:27, 20 November 2024
| This is Raladic's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2 |
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Raladic. You have created this page and transcluded it onto the recall page, but I have removed the transclusion. Namely, there's no need to advertise RRfA like this, because like all RfAs they are highly visible, and there's no need to mirror what was done for the petitions (transcluded list) which aren't advertised anywhere else; a list of RRfAs is already at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions -- updating manually at an additional place is unnecessary and duplicative. This makes the page orphaned, so I believe that it should be deleted. If you agree that it should, G7 should still work. —Alalch E. 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- RFAs are advertised, but since these are RFAs as a result of the recall, I do feel that having them listed at the WP:RECALL page is worthwhile for convenience.
- And another editor @Stephen helped fix the sentence case, which I take as agreeing that this sentence s a useful addition to the page.
- Maybe revert your undo and take to the Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall page to see if other editors feel like it’s useful or not? Raladic (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Please raise for discussion.
Regarding the protected Sarah McBride page—and you may feel free to post this in its entirety at that article's Talk page—
It is utterly unhelpful that protections against vandalism at that page extend to the Talk page. As such, unregistered editors are prevented from posting proposed changes to content. As such, the encyclopedia is hurt in its loss of a reasonable pathway by which its errors might be civilly and charitably brought to its attention.
A simple and relevant case, which we would have repaired (had the article not been protected), or posted to Talk (had it been appropriately semi-protected):
The section, "Early life and education" terminates with an end-of-paragraph inline citation that simply does not support the content appearing in that paragraph. In fact, that source is poor, both because it does not begin to cover the information appearing in the paragraph—place of birth, DOB, parents' names, father's and mother's occupations, i.e., it supports none of the purported factual material in the paragraph—and because, even were to support content, the source is ostensibly autobiographical, and so neither independent, nor third party, as called for by WP:VERIFY. (The source is a self-authored biography post at an employer-type webpage, whose content is either authored by, or is under the control of, the title subject.)
These contentions are supported as follows, but let the following also be said: Protecting Talk pages so that formal edit requests cannot be made there by non-logging editors is contrary to our founding principles, and is a practice that was essentially never seen prior to the last few years. While it may make sense to restrict the article space content to maintain the presentability of the article per se, there is no reasonable justification to stifle productive discourse.
The only argument in favor might be that most vandalism arises from non-logging accounts, but that has always been the case, and extending protection to Talk fully disenfrachises non-logging editors, including those not guilty of any malfeasance. For that reason it can be argued (alongside its never having been practiced early in our history) that such Talk restrictions are contrary to the founding intents, practices, and principles of the encyclopedia (and we are old enough to state this with confidence).
Finally, we are a editor with an account, but edit alongside many who haven't one, and so post this message to you, for application at the Sarah McBride Talk page, on their behalf.
With regard, an editor with many tens of thousands of unreverted and thus persistent, encyclopedia-supportive edits. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The content of the article paragraph referenced is this:
Sarah McBride was born in Wilmington, Delaware, to David and Sally McBride on August 9, 1990. Her father was a lawyer for Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor and her mother was a guidance counselor and a founder of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts.
- The citation content, in its entirety, with forward slashed indicating paragraph breaks, reads:
Background / Cab Calloway School of Arts, 2009 / Bachelor's degree, Government, American University, 2013 / State Senator / Senator Sarah McBride represents the First State Senate District, which includes Claymont, Bellefonte, and parts of Edgemoor and Wilmington. / Raised in Wilmington in the First Senate District, she graduated from Cab Calloway School of the Arts and American University. / She has been involved in community advocacy for most of her life, including working for former Governor Jack Markell, the late Attorney General Beau Biden, and as a White House intern during the Obama Administration. Most recently, she served as a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ equal rights organization. / Prior to her service in the State Senate, McBride led the successful effort to pass a landmark non-discrimination law in Delaware, worked with state leaders to expand health care covered by Medicaid, and championed legislation protecting vulnerable youth from child abuse. / McBride has taught public policy at the University of Delaware and is the author of the 2018 memoir, “Tomorrow Will Be Different.” / For her work and advocacy, former Gov. Markell awarded McBride the Order of the First State, making her one of the youngest Delawareans granted the state’s highest civilian honor. When McBride was elected in November 2020, succeeding former state Senator Harris B. McDowell III, she became the first openly transgender state senator in American history. / As a state senator, McBride has passed legislation expanding access to health care, requiring mental health and media literacy education in public schools, promoting green technologies, and protecting workers and families. In just her first term, McBride passed the landmark Healthy Delaware Families Act, providing paid family and medical leave to workers throughout the First State and marking the largest expansion of Delaware's social safety net in decades. / She currently serves as chair of the Senate Health & Social Services Committee and is a member of the Senate Housing Committee, Senate Corrections & Public Safety Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Joint Legislative Oversight and Sunset Committee. / Sarah married her late husband Andrew Cray in 2014 and is the proud aunt of Juliette, Theo, Bennett, Sydney, Ben and Addison.
- From the foregoing, it should be clear that the citation does not properly support the paragraph to which it affixed, and is otherwise a poor choice (as having been penned either by the title subject, of by staff reporting to her, such that its content is under her control).
- Per WP:VERIFY, please facilitate hiding or removing the source, and replacing it with a source that actually supports the content of each factual assertion of the section. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, to address the reason for why this talk page is now semi-protected, it is because there was an outsizedly large amount of BLP violations happening on the talk page, that required Revision Deletion as you can see from the Talk page history - this is a big problem and because of it, the talk page had to be protected, as the BLP in question has recently gotten increased attention following their election to Congress. We of course appreciate editing from both registered and IP editors, but Wikipedia is large, so if you feel you'd like to provide continued improvements to this article, then there's the simple path to WP:REGISTER an account to contribute to the talk page.
- Now with regards to the content you say has problems, note that WP:ABOUTSELF of the WP:V policy does allow some limited self-published ressources, the paragraph in question is about her backstory and does not contain unduly self-serving or exceptional claims, so it is fine to use as a source. In any case, I added two more sources now to support the parents. Next time if you'd like an edit, please help with bringing the sources for it. Raladic (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Concerns regarding a comment on Talk:Trans
As I was closing the RM for Trans as "not moved", I noticed this comment that you made in replying to an opponent of the move:
Not that I was surprised to encounter [opposition], which is why I was well equipped with the evidence that would easily pass for any other topic based on the evidence, but sadly, improving LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia to address the WP:Systemic Bias against LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#LGBTQ_coverage still faces outsized opposition for no reason.
I came here not to indict you, but simply to ask for clarification—is the purpose of this comment to allege that your opponent is personally opposed to LGBT rights, or merely an observation? If the latter, may I ask why this led you to assume people would oppose this move? JJPMaster (she/they) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just a general observation.
- The evidence I presented makes it pretty clear that this would typically pass just fine as a primary redirect, but the bar is sadly just often dramatically higher relating to gender or LGBTQ topics. I spend most of my time improving queer representation on n Wikipedia, so at this point, I have had my fair share of such encounters. I think the most markedly one was the wild ride that the discussions of the essay of WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA was and the attempts by some users to get it deleted.
- I would have appreciated a more detailed close rationale on your close, instead of no comment close, though of why you discounted the presented PT1 and convenience without comment, which did see support from some people, even someone with a weak oppose. Raladic (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)