user talk:Bluerasberry

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #104

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Noam Cohen

Wikipedia:Noam Cohen, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Noam Cohen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Noam Cohen during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Human Rights Revival

Hi! I recently posted at WikiProject Human rights about the lack of activity on the project and its being labeled as "semi-active". I noticed that you are a member of the project, and would like to get your input if possible. See my post on the Talk page, and if you have insight into possibly reviving the project or have any thoughts about it, feel free to comment. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

New merge/notability discussion at Brian Thompson (businessman)

Hello there! I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). That discussion was closed without an ultimate consensus decision for procedural reasons. There is a new discussion open on the article talk page, and all participants in the prior move discussion are encouraged to participate. Thank you! Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ to LGBTQ+

Hi, I see that it seems you were instrumental in getting pages changed from LGBT to LGBTQ. I was thinking it would be beneficial if we alerted this to LGBTQ+. The acronym for LGBTQ doesn't account for aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, or non-binary people. I think using "+" would account for all these and more without the need for a long acronym like LGBTIQA (which itself omits non-binary). It would also help negate future moving over "why include Q but not A" etc. Many of the pages using LGBTQ in their title cover aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, and/or non-binary, so I think this would be most relevant and applicable. However, I can't really get my head around how to instigate a discussion for a mass move like this and was wondering if I could please have your help in doing this? Helper201 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Lane talks about LGBT/LGBTQ, and the +

@Helper201: Thanks for writing. Some topics are too complicated to discuss in text discussion. I made a video sharing my thoughts on this, check it out.

If you want I can talk by voice / video.

The way to build a strong case for the plus is to demonstrate off-wiki acceptance of the plus. I do not think that acceptance exists. It would be unusual and unprecedented, but I still think merited for Wikipedia, to add the plus. I think the reasons you state are compelling. Check the video then get back to me on where to take the conversation. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Bluerasberry. I'm perfectly fine hearing your responses in video, audio, text or whatever medium is most comfortable for you to communicate in, so please do what is most comfortable for you. Apologies but text replies are my only real way of communicating back, so hopefully you are okay with this or you have a system to help in this regard like text-to-speech.

I think you bring up many good points in the video. I especially agree with your statement regarding the importance of representation from outside mainstream western media, like the inclusion of two-spirit, Faʻafafine, fakafifine, takatāpui, vakasalewalewa, māhū or palopa as some examples. All of these aren't included within LGBT or LGBTQ, along with those I previously mentioned above.

Was a strong case for an off-wiki acceptance of LGBTQ brought about during discussions when switching from LGBT to LGBTQ? I'm aware of you mentioning this in the video but don't recall seeing anyone explicitly displaying or laying out these sources. When covering this ground I think we should also be careful not to violate WP:HITS. Its most important we have the most inclusive acronym possible in my view, which I think "+" solves this goal. I noted you mentioned this in the video too, starting at 1:40. As you mentioned there's no one organisation speaking for the whole demographic spectrum but I believe that "+" is the most non-controversial, all-encompassing and inclusive term that has known usage.

I also agree with you regarding the importance of an article for queer. Apologies if I'm missing something but would this not be covered by WP:BOLD? Regardless, I don't think this inhibits a change to LGBTQ+. I also don't think there's really been any major hiccups in the change from LGBT to LGBTQ, so I think the change to LGBTQ+ should also work fairly smoothly. Where would be best for us to place this discussion to involve other editors? Not that I'm not comfortable in continuing the discussion here with you, I just think involving more editors could be helpful in gathering further input.

All the best. Helper201 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: All these hundreds of thousands of changes have their basis in this discussion - Talk:LGBTQ/Archive_4#Requested_move_14_August_2024. I challenged the close decision of that discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#LGBTQ. The result was confirming that LGBT->LGBTQ.

I think the case for moving to LGBTQ was strong by typical Wikipedia standards, but also, I do not think typical Wikipedia decision making processes apply to this situation. The reason I do not think they apply is because in this case, the topic "LGBT" refers to something international and timeless, but the huge number of sources cited refer to contemporary Western perspectives. Also, the main argument was count of term usage, when I think a better argument would have been looking at sources which specifically try to define either LGBT or queer. I am in favor of the term being international and applying to everyone who is non-cis non-hetero, which is not the direction I see in the name change.

If you were to argue for adding the plus, then I expect that people would ask you to show sources as a precedent, and I do not think strong sources exist which argue for the plus. In my opinion, the article "queer" is not compliant with Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, because we do not have a definition for the way that article is framed there. I complained in Talk:Queer/Archive_3#International_use_for_pre-modern_sexual_minorities. I think the same bending of rules to use the term "queer" would also exclude the plus. The current Wikipedia use of the Q is to use that as the plus. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)