Green Dragon Pride
Welcome Green Dragon Pride!
I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 edit
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to RSVP does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions! Ed6767 talk! 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived edit
|
Hi Green Dragon Pride! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Goodbye Town—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Materialscientist: The band changed their name to Lady A in support of Black Lives Matter, so I'm changing the articles to reflect that. Green Dragon Pride (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived edit
|
|
Hi Green Dragon Pride! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Crocodile Dundee edit
Hello,
I didn't make any "unconstructive edits" to the Crocodile Dundee page. As I explained in my edit comment, the two sections are virtually identical, and it's hugely redundant to keep the same information twice on the same page. I'm not looking for an edit war -- I was just trying to clean up the page. Please compare the two sections -- you'll see what I mean.
Thanks. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The Lead sentence, the lead, and the body edit
Green Dragon Pride, you're still quite new here, and it does take a while to learn the sometimes arcane rules around here. I reverted your changes at Conversion therapy a second time, and before you try again, you should probably know a few basics. The welcome message left for you above by Ad Orientem is actually worth going through and following the links to learn about some of our basic policies.
The lead is a summary, a "mini-version" of the article, if you will, and not a journalism-style introduction. Since it's a summary of the rest of the article, it often doesn't make sense to head straight for the lead. Normally the sequence is, change something in the body, then bring the lead into line. The first sentence defines the topic, and says what it is about. The rest of the lead summarizes the whole article.
You recently made changes to the WP:LEADSENTENCE of Conversion therapy on two occasions: here, and here. In the first case, you tried to add gender identity to the definition. But of all the many references in the body of the article, none of them talk about changing gender identity (i.e., converting someone from transgender to cisgender) through treatement. Maybe there have, in fact, been cases where they tried to do that; in that case, the proper approach would be to find reliable reports about it, add a section to the body, and only then, summarize that information in the lead. It's true that the body of the article has numerous references about different countries outlawing therapy that would attempt to change someone's gender identity without saying that this has ever occurred, so if you wanted to add a statement about laws around the world regarding attempting to change gender identity, you could (only that appears to be coverd in the lead already; perhaps it could be expanded, if not too WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.
In the second case, you again made a change to the lead sentence, which previously said,
Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.
and dropped some key terms, so that it now read
Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.
along with the edit summary, "...due to the existence of other sexual orientation terms such as pansexual and asexual I think it seems best not to specify what it is being changed from."
While not wrong, your new version is less precise, and it leaves out a crucial aspect of many sources in the article describing what conversion therapy really is, namely, the attempted conversion of gay people to straight. But worse, it seems to be motivated by your personal opinion or feelings of what "is best" rather than what the sources say. There is simply no evidence that conversion therapy was ever used for pansexual or asexual people; however, if you have or can find reliable evidence to the contrary, we can by all means add that to the article. But in that case, let's start by adding that to the body first; once that settles down, we can think about how to adjust the lead, if necessary.
At this point, I hope you won't try to change the lead again, especially not the lead sentence. It's okay that you tried; Wikipedia is about being WP:BOLD; so it's fine to try things out. That said, when you get some pushback, that's the time to discuss with your fellow editors to try and reach a consensus, and the place to do that, is on the article talk page. This is both to avoid something called edit warring, as well as to adhere to the principle of WP:BRD—Bold, Revert, Discuss. Your bold edits have been Reverted, so now you should Discuss it on the talk page, not try another change to the lead.
It's hard for a new editor to get on board, by paying attention solely to the lead. I would recommend trying your changes first to the body of whatever article interests you, and see how that is accepted, or not, by other editors first. Once you get a high rate of accepted edits, then you can start making concomitant changes to the lead. That also adheres to the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY guideline. That would be my advice, but it's your choice. Feel free to talk to me here ({{ping}} me in that case, please) or on my Talk page. Hope this helps. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I just noticed that besides Conversion Therapy, you've also edited Sex assignment and Transphobia. There are some things you need to know about editing gender-related articles. Following is a standard notice about this. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there are a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
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. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks for the message. My goal with those edits was to be a little more inclusive, since it can be a problem for people with LGBTQ+ identities like mine that are beyond the original LGBT when sexual orientation is narrowly defined by only those letters, especially in things like discrimination protections. I understand where you're coming from though, so I think it is a good idea to use the talk page before significant changes. I will look at the references if they are available online to see what they say before doing anything else similar. Green Dragon Pride (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I fully understand. And, yes, for the talk page. There are many others like us, but we just need to understand and put Wikipedia's concerns first, remembering that it is an encyclopedia (hence, a WP:TERTIARY source) based on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Within those definitions, and a few rules (Wikipedia calls them "policies and guidelines") about WP:Verifiability, Neutral point of view, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and a few others, you can gradually add things that take into account your concerns, as long as they adhere to the rules. Many others here can help. You can ask at the article talk pages, or at the LGBT Project. If you have a specific question, or an LGBT-related issue you'd like to discuss, that's the place to do it. People there will be glad to answer your questions or help you on any topic relating to LGBT+. If you do, {{ping}} me there, so I can follow along, and maybe respond. For general questions about Wikipedia, try the Tea House. Glad to have you here, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Transport edit
I saw on your user page that you're interested in transportation. Wikipedia has what we call "Projects" where people of like mind get together, to discuss how to improve articles about their area of interest, and create new ones. One such project, is called Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. You could have a look around there, and maybe at its talk page (click the 'Talk' tab at the top of the Project page), and see what's going on there. There are probably other WikiProjects for other transportation areas as well. You can try searching for some here, to find people and articles interested in the same things. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
dana boyd's name edit
You reverted the changes I made on the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society's page. You shouldn't capitalize dana boyd and I explained that when I made the correction. Take some time to read her own explanation: https://www.danah.org/name.html. She is a very public person, maybe you should know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.178.75.233 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Notice edit
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
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.
Please note that 2020 United States presidential election is under special restrictions, and there is considerable discussion on the talk page about how and when to add results. – bradv🍁 16:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |