User talk:WanderingWanda

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Talking to yourself is said to be a sign of impending mental collapse." -Zork WanderingWanda (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comma poem

Hi Wanda. I hope you weren't irked by my deletion of your poem on the MoS talk page (it was immediately restored, and I didn't protest other than to repeat my assertion that it didn't rhyme, which is why I'd jokingly deleted it), or by my addition of "Burma-Shave " afterwards (which you can delete if you wish), and if you were irked I apologize. The reason I'm here now is to ask whether you might consider deleting "feel" from the fourth line, as I'm disturbed by the effect this has on the meter. On another note, I'm surprised to see that SMcCandlish has posted a DS notice on your page as well as mine. You have my sympathy if you too find this somewhat rattling, but I will refrain from further comment on this here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roy, I jumped when I saw the notice but I don't necessarily mind an editor posting a neutral notice like that if they feel it's appropriate. The "poem" was just a silly play on the lyrics of Karma Police by Radiohead. I don't mind you deleting it or playing around with it. Thanks for stopping by :) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Wanda! –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A correction to the record

In a recent discussion, an editor said I've only been here since January. I want to state, for the record, this is not true. I made a very important contribution to an article years ago that was, sadly, not appreciated as it should have been. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Considering we started editing regularly around the same time, I have seen you grow much faster than myself! You had a wonderful RfC, and now you've gone and already successfully navigated the landmine that is ANI!! You have my admiration for that feat. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks MJL! My very first Barnstar!! WanderingWanda (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A serious error

Wow, in all my year of editing Wikipedia, I've never seen something in an article as incorrect as this:

...it may even be that tasks, like editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images or participating in a discussion, are nowhere near as difficult as you might think and don't actually require extensive experience or a degree in wikiology.

Next you'll tell me a newbie could start an RfC. Can you imagine such a thing? RfCs are basically rocket science. You have to copy a bit of code and paste it at the top and everything. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:STEM School Shooting

Respectfully want to notify you transtrender of the ongoing consensus discussion in the article's talk page, since you were previously involved in the discussion and since I would like to avoid an edit war with you and NewImpartial. Thank you. LilySophie (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

LilySophie: "transtrender"?? WanderingWanda (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Note: I'm leaving a more detailed comment about this on Lily's talk page.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

Regarding this notification to WikiProject Feminism, which was selectively sent a partisan group likely to hold particular known views:

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Masculism#Requested move 13 May 2019. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

I would advice reverting yourself. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The notice was neutrally worded and feminism and masculism are obviously closely related. I've also posted a notice to the Men's Rights Movement article. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not a "balance" - BOTH notices are canvassing as they are intended to reach editors with known viewpoints. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, Wanda never used the term "balance" in describing their notification efforts. They were probably making a point that you missed which was that this activity is clearly within WP:APPNOTE. They are intended to inform people of a discussion that is relevant to them based off interest in this topic area. (talk page stalker) -MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Firstly, its generally rare for any specific RM to have notifications posted on talk pages. This RM in particular is about a simple spelling difference. Selective notification of WikiProjects can be WP:Votestacking when one can reasonably expect that WikiProject to hold certain views. Note that I did not complain about the post on WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, which this does fall under and is supposed to have balanced participants (even though I still think all talk page notifications for this low-level of an RM is indiscriminately, disruptive, and unnecessary). We don't have to invite the whole encyclopedia to a minor RM about spelling - but in particular we should not invite groups diametrically opposed to the topic area of that RM. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the conversation is no longer just "a minor RM about spelling". What you're saying here boils down to "I don't want the Masculism templates to have any scrutiny". WanderingWanda (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If you truly believe that and you think you're conforming to Wikipedia etiquette, then post links to it everywhere. Don't stop now. WP:VP, every single article talk page of every article on the template, every WikiProject about gender, sexuality, or society... please by all means. No matter what, its still a simple RM about spelling. But go ahead and turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let me just warn you that you've been here since January and have tended to disrupt several processes, talk pages, and articles. Its starting to look like you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to inject your views into it. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: It is correct that some of us were not here at the dawn of AN/I, but that's no reason to be spoken down to like this. I kindly ask you refrain from biting my peer and treat them with the appropriate amount of good faith. We all are just trying to do what we think is right in this manner, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make article edits to make a point

The concerns you raised with respect to the templates in question here [[1]] are valid enough to warrant discussion. However, when you raise the question then decide to act on your POV without considering the views of others it crosses into disruptive/agenda pushing. It would be best to open a discussion at some neutral location, let the discussion come to a conclusion then act. Springee (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite feedback, however, I think your read on the situation is a little uncharitable. My edits to Man were intended, above all, to make the article better, and WP:BOLD encourages us to make bold improvements rather than just talking about them. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You replied to Springee that "My edits to Man were intended, above all, to make the article better" yet elsewhere you stated "I went ahead and added the Feminism sidebar to Man. (As for the idea that people might laugh at it, well, I figure it is good to spread laughter in the world!)". I'm sorry, but 'for the lulz' is WP:Trolling, not contribution. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just having a bit of fun in response to your over-the-top comment on that page:

I'm almost tempted to say go ahead because I'd love to see the laughs at Wikipedia's expense when screenshots of Feminism sidebars and iconography being used on male-specific articles gets spread around.

In retrospect I shouldn't have been so flippant. In any case, to be clear, I added the feminism template for the reason I posted on that page, and not for the "lulz":

The goal of feminism is equality of the genders and therefore it concerns males as well as females.

WanderingWanda (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Wanda. I see you added yourself as a participant to WikiProject Men as I was typing out my MfD nomination of it. I described it as a one-participant project–should I revise my nomination to "two-participant"? Leviv ich 15:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, yeah that's funny. You can revise if you'd like! But I did leave a comment explaining the situation on the nomination page. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Let's avoid adding the project to multiple articles until the deletion discussion is concluded. Thanks in advance. El_C 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I won't add it to any more articles. (I may, unless you or anyone else objects, add a talk page notice about the deletion discussion and the project in general to a few pages that I've already added the template to.) WanderingWanda (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine — a few. Thanks again. El_C 20:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I just hope someone appreciates the Shane reference I made in the Genderqueer discussion

because I'm proud of it. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Archive of messages I left on Flyer22 Reborn's talk page

Extended content

Link 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. ⚠️ Making LGBT users feel unwelcome Hi Flyer22, I'd like to remind you that WP:NPA prohibits the following: 1. Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on...sexual orientation [or] gender identity...directed against another editor or a group of editors. 2. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views Your recent statement in Talk:Genderqueer, to me, skirts dangerously close to saying that the input of editors who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are not welcome or valued. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, however, your post nevertheless made me quite uncomfortable. I'll quote a portion of it: WP:LGBT, which has already pulled in LGBT people, was already notified. And "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" obviously does not mean that many or all related pages should be notified. This topic has a lot of related pages, and each one will just bring in more and more LGBT editors of those pages. Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Can you imagine saying "you shouldn't notify such-and-such a project, it will just bring in more black editors" or "you shouldn't do that, it will just bring in more woman editors"? Please be more thoughtful in the future. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC) The discussion above 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. Link 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. ⚠️ Your hostility towards me Hi Flyer, per WP:NPA, when interacting with me please make more of an effort to Comment on content, not on the contributor so that everyone can enjoy a collegial atmosphere. Per WP:HAR, please remember that Wikipedia encourages a civil community. In the future, please assume good faith, avoid making broad statements about me or my motivations, avoid bringing up past disagreements that aren't relevant to the current discussion, avoid making unfounded accusations, and avoid demeaning me. Inappropriate accusation Here you accused me of being a sockpuppet, in a discussion about the lead image for Woman. given our history of butting heads (which may be longer than can be observed if you used a previous Wikipedia account) and that I don't trust you, I don't know why you keep referring to me or addressing me, WanderingWanda. This is an unfounded and untrue accusation. While you are free to talk about any concerns you have with me on my talk page (or open an investigation at WP:SPI) it is inappropriate for you to make an allegation like that during a random talk page discussion. Genderqueer discussion 1. Here, in a disagreement on the Genderqueer page, you brought up an unrelated discussion in an unconstructive way. 2. Here you said Don't be fooled by WanderingWanda's argument. I took offense to your word "fooled", as I was not attempting to fool, trick, or deceive anyone, but instead I was making good faith arguments and backing them up with sources. When I made it clear I was uncomfortable with your word choice, you chose to double down: I see no reason that I shouldn't state that editors should not be fooled by your argument. Human sexual activity discussion In a good faith effort to improve the Human sexual activity article, I added a single image that you objected to. Whether or not your objections were valid, you should have discussed them with me in a collegial way. If you did, I would've been happy to engage with you and listen. I am always consensus minded and always open to discussion. Instead, though, you went on the offensive. First, in your edit summaries, you brought up an unrelated discussion and broadly attacked my motivations. Link: And since you cited MOS:SHOCKVALUE and WP:GRATUITOUS at Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language, you are well aware of not going with images that our readers likely won't expect. Wikipedia is not the place to be trying to combat supposed heteronormativity. Link: per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia is not the place for your WP:Advocacy. Next, on the talk page, rather than focus on the specific problems you had with the image, you made sweeping claims about my motivations, and then you brought up the possibility of me being banned. All this for a single, good faith addition to an article. Link: Every time we get editors doing what you are trying to do, they get reprimanded...whether via a warning, a WP:Topic ban or a site ban. Then, you once again brought up an unrelated disagreement. Link: You tried the same "let's go against the grain" thing at the Woman article. I noted there that "WP:LEADIMAGE is about trying to find a representative image. Sometimes a traditional or stereotypical image is more representative to the masses." Your issue is that you keep trying to "enlighten" readers or broaden readers' expectations. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow the majority or mainstream; we do not lead. Next, you compared me to an editor who apparently liked to post images of peeing penises to articles. I took this as an attempt to demean me and found it completely inappropriate. Link: I mentioned what I did regarding a warning, a topic ban or a site ban, because, like I noted, we do not edit like you are editing. We are not supposed to do that. And editors who do that have been warned, indefinitely blocked, or banned. Reading this editor's talk page, for example, it's easy to see how their advocacy to try to go against the majority or mainstream views on sexuality, and their penchant for adding WP:GRATUITOUS images when less offensive, equally alternatives exist, got them in a world of trouble. That editor, who disagrees with how certain or all paraphilias are viewed medically and by general society, was even recently blocked for returning to the same behavior after being given another chance. As many on this site know, I am against advocacy on Wikipedia. This is not an exhaustive list. An apology for your hostility would be appreciated. However, if one isn't forthcoming, that's OK. The important thing to me is just that it does not continue. Your poor behaviour towards me doesn't just affect me, but poisons the atmosphere of the community. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) The discussion above 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. Additional problems On the Genderqueer talk page, once again, Flyer choses to air our dirty laundry in the middle of a talk page discussion. In this case they bring up the allegation that an edit I made on another article constituted hounding. (The allegation is neither true nor was it in any way relevant to discussion.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC) On my talk page, Flyer did the 'watch out, I know some admins' routine. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If this were me, I would not seek this matter further, Wanda. It's very troubling to say the least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean but, in any case, I have no plans for further action at this time. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious - why are you archiving and keeping a record of your harassment of Flyer? If I were you, I'd be keeping this as quiet as possible and hope that other editors soon forgot about it. Curved Space (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious why you chose to message me with an alternate account instead of your primary account? WanderingWanda (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice attempt to divert attention there from you to me. It should be obvious why: Your harassment of Flyer takes place on articles uniquely edited and watched by this account. It would be effectively outing myself to use my alternate (not "primary") account to message you completely out of the blue with no connection or obvious reason why I'd done so or been made aware of your actions.

Your edit history shows you to be a generally valid and good editor, so I presume Flyer has just rubbed you up the wrong way in this instance. Unfortunately, you also appear to be in the wrong (or at least the minority) with regard to such potentially controversial articles - hence I'd not draw attention to the fact. But, well, it's your call y'all. Curved Space (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether I'm right or wrong about "controversial articles" is irrelevant – my message was about Flyer22's behavior towards me, not about the content of articles. And I haven't engaged in harassment. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer probably thinks their behavior was acceptable as well. It's all down to individual perspective isn't it? Or, possibly more accurately - other peoples perspective of any given situation. And incidentally - talking about controversial articles, I've reverted you on Missionary position because changes there on wording (especially when qualified with a hidden note as they were) should really be proposed on the talk page before instigating Curved Space (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the archive where the term is discussed in more detail. Curved Space (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Polemic

I arrived here after noticing the attempt at Missionary position to promote a bunch of things that people might do to the lead. The above sections violate WP:POLEMIC and must either be used within the next few days to raise a case at a noticeboard against the named editor, or must be removed. Please do not make us go through the fuss of a deletion discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Targeting articles I edit

Just letting you know (from those watching your contributions after your posts on my talk page) that I received emails that you are now clearly planning to target articles that I edit, like different editors have after getting into significant dispute with me. This never goes well for editors, as seen at WP:ANI. My talk page watchers were expecting this to happen after our interaction on my talk page because it has happened to me times before. I have received word from two admins that if you suddenly start popping up at articles that I significantly edit, then you can expect to be reprimanded for WP:Hounding. Just letting you know now. You clearly took what I stated in this edit summary as a challenge, and two admins thus far have seen it that way. You thanking me via WP:Echo for that edit summary was also seen as unwise. I am preparing a WP:ANI report since it seems likely you are determined to now fly right into my orbit.

Also, thank you, Curved Space. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in specifically targeting articles you edit as I'd rather not interact with you, given your extreme and unwarranted hostility towards me. (If you're referring to my recent edit on the missionary position article, for example, I found it by looking through Curved Space's history, not yours.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No. It is no coincidence that after our heated interaction, you went right to this, this, this and this. I predicted that you would go to a sexual topic article, likely the Sexual intercourse article, after our interaction. My talk page watchers predicted the same. Like I stated, a WP:ANI report is very likely coming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: filing an ANI report: either do it or don't do it, but I don't want to keep hearing threats about it, please. Re: all those edits, jiminy crickets on a cracker, they were all related to a single change I wanted to make the missionary position article. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Pop up at more articles that I significantly edit, and I will file that ANI report. It's not a threat. It's just that I have been through this a number of times, and I am tired of it. So predictable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have never, and will never, hound someone. I've never looked at your edit history and I don't care to look at it. At the same time, I'm also not going to avoid an article just because you happen to edit it, and if that's what you're hoping for, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to be pushed around like that. We both have the same right to be here. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what others stated as well. It's one thing to show up at an article that I edit or have edited. It's another to show up at one that I significantly edit, and right after we've gotten into a heated altercation. The community will not be agreeing with your "oh, I just happened to pop up at this article that Flyer significantly edits" explanation. They especially won't buy it if keeps happening, and so soon after our biggest altercation yet. But if you must test the waters...

Oh, and choosing to edit an article because you see that I significantly edit it is also WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've also never chosen to edit an article because I saw that you edit it. (What, you think I ever say to myself: "you know what I want to do today? Get endlessly and unfairly berated by Flyer22! Oh boy, I can't wait!") WanderingWanda (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Others have. Why do you think my talk page watchers predicted your actions before they happened? Some people just like to be in my orbit after we've had a heated altercation. It's like clockwork. It's why I mention it on my user page/talk page. One notorious case concerns the incidents I've had with the following editor: Here, here and here. It finally ended up with this. But, yes, I know you want editors to assume good faith with regard to you on this matter. We'll see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I want everyone to assume good faith with everyone because it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Like WP:Assume good faith states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary [...] Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." As for evidence, my talk page watchers do think evidence is there. Anyway, there are other things I need to take care of at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who your talk page watchers are and, in any case, I'm talking to you, not them.

I'll add one more thing: I said I stumbled on the Missionary Position article because I was looking through Curved Space's history. Perhaps it's worth saying why I was doing so: obviously, I thought they were a sockpuppet of yours. Who else would but you would care that much about my polite notice about your behavior on your talk page? And of course Curved Space is an anon alt account. And of course you've apparently been banned for sockpuppetry in the past, though apparently you were also cleared of wrongdoing. However, looking through Curved Space's history did not return any strong evidence that this was the case. In fact there was one back-and-forth between you two that at least seemed like a genuine interaction between two people, so I've pretty much dropped the idea. (They're not one of your apparently troublesome brothers, are they?) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. Almost any time someone unfamiliar with the sockpuppetry matter (the cases about me) is in a significant dispute with me, or has been in a significant dispute with me, that person tries to bring up the sockpuppetry matter as a way to throw dirt on my username. They do this even though anyone with good reading comprehension should be able to see that my small block log indicates that I actually did nothing wrong. The "Flyer sockpuppeted" route doesn't work when it comes to trying to paint me as problematic in any way. It doesn't work because, like you noted, I was cleared. Admins, including WP:CheckUsers, looked into the matter extensively. They know what happened. And Alison tried to reflect it as best she could in my block log. And, for the record, WP:Blocked and WP:Banned are not the same thing. I've never been banned, and I never will be banned. I also never will be blocked again. My talk page watchers? They are regulars like Curved Space, and admins like Alison. The minority are editors I haven't gotten along with. My talk page watchers following me to articles or popping up to argue something regarding me is nothing new, but it's usually not the ones I have issues with popping up to weigh in because they are mindful of WP:Hounding. My talk page watchers being passionate regarding me is nothing new. I have no idea who Curved Space is, and they don't have email enabled; so I can't email Curved Space. I'm certain that Curved Space watches my talk page, though. Feel free to start a WP:SPI on me and/or Curved Space; it will at least entertain me. And I doubt that (before looking into the block history matter) you've never looked through my contribution history...even though you looked through Curved Space's contribution history. Anyway, like I stated, there are other things I need to take care of at the moment. Sitting here going back and forth with you is a waste of my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitting here going back and forth with you is a waste of my time. Here's what you need to do: take this statement, and modify it to Being endlessly hostile to WanderingWanda is a waste of my time, and live by it. And then we'll both be a lot happier. :) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: regarding your statement two admins thus far have seen it that way: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines advises against trying to intimidate other editors by bringing up "admins you know". WanderingWanda (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

---

People, please! Let's aim at being more collegial. Clearly WW should not be hounding FR, but one article is no indication that this is being carried out. At the event, I, myself, opposed their latest changes to that article (see my comments there), but am for limiting ourselves to arguing the substance of the edits at this point in time. El_C 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Because it's one article thus far, I've held off on taking this to WP:ANI. But it always starts off like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A thank you from me as well, El C. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)