User talk:SparsityProblem

Archive: April-November 2007

Sorry for being a Bimbo !

Alice.S 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sparsity. Apologies! I did not mean to delete anyone's comments. If I did it was an accident. I admit to another thing: trying to put my comment on "Article needs revising" first on the page. If that is wrong then I am sorry for it too and I won't do it again. Is it wrong?Suade (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I would like to draw your attention to this policy, and ask that you read it. You frequently interrupt content disputes and other disputes by simply hurling (frivolous) accusations of civility violations at others, instead of discussing the issues at hand. And yet you frequently defend your comments about other users as civil, because you are belittling or insulting their actions and not the editors themselves. Please familiarize yourself with this policy and cite it appropriately. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know you?

We have never met, although there are quite a few people we both know. But that is something I only realized after I had figured out your identity using my "Internet-stalking skills". At some time there was a fairly prolific editor under a different name, of whose interests I was well aware; that different name had drawn my attention, and at some later time we even edited in short succession the same, fairly new and highly specialized related article. It was not particularly difficult to see the commonalities and make the link. --Lambiam 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing a locked article

I would like to edit the article but I can't see how to get into it with the lock on. Can you help? Thanks.Suade (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your account is too new to be allowed to edit that article. You have to wait until four days is up before you will be able to. Due to issues with the article in questions, it was locked to prevent new accounts and anonymous editors from making changes. If you've any questions, I'd be glad to help you :) - Alison ^❤ 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing articles

Thank you, SparsityProblem! Sounds like a good policy. Cheers and talk to you soon.Suade (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page flow and userboxes: The great problem of the 21st century

You can fix the way those userboxes make the scratchpad link on your user page float off to the right by placing the {{clear}} template immediately after the userboxes — sort of a crappy hack as far as HTML/styles go, but it works. tgies (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi SparsityProblem!

I noticed you were a homeschooler, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orientated

Actually, it is a word. It wasn't used correctly in the instance that you noted, but it is - in fact - a word. Cheers! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C--

Well done. Thanks, CWC 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender pronouns

Hiya Sparsity. I see you and SMcCandlish were making some edits in the transgender section at WP:MOS recently; feel free to weigh in at either the latest WT:MOS thread or the latest WT:GAY thread. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a personal note, you might enjoy the article that Moni3 and I have nom'd at WP:FAC, Stonewall riots. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied to both the WT:MOS and WT:GAY threads. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my new essay, and tell me if I'm making a fool of myself: User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're making a fool of yourself, but IMO, you're missing the point. Or rather... for me, the overriding concern is not what events are documented, but the way in which they are documented. I have no problem with somebody's transition being mentioned in an article -- so long as there's an RS -- I would just like to see higher standards for the language which we use to describe it. And the rules for using that language ultimately come down to NPOV. I also think it's a given that the imperative to use reliable sources for facts does not mean that we have to phrase those facts in the same way that the sources did.

To give a more concrete example, I don't have anything against the Jan Morris article mentioning that she was assigned male at birth. I would oppose somebody writing "James had a sex change and became Jan", because that is POV, and its POV-ness overrides the fact that an RS may have once said the exact same thing. Obviously, I only speak for myself, and other trans people or people sensitive to trans issues or just sensitive to general academic integrity might reasonably disagree. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support that 100%; this issue of whether we allow ourselves to be too influenced by values which are not ours is also an important issue, to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something I've wondered about in the past: What is your opinion on cases like that of Wendy Carlos? She doesn't really want anyone to know about her transition, and has written letters in the past to try and stop encyclopedias from mentioning it. Would you say that mentioning Carlos' transition in an encyclopedia article about her against her expressed wishes violates her rights? tgies (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at tgies

Hello, SparsityProblem. You have new messages at Tgies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Women and sexuality category

Hi there! I've been doing some work on the lesbian aspects of the Category:Women and sexuality and I notice you made some really good points in that debate, so I wonder if you'd weigh in on a proposal I'm working on at User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. Thanks! (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

homosexual couples

Why not 'homosexual couples' as 'homosexual acts' and the like? Does engaging in a homosexual act make one a homosexual? Does being in a homosexual relationship make one a homosexual? --24.18.27.74 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, eaten any good Fijian food lately? SparsityProblem (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: That's racist. --24.18.27.74 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Club at Berkeley

Hi, I'm just writing to let you know that me and some Wikipedian friends are launching Wikipedia Club at Berkeley, a student club for promoting participation in Wikipedia and face-to-face collaborations. If you're still living in the Bay Area and that sounds fun to you, please consider joining our mailing list. Thanks! Dcoetzee 01:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Spoken Article

Hi, just wondering if you are still working on the Spoken Article version of Los Angeles. If not, I will be removing the article from the list in 7 days. Thanks! Cognate247 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Assignment on transgender articles

I must take issue with your assertion that the use of the term "female assigned at birth" is NPOV, which is what you wrote in your edit summary for James Barry (surgeon). The phrasing does not automatically endorse the idea that trans people are born into their self-identified sex, it merely describes what the doctor pronounced the infant to be without bias. Asarelah (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were the one who changed "female assigned at birth" to "born female" based on your edit summary. Looking at the edit history I can see it was another user. Nevermind. Asarelah (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Delany

Hey, how long have you known Chip? I've only known him since 1978 or so, and I know whereof I speak; I just don't have his books sitting on my work desk during the day. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, come again? I'm not sure why this question would be relevant. SparsityProblem (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seemed to be one done by somebody genuinely trying to maintain our standards here, but ignorant of the actual subject (Chip) himself. He's bi, and doesn't deny it, but identifies primarily as a gay man. I just don't happen to have any of the books or magazine articles in which he discusses this matter to hand at this moment; but felt that the change you made to the wording was a smidgen weasel-wordy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. If Chip identifies as gay, he is gay. There is no sexual identity other than what someone identifies as -- self-identification is how we do things on Wikipedia. If other authors write that he is bi, that can be mentioned with a source, but it would be POV to imply that some other author is more of an authority on Chip's identity than Chip himself. SparsityProblem (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koza za tebe!

Dva roga jedan jarac

Lopac,Ivan (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]