User talk:SummerandWinter

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, SummerandWinter! I am Blablubbs and I am the volunteer who received your account request. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and sourcing

Hi, SummerandWinter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your recent edits to Feminist views on transgender topics. Unfortunately, I had to undo them, because they lacked a source. All edits at Wikipedia which add assertions of fact need to be WP:Verifiable by reference to published, independent, reliable, secondary sources. The best way to demonstrate this, is by the addition of citations. Please see Help:Footnotes for more on this. If you can document your recent additions with a citation to a reliable source, please feel free to readd them, along with the citations.

Also, just so you know: articles on gender-related topics can be controversial, with a lot of editors watching them closely. Generally speaking, articles on these topics are harder to edit than ones on other topics that are not so controversial. As a new editor, you may find it easier to get your footing in other topic areas. The choice is yours, but just be aware that if you edit in this topic area, you are very likely to meet more resistance, unless your edits are meticulously researched and documented, and your changes are accompanied by citations at the same time as your added material. You might want to look at the citation templates {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} as a way to provide the needed documentation. Template {{cite web}} can be used as well, but be very sure that your internet-based resource meets the requirements of reliable sourcing, and in many gender-related articles, it may also be subject to the even stricter requirements of WP:MEDRS. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my Talk page, or below with use of the {{Reply}} template. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry if I'm using the wrong format to reply, but this appears to work, since others have reached out to me too (on a former Wikipedia account).

You said what I wrote needed sourcing, but it was actually more rearranged than anything else. To explain, at the top of the Wikipedia article for Feminist views on transgender topics, there is the assertation that those who identify as feminists are more likely to support transgender (well, existence?) phenomena. This is correct, and there are citations placed which verify this. However, it, then, asserts that cis women are more likely to support trans politics than the general public, more than cis men. This, of course, is a contradiction, because while both are correct, when placed next to one another they explain each other. The reason that self-identified feminists are more likely to support transgender politics is because far more women identify as feminists than men, and women are more likely to support trans politics because they're women, disregarding any connection to feminism. In other words, a set of citations help explain the other set of citations. So, I'm not making any claims without citing my sources. I'm, instead, placing things in an alternative order, so the overt contradiction has been eliminated. What exists here, from the various data gathered (not by me), is that since a much smaller percentage of men identify as feminists, and feminist-identified men don't hold more positive views on transgender phenomena than non-feminist-identified men (which is shown to be the case in one of the sources which had already been linked prior to my edits), there appears zero correlation between holding feminist views and pro-trans views.

Hopefully, this elaboration upon the subject clears things up, and also helps dispel the myth that I didn't cite sources. Rather, as stated prior, I simply rearranged and rewrote what already existed, so that the error had been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerandWinter (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. First, a couple of housekeeping issues: on Talk pages, in order to keep discussions orderly and clarify who said what, and in reply to whom, Wikipedia has a set of guidelines for responding, which includes indentation (using leading colons on each paragraph), and signature-timestamp (which you got half right, adding your sig, but not the time). I've fixed both of these for now for you; going forward, please have a look at WP:THREAD, which explains how this all works.

Secondly, Wikipedia has somewhat different roles for a "User talk page", such as this one, and an "Article talk page", such as the one you land on if you hit the "Talk" tab at the top of any article. A user page is a place to inform a user about Wikipedia, to explain reverts as a courtesy (the edit summary should have already done so), about behavioral issues (if the user is breaking any Wikipedia policies or guidelines), and to leave general information and notices of various kinds. The article talk page is dedicated to discussion of how to improve the article with which it is associated. See WP:TALK for more about this.

As to what you've written above, I understand what you are saying, and you have some good points which indicate that you are thinking about how to improve the article. Thank you for that, that's a great indication that you may become a valuable editor at Wikipedia! However, based on the paragraph above, this page is not the right venue to discuss your points; for one thing, no other editors concerned with the topic of Feminism and trans issues will find it here, and they may wish to engage with you as well. In addition, there is a guideline which recommends how to proceed, when you have WP:BOLDly added (or just rearranged) some content, which has then been reverted by someone else (have a look at Bold, revert, discuss). This guideline suggests that the person whose addition was reverted, open a new discussion on the article Talk page to discuss their concerns.

Given all of the above, the next step, if you wish to, is to follow the WP:BRD path, and open a discussion at the talk page of the article. Since the article is called "Feminist views on transgender topics", that means that the Talk page is called "Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics". Think of a good section title for your comment (like creating a brief, to-the-point "subject" line in an email, that summarizes your intent) and then add your comment, and sign it. You're free to just copy what you wrote above to the Talk page if you wish, or to express it differently, since your audience there will be all interested editors of the article, not just me. You're free to mention the "history" of this, that is, about your having added content and being reverted by me. (As a courtesy, when mentioning another user at an article Talk page, the user should be notified; this is normally done either by {{ping}}ing the user, using the {{reply}} template, or adding their username in brackets; see WP:NOTIF.)

It would be best if you opened the new section at the Talk page, but if you're uncertain how to do this, I can open it for you and "invite" you there with a WP:NOTIFication, and then you can follow up. Let me know which you prefer. Also, this is a volunteer project; you don't *have* to do any of this; this is just a suggestion on how to proceed in case you'd like to follow this up.

To be clear about the talk page roles, if you want to address the Feminist/trans topic, please go to the article Talk page; if you have questions about how Wikipedia works, or you have questions about anything I've said, you can just reply to me below by adding {{Reply|Mathglot}} at the beginning of your message. You can always reach me at my Talk page, either now, or any time in the future; it is linked in my signature at the end of this message.

Once again, thanks for your interest in this topic, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Projectivity (psychological trait) (July 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

a single source is not really sufficient

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SummerandWinter! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Projectivity (psychological trait) (July 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Once I removed the inappropriate content, there is only a single sourced sentence in this article. You need to gather sources about projectivity as such and then write your draft summarizing what those sources say.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice about multiple accounts

You mentioned above (diff) that you had another Wikipedia account, but it wasn't clear from your comment whether you have deleted or abandoned that one. Please be aware that there are fairly strict regulations about the use of multiple accounts, and if you fall afoul of them, you are likely to be WP:BLOCKed. So, it would be to your advantage to familiarize yourself with the situation; please start with Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts and follow the link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait)

Hello, SummerandWinter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait)

Hello, SummerandWinter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Projectivity".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Projectivity (psychological trait) (September 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You still only have a single source?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Projectivity (psychological trait) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about my incompetence. See, I virtually never edit Wikipedia, and I've never created an article before.

The reason I clicked "resubmit," was because I thought the article had been deleted (has it?), and due to my limited knowledge of how the site functions, I thought that was the process that existed prior to the state of approval.

My bad.

I'll add more citations in the coming days, along with more quotations from the authors of The Authoritarian Personality, to contribute to a larger understanding of the concept the page revolves around. SummerandWinter (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]