User talk:Cleopatran Apocalypse

I noticed a recent edit you made to Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States has an inaccurate edit summary. You described your edit as: There's nothing here about voting. Changing section title. But, in addition to changing a section heading—an insignificant change—you removed four paragraphs about voter identification laws and—thank you—added two references to the identification documents section. Even though you explained your changes on the article's talk page, it's still considered good practice always to leave an edit summary,^[1] and, when you do write an edit summary, it should accurately describe the changes you've made.^[2] Thank you!

As an aside, I love your user page.

—  Rebbing  talk  04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

References ^ See WP:FIES ("It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when . . . deleting existing text . . . ."); cf. id. ("Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like 'fixed spelling' is helpful even then."). ^ WP:ES § What to avoid ("Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important.").

Thank you very much for pointing this out (and the compliment on my user page). I think I was just making too many changes at once and thought it would too much to explain in a short edit summary, so I wanted to leave a proper explanation and invitation for discourse on the user page. In future I will simply break up my changes into singular edits and have an explanation for each one, rather than pack in various changes to one edit. I appreciate the friendly note. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's helpful to break edits up into several smaller, related edits: it's easier for others to review small, organized, well-described changes, and the diff tool seems to choke on complicated edits: a word change in one paragraph combined with moving some paragraphs might show up as a total rewrite of those paragraphs, which is a pain to follow. But I wasn't looking to make you feel you need to change your editing style; describing the edit as Removed some uncited information (see talk page); added citations; changed a heading. would have been fair (I use the "Show changes" button when I forget what all I did), and even Changes; see talk page. would have worked just fine. Anyway, I don't mean to make a big deal about something so trivial. :)

While I'm here, I'd like to give you a hearty thank you for your significant cleanup efforts on Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States. That kind of editing is crucial to maintaining Wikipedia's quality, but so few of us are willing to step up with the shears. Thank you!

—  Rebbing  talk  17:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's good reason for that. I don't want to keep cutting because I might turn the article into a stub, otherwise. I'll have to do my own research on that and expand it to make up for the material I'm cutting. I do not want to give short shrift to those issues, though I'm surprised that the material is not better sourced. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow all the suggestions you gave to me and work on the acupuncture article again under them if I ever find the time to. Your right I need to learn the rules it's just hard to be so fastidious when it's something that is purely for the sake of itself since it benefits me in no way personally, I just felt impassioned about it. Maybe "rolling up the sleeves" will be less daunting if it's done slowly over time. Thanks for the advice man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZhuGeLiang77 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Highland Park, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shattered Glass. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Did you mean to delete "United Kingdom" from filming location when removing the bowdlerization of "fuck"? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes I did. It is an American film and the addition of 'UK' in the infobox was an inaccurate addition done very recently. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I had wondered if there were scenes from the United Kingdom. Thank you. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cleopatran_Apocalypse, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in this edit at Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States you added an Html comment saying, <!-- This information is not in the sources. -->. Thank you for that notice challenging the verifiability of the material preceding it; this is useful information and helps the article. However, it cannot be seen, except by editors editing that section or the article since it is hidden text, so its impact is reduced. A better solution for this case, is to add the Inline cleanup template called {{Failed verification}}; this way, everyone can see it, and the template also has other, optional parameters available for adding a talk page section, explaining one's reasoning, and so on. Many more such handy tags are available as well for other situations; see WP:TC for a list of them. See see Template:Inline cleanup tags or Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. So if you come up against a similar situation in your editing in the future, please use one of these templates rather than hidden text, whenever possible, so more people will be aware that some attention is needed. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit to Transphobia, please see WP:REFERS. See also the use–mention distinction. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate both of these comments. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 19:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your AE report against Bloodofox has been closed with Falun Gong placed under ECP for 1 year. Perhaps you didn't have time to attend to the most important question I put to you (even though you did return to address other comments): what is your evidence that Bloodofox has "repeatedly misrepresented sources"? It's an extremely serious accusation. Do you have any evidence, or were you just throwing out "bad stuff somebody might do" at random? That would be a serious breach of WP:NPA, and put your whole report in doubt. Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I also saw the WP:AE report. Bishonen's above comment could be expressed in another way: if there is no evidence that Bloodofox has "repeatedly misrepresented sources", there would need to be an explanation of why that WP:ASPERSION was allowed to stand despite evidence being requested in the first response by an administrator. If there is no evidence or explanation, a topic ban may be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. Thanks for you email Bishonen. I get one chunk of time daily usually for my wiki time, mostly lurking. Regarding this - I thought my basis for the claim was fairly clear from the complaint. Bloodofox had made the edit saying that FLG's Shen Yun performance contained anti-LGBTQ messaging; I checked the source (ctrl+f lgb...) and did not see that. I previously read the piece and noted the part about FLG's teachings calling homosexuality unnatural, but I missed the passing description of Shen Yun containing homophobia. It could have been better stated that Bloodofox's addition included material that was not in the source, rather than "misrepresent," which connotes intent, which I can make no judgement of. Unless you are both claiming that these are identical concepts? If so, I disagree strongly. The 'T' matters. Homosexuality and trans* (whether transsexual or transgender) are quite distinct. So I would still maintain that this is an inappropriate lack of correspondence between the source and the edit, which was made multiple times. On that point - somewhat beyond this discussion - it wasn't actually clear from the source whether the reporter had simply transposed her descriptions, or the Shen Yun performance in fact contained anti-gay messaging (I wouldn't necessarily be surprised, but as a factual question it still matters). When I was scanning through it all I also noticed that users on one of the noticeboards also picked up on this lack of correspondence between edit and source and pointed it out. I can dig up the diffs if requested.

Finally, having looked at it again just now, it turns out that the added description of Falun Gong administering those media properties is also not contained in the source. My (limited but now rapidly growing) knowledge of the state of affairs is that Falun Gong adherents founded those media properties and mostly staff them, but that Falun Gong 'itself' does not formally administer or own them (presumably at least in part because 'it' is not actually an incorporated entity, it would appear). In any case, the source didn't say that either, so that would be another failure of correspondence between edit and source that I did not pick up on when filing the complaint. It sounds like splitting hairs, but it seems that the details matter to the individuals engaged in these activities. One must always assume good intent, and I cannot account for this apparent lack of interest in the precision with which sources are being represented by Bloodofox - though it does seem readily explicable by an interest in simply adding bad words around the subject as a primary goal, precision as a secondary one. The salient context also is, why is all this being edit warred in the second paragraph? And for that matter, why stop at homophobia - why not also include the part about how the Shen Yun show had Karl Marx's face in a red tide? Or any other particular tidbit? Shall we put that in the second paragraph too? If that's the logic, I don't know where it stops. Now editors sympathetic rather than antagonistic to the group will start putting their favored tidbits into the second paragraph. And you can be darn sure I would have lodged the same complaint if I was clicking through my watchlist and found it happening in reverse - undue or simply weirdly placed pro-Falun Gong material aggressively edit warred about, with those who disagree being agents of the communists. I also suspect that my complaint would not have met with this response, nor the editor in question treated with such lenience. And none of this friendly follow-up either, I presume (including an email, thank you for that). I am quite familiar with the circumstances of marginalized social groups; they often take the most unexpected form. I hope the above is responsive to both of your concerns. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AE report is closed and I'm not in the mood to examine the details of the above long post. I'll assume that the explanation sufficiently obscures the issue to avoid further action at this time. For the future, please be aware that before stating that an editor has misrepresented sources, it is necessary to produce quality evidence (diffs) with an explanation of what the source says and how it was misrepresented. There should also be a link to a discussion where the editor was asked for an explanation because it is easy to miss something and maybe you misunderstood, or maybe they inadvertently used the wrong source and would happily fix it, if asked. Bear in mind also that when challenged at an admin noticeboard about evidence, you will have to either strike out your unsupported assertions (example) or add the evidence, and you will have to do that without significant delay before making any other edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. My intent was to clarify, not to obscure. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:@Bishonen: I’m familiar with the recent edit history of the FG page, Cleopatran Apocalypse is misrepresenting the state of play. The sources were found to support the assertions they were being used to make, for instance the article about the homophobic Shen Yun performance does explicitly talk about the performance being homophobic and emphasizing traditional marriage, its not a poor summary to say thats “anti-LGBTQ messaging” even if the specific phrase LGBTQ is not in the text. The searching for one particular word and then declaring victory in the argument seems to be a recurring problem, Cleopatran Apocalypse does not actually appear to be reading the sources in full before making their judgement on what the source contains and whether its been accurately summarized. I would say they’re breached WP:NPA and have yet to satisfy WP:aspersions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state clearly: LGBTQ != homosexuality. Read more about those topics if you disagree. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is far from clear, looks like gibberish to me... Whats the exclamation point for? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means "not." Over and out. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I does “not.” Did you perhaps mean =/=? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just now seeing this. It is in fact quite common for sources to note homophobia associated with The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and Falun Gong. For example, here's a report form NBC News that discusses this topic:

It has also invited scrutiny of the spiritual leader’s more unconventional ideas. Among them, Li has railed against what he called the wickedness of homosexuality, feminism and popular music while holding that he is a god-like figure who can levitate and walk through walls. ([1])

Another example, of many:

Shen Yun has a political bent. Shen Yun translates to "divine rhythm," and according to the show's website, the artists who put on Shen Yun practice Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, a belief system that encompasses meditation, tai chi-type exercises, and "strict morality" (smoking, alcohol, and extramarital or same-sex sexual relations go against the teachings). ([2])

I do not appreciate the aspersion. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? This completely doesn't respond to the point I made about the misrepresentation. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that for others to judge. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite specifically: 1. The article did not say what you said it said; 2. All the other stuff you've brought forward is just bad stuff about the Falun Gong in general. It still doesn't put into the source what you claimed was in the source. /fin Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist making a pedantic point. Just to clarify @Horse Eye Jack: The symbol != is a standard symbol in computer code and symbolic logic, commonly understood to mean "is not equal to" (! is "not" and = is "equal"). Cleopatran Apocalypse's statement was sort of correct but imprecise; specifically LGBTQ ∋ homosexuality, where ∋ means "includes" or "contains as a member". ~Anachronist (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Anachronist:. Is it wrong to say that a member of a set is not the same as the set? The two statements seem to both be true and not in conflict. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your request on Talk:Falun Gong, if this is something you would like to get into, I'm happy to share recommendations (and a decent collection of searchable pdfs) for academic articles and books on the topic. There used to be more editors on these pages who had a familiarity with the literature, but not it seems to mostly to be activists. We could use more of the former.TheBlueCanoe 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe:No, that's fine. I have been digging through the references in the article and reading some PhD theses by anthropologists. I knew a bit about the topic and support individuals opposing persecution, but didn't know terribly much. I have been reading actively of late about it all. The whole thing is highly, highly unusual. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Whole Thing" - meaning what? The body of scholarly literature, or the dynamics on Wikipedia? TheBlueCanoe 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK here's more.... the Falun Gong itself is completely weird, to be frank. The campaign against it by the Chinese state is extraordinary. The white fury it generates, so far as I've seen on here, is amazing to behold. It is all highly, highly strange and off-putting. I knew about the case of Anastasia Lin and followed that closely, but didn't take a deeper interest until more recently, when I've been reading quite a lot. I'm in a somewhat adjacent field actually, in the social sciences. But the only reason I'm going back to that talk page is because I have never been able to stand bullying. When the disputes die down I will evacuate. I don't know how long-term editors of this issue do it. I like to create and build pages in little niches, not deal with this kind of acrimony. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work expanding the page! — Mainly 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you~! Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness your UP is incredible. Call me an aspirant!!! Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does look very interesting, actually. This is the uniting theme for a lot of the stuff I've been reading and editing on wiki recently, though I didn't put these two words together and realize. We'll have to see however how this overlaps or duplicates all of the spaces that intersect to create this category as such. It is a very broad, umbrella term for so many things, and those things might not define themselves as "sexual politics" (even though we may argue that they are). Anyway I will do some reading when I get time to edit again in the next few days and hopefully add some stuff. Also I think it would be worth just making it live as a stub, getting rid of a lot of the sub-sections, and seeing where the collective takes it. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your positive support; you have very good suggestions. After Kate Millett's 1970s book - it is almost 50 years now; there is good amount of academic and other literature in form of research papers and books around referring to "Sexual politics". Topic is interesting and important still some how not adequately covered on Wikipedia.

Since I focus on South Asian studies I find there gender depiction in lot of mythology creation may have been part of sexual politics, and some scholars at least likely to have worked on this topic. Similarity I feel same about other mythologies too.

In a latest article I came across Majumdar, Olivia. "Art and drama on a 19th-century Bengal scandal reveal the gender and sexual politics of the time". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2020-07-09. explains nicely how misogyny is political in a way. I have created Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia to take note of the same.

Exactly which things to cover and which not to will get sorted out in due course. To understand views, actually I requested suggestions asking which categories would be suitable for the article @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

So I would be keenly looking forward to your support and contribution in Draft:Sexual politics

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you won't have any objection if I just take what you've got, rewrite as I see fit, publish the page in stub, and keep working on it over the next few days/week? I usually do a bunch of reading then work in bursts... when I'm in a wikipedia mood basically. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given comments you made at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad you may be interested in participating at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Suitable_name_for_"Criticism_of_Muhammad".Bless (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Have been pretty out of the loop of late. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]