User talk:Poiutredsaa

This is Poiutredsaa's talk page

I felt like it was useful to create one. Poiutredsaa (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Living or recently deceased persons is also a contentious topic; I'm putting this banner here so you're aware but you haven't done anything wrong (:

Happy editing! lp0 on fire () 16:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lp0 on fire, thanks for letting me know, I noticed that page is... difficult, but some broader info is welcome :) Poiutredsaa (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wikipedia has a thing called Arbitration Committee (often referred to as arbcom) which basically exists to handle really difficult dis lp0 on fire () 14:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, I will check on it too when I have some time because it looks quite complicated, thanks again! Poiutredsaa (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, most of my comment got deleted. Mobile wikipedia is not being kind to me. Arbcom designates Contentious Topics for areas subject to controversy on a regular basis. If a page comes under one or more contentious topics there'll be a banner on the talk page telling you. Basically this just means be cautious. Bold edits are still welcome if they're constructive but it's worth being especially careful to remain civil and avoid edit warring. If you're unsure whether something is helpful or allowed, on these pages it's better to err on the side of cautioun, especially since sanctions tend to be quicker and more severe. More info can be found in the various links in the template I sent you. So far you've done everything right and I know I'm not the only one who's grateful. Happy editing :) lp0 on fire () 14:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, happy to hear that, thanks :)

I Just finished typing a long comment on JKR's talk page trying to respond to all of the comments I received! Poiutredsaa (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replied to that with some explanation. Hope it makes sense :) lp0 on fire () 18:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, people aren't looking very grateful right now :D Nevermind, I will work on my edit to find secondary sources. But I have a technical question, if you have the time: can primary sources be used together with secondary sources to describe someone's political views? Or are primary sources to be avoided? It strikes me as very counter-intuitive: avoiding one person's published words as a source for their views? I read the general info about this, but this detail is not clear to me, for exemple: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care", which is quite generic... Or "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" but this doesn't really answer my question either... Thank you! Poiutredsaa (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to hear you're feeling that way. Wikipedia policies are a steep learning curve so please don't blame yourself if others seem a little affronted. The short answer to your question is yes. Primary sources can be used to support factual claims and in some cases (such as quotes) are preferred. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources provides a fuller explanation but on the whole primary sources can be used for uncontroversial facts to establish truth; however, they cannot be used to establish notability. Secondary sources are always (I'm sure there are some obscure exceptions I haven't thought of but I'm going to say always) required to establish that something deserves mentioning, and in general saying more than is said in secondary sources is usually undue weight, but primary sources can be used to support facts. I hope this all makes sense. Happy editing (: lp0 on fire () 16:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand. Is there a list of reliable sources? I saw you say PinkNews is a reliable source, so I'be been wondering how that was established. I already know that tabloids are to be avoided, but is there an actual list like "PinkNews: yes, Independent: yes, GrampaRants: no" etc ? Poiutredsaa (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Poiutredsaa (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve El tercero (The Third One) (movie)

Hello, Poiutredsaa,

Thank you for creating El tercero (The Third One) (movie).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I would suggest finding alternative sources that are independent and reliable. IMDB is not typically used as it is not considered a reliable source due to the content being user-generated.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Sksatsuma}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

sk satsuma 09:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sksatsuma: Hi, thanks for helping improve the page, especially by formatting references. As for the reliability issue, I now see that IMDB has been removed and some reliable sources have already been added, especially to the Reception section, does this solve the issue?

I also noticed you added a notability tag, is this related to reliability as well? Thanks Poiutredsaa (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, no problem always happy to help develop new pages and you've done some good work.

I've had a quick look and the sources definitely seem a lot more reliable! Notability is the measure that we use to determine whether an article should exist or not. Typically this means that the subject has received widespread coverage in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. So in short, yes, reliability of the sources can affect the notability of the subject.

From what I can see, the notability of the subject in your article has been established much better now. I haven't had a thorough look but it looks like some good improvement has been made! sk satsuma 13:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply and explanations, also thank you for checking up again on that page! Poiutredsaa (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips

Hi, I might reply to your suggested edit a bit later when I have some time, but I just thought I'd let you know that if you want to cite a source inline more than once, you can (and in fact it is preferred to) name the reference by writing <ref name=NAME>SOURCE GOES HERE</ref> and then next time you want to cite the same source just write <ref name=NAME /> where NAME is a short name not already used elsewhere, e.g. "pinknewsasexuality" or just "pinkace". Also, it isn't customary to put spaces between citations. lp0 on fire () 16:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a general bit of advice if there's some syntax you're not sure how to achieve, an easy way that usually works is to find a place where someone else has done it right and copy the wikicode from there. lp0 on fire () 17:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the tips! I think I get it. Also, thank you for following up on my suggested edit, see you over there :) Poiutredsaa (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: is it considerd unpolite or inappropriate to "ping" (I belive it's called? I mean this: @Lp0 on fire) other editors in a semi-new discussion? Besides you, on the main page another editor gave some constructive criticism about my edit and suggested moving it to the other page, while another editor gave appreciation but also suggested moving it to the other page, so I wanted to let them know I did that, and get their opinion on the new draft, but I don't know if that's "a thing". PS: If I'm starting to rely too much on you for questions about Wikipedia's inner workings, just let me know, Poiutredsaa (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have no problem with answering as many questions as you have, but I'm new here myself and someone else might be able to provide better answers to some of them. If you aren't already aware of it WP:TH is a great resource, which reminds me no one has sent you a welcome banner yet; I'll put one at the top of this page.

As regards pinging, I'd advise against it unless someone has actively said they'd like to be involved in the discussion. Usually if someone wants to stay updated about the issues on a page they just add the page to their watchlist; occasionally pinging potentially interested editors can be helpful if no one replies for a while, but often it's better in those circumstances to leave a message on a noticeboard or a WikiProject page. That's especially true for things that are likely to be contentious, since it might be seen as selective pinging, which can be a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. lp0 on fire () 17:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling there could be such an issue with pinging, good thing I asked before pinging anyone in that discussion... because it moved to a different page, I'm not sure the second page is in their watchlist too, however I hope that if they're interested they will see it sooner or later. Thank you for being so helpful :) Poiutredsaa (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm a bit discouraged by the fact that after suggesting that content be moved, no one followed up on it. Of course I know there is no obligation (in fact, I thank you for at least thinking about checking it out), but if a series of improvements are suggested for a content to be worth publishing, those improvements are made (or attempted), and then everything stops there (as though I made no changes), it's not very constructive. It also looks like some sources are not being read... Would it be useful if I left a message in the teahouse describing the situation? Thank you! Poiutredsaa (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry, I've been meaning to get round to having a look at this, but I have lots of things on my list of stuff to do and also lots of procrastination to do. Asking at the teahouse might get you another explanation of why the content isn't suitable as is, but if you're looking for other editors to help you, the place to ask would probably be somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Currently, I don't think the sourcing is of high enough quality to include most of the content. The best source I've seen was the article about Benoit as far as I remember, since it's high-quality and secondary; it's probably enough to merit a mention of this over at Yasmin Benoit, but I know that's not the ideal outcome. I haven't had a chance to look at the most recent sources you cited yet that apparently put it in the context of Rowling's trans views; if they're good enough they might justify a paragraph, but a lot of trimming still needs to happen. The ideal would be if you found an academic journal article that mentions the comments, but that isn't a requirement. lp0 on fire () 18:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this is what's happening, but for a cynical humorous take, you might want to have a look at WP:FETCH. lp0 on fire () 18:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources are Elle, Glamour, The MarySue, Slate, USAtoday; no luck on google scholar. I had thought about asking for advice in some LGBTQ "space" on Wiki, but wouldn't that be considered battleground or canvassing or something?

About WP:FETCH, something like it did cross my mind... I'm not saying this is what's happening either, however it does bear some resemblance :P Poiutredsaa (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think posting something on the appropriate WikiProject would not be considered canvassing, since interested editors are welcome to follow that page regardless of their views. Of the new sources, the Slate article is a reader letter with response and you seem to be citing the reader letter, which isn't allowed. USAtoday, Elle and The Mary Sue seem to be primary. If any of those sources help it'll be Glamour. I'm not sure if Glamour is considered a reliable source though and I couldn't find any relevant discussions about it, so that would leave nothing. If it is reliable then since it's clearly secondary it might well warrant some inclusion in the article, but the article should reflect the sources so it would probably not merit more than a fairly brief mention. lp0 on fire () 21:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! From Slate I was more interested in the journalist's response (spreading misinformation on trans and asexual ppl...), but now I don't know if that's allowed either. I do hope Glamour is considered reliable, it has a long history, and the German article (not identical to the English one) is quite detailed about those ace statements. Anyway, I don't want to take up too much of your time, I will try and get some advice in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Poiutredsaa (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about my time; if I need to do other things I'll just leave you without a reply for a few days. I honestly know nothing about Glamour's fact-checking standards I'm afraid, but you could probably do your own assesment based on the standards at WP:RS. lp0 on fire () 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate article might work (I'm not sure); as a response to a letter I don't know if it's subject to the same fact-checking standards, but I'm also not entirely sure it works as a measure of notability since the person who wrote the letter brought it up first. lp0 on fire () 21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it looks like Glamour should be reliable. After some digging on Wikipedia I found that "it's backed by a reputable publisher (Condé Nast). And it has strong editorial control"; this was a discussion about reliability on fashion, but it's a women's magazine and it doesn't only deal with fashion. Moreover, in an older discussion about Antifa, GQ was considered reliable: "Definitely a reliable source with editorial oversight. Condé Nast, which I believe is GQ's parent company, also owns Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamour, Self, The New Yorker, Condé Nast Traveler, Allure, AD, Bon Appétit, and Wired, all of which are considered reliable."

(Is it unpolite or inappropriate not to attribute these sentences to the editors that wrote them? Should I notify them?) In any case, the links are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_348#Glamour_Magazine_as_a_Reliable_Source_in_the_Fashion_Industry and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271 Poiutredsaa (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! You probably don't need to provide links to those because it sounds like its reliablity should be pretty uncontroversial. You probably have enough now to include a paragraph in the political views page, but it still needs a rewrite. My advice is rather than writing what you know is true and then finding sources, write a summary of the sources (only the good ones though). lp0 on fire () 06:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Poiutredsaa! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: