User talk:TenorTwelve

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted 9 days ago, and is going strong. Fifty-two editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished one so far, with more to come.

Discussions are underway about how to upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too) on the WikiProject page.

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   03:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits on both Pope Francis and the United Methodist Church. The sections titled LGBT issues regard the Pontiff/Church's views, rulings, and statements regarding issues that are pertaining to LGBT people (such as gay marriage, gay adoption, healthcare for transgender people, ordination of LGBT people, etc.) and is not referring to LGBT people as "issues". Please stop changing this. I know where you are coming from, but Wikipedia is not a platform, it is an encyclopedia. No one is referring to LGBT people as "issues" in these article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   18:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

51st state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Peter King, James McGovern, Brian Fitzpatrick, Scott Taylor, Anthony Brown and Don Bacon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TenorTwelve. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know that 'man-made' is being stoutly defended at

In the end "man-made" was replaced with the gender-neutral "artificial" (see closer's comment here, and the actual change here, whose edit description points out that the wikilinked article title uses 'artificial', which strangely none of us noticed or mentioned in the discussion). This success was somewhat to my surprise as I had gone to bed expecting "man-made" would be retained, as can probably be guessed from my final 'pretty much resigned to the inevitable' contribution. Thanks for successfully getting the ball rolling. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome!!!!! Thanks for the update and correspondence! :) Have a good day!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and have a nice day yourself, and I hope it's not too early to also wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!! :) -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TT,

If you'd like, there's a debate over the map at same-sex marriage, over which colors should be used (I can't see the proposed color well), whether the IACHR ruling should be shown, and whether territories with no permanent inhabitants or where the permanent inhabitants do not have access to SSM should be colored as 'open to SSM'. And a few other things. (I find it particularly annoying that an alt map without the IACHR ruling is being edit-warred into the WP-es articles, since it's most relevant for hispanophone countries.) Currently, Jedi is maintaining the alt map, which means that his improvements may not be making it onto the WP-en map, while my updates are not making it onto his. Anyway, join in if you like. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to let you know that a few users are vandalizing the article same-sex marriage. They insist to remove sourced researches that have found that children to same-sex couples grow just as well or even better than children to other couples. They claim that these researches are not sourced, even though they are perfectly sourced. They probably do this because these professional scientific researches do not conform to their anti-LGBT agenda. I would highly appreciate it if you could participate in the talk page. We must not allow anti-LGBT bias in this important article. Thank you! Guycn2 · ☎ 22:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Guycn2, I hope my comment on the talk page was helpful. I used a story of a same-sex couple raising children who I know. I used a story because they are fundamentally using an emotional argument so I thought that could be helpful. Hopefully its helpful beyond anecdote. Also, by bringing up my own specific faith tradition, I'm not trying to invalidate people from different/no faith backgrounds; hopefully it doesn't come across that way.

Bob Roberts 03:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

They aren't "perfectly sourced". You could find one source that says the Holocaust doesn't happen, even though it did. What matters is the majority of sources. And the majority of sources do not support your biased opinion.

Bob Roberts 03:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows, https://www.mother.ly/news/lesbian-parents-impact-kids-mental-health,

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/yet-another-study-finds-children-samesex-parents-fare-just-well-others/, and many others, all say that same-sex couples' children do "just as well", not "better". Most of the articles that show up prove you wrong.

I've removed the image of

Got it. Thanks! Thought that could be possible. Have a good day! -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It was clear from your edit summary that you were concerned, so I thought I'd give you the link. Meters (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)![reply]

Hi Tenor,

Unsure how to color Egypt on the world map. No response to my query until after I changed the map. Do you have any idea? I just asked for comment at Talk:LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Egypt, but there are also older threads on Commons talk page of map. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Kwami, I am honored that you asked. You are doing a lot of great work here. I put a response on the page you referenced. Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this article on the Talk page. I am open to feedback. I will admit it when I'm wrong. Working together (including with other Wikipedians) will result in the best article, IMHO. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Markworthen, thank you for your commitment to NPOV and for your good faith. You are not the first editor who has brought up NPOV concerns about the article. I do agree that it is a bit unbalanced. The challenge is how do we present information that is misleading, harmful, and socially/scientifically incorrect and to what extent in encyclopedic form, given that these "concerns" are a major part of discourse against transgender equality and LGBTQ equality in general. There is a risk of misleading readers in how the information is presented. I am considering writing a rewrite to the section to incorporate some of said dialogue that addresses concerns under WP:Fringe. I'm not exactly sure when I will, but I'm thinking about it. Thank you and have a good day, -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid and important points. :) I look forward to reading your rewrite when you can get to it. I will also think about how to summarize the Heritage Foundation's concerns in as balanced a manner as possible. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But now you have deleted the entire section again. I'm perplexed.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User, Thank you for restoring this article as it was before many edits that have compromised its balance. The requested move of the title (related laws instead of Rights) has been rejected by everyone but the user that thinks that the wording is not NPOV (according him). As you well know, the formula “LGBT-Rights” is the more usual (nobody speaks about LGBT-related-laws, to be politically correct), because this wording is similar to Human Rights, Women Rights and so on. So I have changed again the title (in the incipit), with bold (as precious to editwar). Do you agree with this move ?

You may reply here if you like. Thanks for your involvement. Kind regards, -Arorae (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend, I am of the perspective that the original wording works better in terms of sentence structure and flow. I know that typically we put the title in the lead somewhere in bold though I think in this instance the title is a bit complicated to do that. Laws affecting LGBT people implies that rights are impacted and the [encompassing everything from the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to the death penalty for homosexuality] is referring to the laws. If we use the word [rights], we need to restructure the way the sentence works and possibly other parts of the article. I think it is clear enough that rights are being referred to through the title itself and then we could devolve into the laws terminology. From a reader's perspective, I think it is more inviting in this manner. As written, the article has been about rights and I think that's what people have been receiving. (Hopefully this does not misrepresent your thought-process--->) I think that taking the battle over the title on the talk page into the article itself isn't necessary and as written, it is still clear that LGBT rights are being referred to, even if not directly referenced. If there was a real threat to the article title and structure of the article, we might need to adapt the text to defend the title but it is very unlikely that we will see that happen. In terms of having it bolded and mentioning rights or not, here are a few examples on various LGBT rights pages:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Cuba may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in India may face legal and social difficulties not experienced by non-LGBT persons.

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Canada are some of the most advanced in the Americas and in the world.

Laws governing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights are complex in the Americas, and acceptance of LGBT persons varies widely.

Via precedent, mention of rights is not necessarily explicitly needed, though everyone knows what is being talked about, the topic of rights. I'm noticing that when rights are directly mentioned, it summarizes either a single country or a summarizes a complexity across a continent. When the word rights is used, it's not the first word; it leads with spelled out Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). I don't want to sound like an anti-LGBT person, though I think leading with the word "rights" is a bit forward. I think it could also be a challenge with that the title refers to "country or territory" and that makes the sentence structure more complex, not to mention that it uses the word "by" as opposed to "in". Personally, I like the "Laws affecting..." lead under the rights title, but if you can figure something out that works flow-wise, I'm open to discussion. Take from this what you will. (I just got wordy about words!) Thank you and have an awesome day!!!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your (wordy) answer. I am not an expert on wording (because English is not my native language). I do appreciate your efforts. I only like that the title of the article do not differ from the incipit. The words LGBT rights is of course the good order (not: Rights … of LGBT), but I do not propose this last solution. I do not like that “laws” replace everywhere “Rights” because some Rights could be guaranteed or exist without any specific laws (I am a lawyer). But I think that our point of view is not opposite. Thank again.-Arorae (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Presolar grains, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Brady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berwyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello TenorTwelve, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to
  suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism
  issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is
  Wikipedia:Copy-paste
  .
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The4lines:, I understand a majority of TenorTwelve’s recent contribution to the Chicago Blackhawks article contained content directly from the AIC of Chicago's website, but all of the text copied under Wikipedia was included in double quotation marks and directly attributed to the AIC. The paragraph before the section includes even more verbatim quotes from Native Americans on this topic and was not tagged with a copyright violation. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk 

I want to apologize, both to the American Indian Center of Chicago and to the Wikipedia community as a whole. It is becoming clear I do not understand copyright law and have made multiple mistakes like this. I also should have known better to consult with/seek consent from the American Indian Center of Chicago to see how they would want their content elevated (or not). I felt that the page as it stood did not fully reflect the fact that the American Indian Center of Chicago opposes the mascot and the page gave the impression that the Blackhawks were in the clear. I wanted to communicate this development but it appears I crossed ethical and legal boundaries in doing so and I did not rigorously review how such an edit should be presented so as to fulfill Wikipedia's high standards of preventing copyright violations and plagiarism. I should have known better. Wikipedia and the American Indian Center of Chicago deserves better. I apologize to the American Indian Center and to Wikipedia for any damages I have caused. Thank you, -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TenorTwelve. I do not believe you have made any mistakes or missteps. An administrator reviewed your edit, and determined it is not a blatant copyright violation. There is nothing wrong with citing text verbatim while using quotation marks and providing proper attribution. The only reason I came across this is because I have the Blackhawks' article on my Watchlist. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it was more of an overquote than a serious violation... We all make mistakes sometimes, and now you're in the know, so there's no harm. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, did not get the ping and nor saw the quotes. Oh well, no harm. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Foster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work you've done with Illinois elections. I wouldn't have a clue how to begin if it wasn't for your work. (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BWellsOdyssey!!! I would also like to honor the incredible work you've been doing for the Illinois elections pages!! Have a great day! :) -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Illinois House of Representatives election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Quigley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Blackhawks name and logo controversy

added a link pointing to Black Hawk

Native American mascot controversy

added a link pointing to Black Hawk

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say your submission does count. While most of the stuff on that page is about LGBTQ characters, there can be something like what you added too. It makes me think a bit of the pride festival in the last episode of Danger & Eggs actually. Historyday01 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! :) I was so happy to see it on Twitter. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Its so great to see. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Equality Act shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry I took the low road a few times. I don’t think I’m the only one who did. My Canada/UK edit was out of place and offensive for example and I apologize for that. I’m trying to defend the page. Both of us have been edit warring. I’m concerned over attempts to radically reshape the page, particularly at a time when the bill is about to be voted on and thereby having the most attention. I also apologize for mimicking your edit summary in deletion when I wouldn’t have done so otherwise. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this reply. I also apologize. We can work together to make the article fair and balanced. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Native American mascot controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of the Interior.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Illinois Secretary of State election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Hi User:Praxidicae! I am working on this article and I appreciate your good faith feedback. Sorry for the late response as I took a break from this project. I have a few questions on its improvement. I understand that the Medium citations had to be removed and then replaced or removed. I have either replaced those citations or removed the content. As you may have observed, I structured the article sections to have a paragraph summarizing their time as an astronaut and another paragraph mentioning their connections to the LGBTQ+ community. It seems that the quotes were the problem here. I am wondering if the "astronaut achievements" paragraphs are fine or if there are issues with them as well. In terms of the LGBTQ connections paragraphs, is the Sally Ride paragraph the only one with issues or do the other paragraphs need revisions/etc.? If necessary, I am prepared to remove content from the Sally Ride section. At minimum, it could read

Sally Ride married astronaut Steve Hawley in 1982 and divorced in 1987.^[2] It was revealed in her obituary after passing away in 2012 from pancreatic cancer that her partner of 27 years was Tam O'Shaughnessy.^[3]

I am wondering if there are any other quoted sections I can still keep or if there is a "maximum" of quotes

Related: In addition, can I re-add:

Ride and O'Shaughnessy co-founded

Regarding the "Medium" citation: After doing some searching, I noticed the magazine "KOSMICA" republished the Francis French piece from Medium. Since the same information was republished, is KOSMICA a reliable source, and if so, can the republication be cited?[5]

Thank you! -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LGBTQ Astronauts. Thanks! PRAXIDICAE💕 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:LGBTQ Astronauts. Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Term "LGBTQ Astronauts" does not seem to be utilized on its own. References are about notable individuals, and not necessarily about the aforementioned term. You will need to show that the term "LGBTQ Astronauts" has been the focus of reliable coverage — instead of individual astronauts — to justify having an article to it. Otherwise, this seems to be a

Wikipedia is not

.

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:LGBTQ Astronauts
  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:LGBTQ Astronauts, 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 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.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 14:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up,

Hi. I was originally planning to just try and find better sourcing for the edit you made, but realised the article was a disorganised mess so tried to fix that first. Do you have any problems with the result of my edits? Endwise (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that works. I'm still learning the finer points of MEDRS. If you can find better sourcing for the original wording, that would be cool, too, though I think it works and mostly accomplishes the same point. Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

talk) 15:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of LGBTQ Astronauts (June 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Cambalachero was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: No need for a standalone list of just 3 elements. The astronauts' own pages can manage the information, and in each case the other 2 may be included in "See also" if not relevant for mention within the articles themselves.

Cambalachero (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of LGBTQ Astronauts

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.

talk) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Puberty Blockers edits

Hey listen, if you're going to be making edits to the summary right now, there's a massive discussion in talk on that very topic that you should probably be engaging with. Snokalok (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ cnn.com
2. ^ https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-253_Hawley_Ride_Statement.html
3. ^ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/10/lgbt-history-month-profile-sally-ride-first-female-american-astronaut-in-space/
4. ^ https://www.iflscience.com/space/us-quarter-honoring-astronaut-dr-sally-ride-is-finally-in-circulation/
5. ^ https://www.kosmicainstitute.com/magazine_article/gay-astronauts-a-final-frontier-by-francis-french/