User talk:Gmsrubin

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Gmsrubin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of secondary sources is required; avoid original interpretation

Hello, Gmsrubin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to see you starting your wiki career, and I hope you'll call on the assistance of other editors where needed, especially when editing in potentially contentious areas such as gender-related articles, and within that, the even more contentious topic of transgender issues. I noticed that at least one of your edits, at Cisnormativity (diff), relies on a WP:PRIMARY source (Evan Vipond essay), with a citation for the content you added analyzing the gist of Vipond's essay to Vipond (2015). That is, the person interpreting Vipond's words and transforming the ideas into article content at Wikipedia, is you. that is called "original research" in wiki jargon, and it is prohibited. What is needed here is a WP:SECONDARY source, that is to say, someone else analyzing the meaning of what Vipond says. Putting it another way: if you want to write something about what Butler said about sexing the body, or what "performative" means, you can't use Butler as the main source for that; ideal would be a college textbook or books or academic articles (not written by Butler) which analyze and synthesize the way that Butler approached these issues. Can you still use Vipond as a source, even that same essay? Possibly; but there is no need to mention them by name as they certainly doesn't have the cred of a Butler, a Feinberg, a Serrano, or a Fausto-Sterling, who have chapters and books written about them (i.e. secondary works).

I note in passing that Vipond's article appeared in Theory in Action, claimed as a a peer-reviewed journal at the website of the Transformative Studies Institute, which sounds more like an advocacy organization than an independent academic publisher and which I don't recognize (not a big deal, I don't know every journal and society). Perhaps this will stand up to scrutiny, but a secondary source in a recognized, independent journal would be better. Still, this is a relatively minor issue, compared to finding secondary sources and avoiding OR.

There is one last point I wanted to share, about something which I hope will help you avoid a potential pitfall that those with an academic background are more prone to run into than other new editors. From your writing style, it sounds like you are, or have been, in the position of writing articles either for publication or for university or graduate level courses or theses. If so, I'd just like to point out that the basic task of a Wikipedia editor is to survey the major, independent, secondary sources about a topic, summarize the gist of majority opinion in those sources in your own words (with a few words on minority opinions, if any), and citing one or two of the best sources you have found. Note in particular, how different this is from writing an academic paper for publication or a university thesis: there, writing a brilliant or groundbreaking analysis on your topic pulling together different ideas in a combination never seen before will at least win you respect and honors or perhaps your Ph.D., whereas doing the exact same thing at Wikipedia will get you a revert of your edit for original research, followed by sanctions later on if you keep it up. This is a crucial distinction about Wikipedia and can be a bit of a culture shock for those new editors coming from an academic background, more so than for someone with no such advantage. So please be sure to understand this core part of Wikipedia policy; the concept of WP:No original research derives from Pillar #2, known as maintaining a WP:Neutral point of view.

Okay, that wasn't the last point, this is: you have jumped into one of the contentious topic areas at Wikipedia that has generated disagreement and strife among editors in the past. Because of that, special rules apply (i.e., on top of the other gazillion rules you don't know yet, because you just started). I'll leave you a canned message after this one, written by the Arbitration Committee, with some brief instructions and a link where you can read more about it. I hope this message has been helpful, and feel free to {{Reply}} below (see WP:THREAD for how to do that), or try the Wikipedia:Help desk with any question about editing Wikipedia. I can tell you're going to be a good editor here, so please keep it up, ask questions, WP:BE BOLD (like you have been), don't be discourages by reverts (especially in gender-related and trans topics)—they are inevitable, and part of collaborative editing. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm still reading the policies, so thanks for taking the time to tell me all this. I appreciate the valuable tips and in no way am I bothered by the need for corrections or even reverts. Oh, and you were right about the academic background, haha. Gmsrubin (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Np. In a way, I'm glad I guessed right, as it will make the course correction easier for you. It's really another way of looking at things, but as you do have that background, this will make sense to you: in your papers, you were creating secondary sources, possibly with original synthesis; if you've written a chapter in a college textbook, then you wrote a WP:TERTIARY source, based on the majority opinion of established secondary sources, and no cutting-edge, or fringe stuff, and certainly nothing original; just the staid ol', straight dope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore we are also a WP:TERTIARY source, and we follow the old, staid path (see, e.g., WP:NOTLEAD and WP:RECENTISM, the latter of which you fell into a bit at Cisnormativity). Changing gears like this can be wrenching at first, but if you keep that in mind and confine your investigative, original work for publication outside WP, I think you'll be a great editor here. Your background will be a significant advantage in awareness of the sources available, a sense of history, and probably a sense of balance (we call it WP:DUEWEIGHT) so will tend to put you a step ahead. In the meantime, WP:BE BOLD, and ask questions. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics: gender-related articles

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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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. Please read this through, and follow the link above. Feel free to ask me or any editor for more details. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gayle Salamon (January 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Gayle Salamon 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.

Spinster300 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gmsrubin! Having an article draft 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! Spinster300 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)