Foggymaize

Welcome!

Hello, Foggymaize, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Just a heads up to everyone that Foggymaize is my wife and I will be helping her get started editing here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Hamilton County Bluegrass Band has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hamilton County Bluegrass Band. Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamilton County Bluegrass Band (June 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Hamilton County Bluegrass Band may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SweetCanadianMullet 22:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Foggymaize, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! SweetCanadianMullet 22:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hamilton County Bluegrass Band concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Hamilton County Bluegrass Band, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and people associated with the same, all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Alerting you to sanctions since you're editing in trans-related areas. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your Question on Feminist Views on Transgender Topics

Hi Foggymaize

I'm not really editing pages related to the issue, I usually just proofread, and not that often either. So I wasn't aware of that page and have kind of read it quickly so I can answer your question. On that first read through it looks like a fair summary. One might add photographic proof of TERF being used to incite violence in the TERF section, as there is now enormous amounts of photographic evidence of the dehumanising way in which the word is used (lesbians for instance who simply state that they are same-sex attracted are now called TERFs, so it's clearly changed in meaning and/or applied indiscriminately).

There is definitely a branch of feminism that insists on including transwomen but that this refers to transsexuals rather than today's self-identified transgender male is not quite clear. There is a huge battle underway in the UK right now, with ever more grassroots women's rights groups being founded - it seems by the month now - where a lot of previously apolitical women organise to publicly object to a proposed law reform that seeks to introduce sex self-identification. And maybe this is a new fourth wave of feminism, as they seem to focus on rejecting "gender ideology" as regressive and third wave feminism as pandering to the patriarchy (clearly radical feminist views if you look at it closely) but who knows. It's definitely an ongoing issue which is possibly why the reform only gets a passing mention.

But like I said, I think it's quite a fair summary. Depending on your article though, I would suggest that you definitely seek out non-Wikipedia sources. I only ever use Wiki as a starting off point because I have found far too many inaccuracies, untruths and ideological bias in far too many fields. Usually good for a starter, but not good enough to be your only research (but you probably know that).

I hope this answers your question. If not, just get back in touch. Small candles (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Having just had another look at the page in question, there is clearly an edit war going on. This is an article dedicated to feminist views of transgender ideology (both critical and supportive) which should neutrally explore and present the various feminist responses to the ideology. Since I looked at it on the 8th (when I thought it could be improved but which page couldn't), it has been changed however, so that it now reads like a transgender ideologist's write up of the issue. It's definitely no longer neutral (if it ever was). So while it was tolerable before, it is now undeniably unacceptable. I am somewhat loathe to get involved though as I don't know if wading into the fray here will lead to anything other than me being banned.Small candles (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)