User talk:Antiqueight/Archive 2017

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy 2017!
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU!! So lovely to get. You too!  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 20:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Gertrude Kelly
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent news. Missed it on the day but lovely to know.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 20:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally chuffed
My Gertrude Kelly DYK was visible on the 6th of Jan which is Women's Christmas AND it surpassed 5,000 views on the day. I am delighted by both these things. Either would be a cause enough for joy.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 21:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My prizes
The fabulous books I got as prizes from the WikiProject Ireland/WLM Ireland 2016 Writing Contest



As well as a cool Wiki book bag, pen and magnet.

Wonderful prizes.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Janet O'Sullivan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Janet O'Sullivan.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was under the impression an email from the owner had been sent. I will chase up on that. I have a Facebook message giving permission. I guess I could forward a screen shot of that if nothing else?   &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly that won't be valid for permission. The way that people can fake profiles these days (not to say you would) puts us in a very awkward legal position if we accept it. A direct email from the owner is the best way to proceed. I also actively process the tickets that come into the queue so i'll keep an eye out. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can confirm the account is valid. I have met her which is why I have the account on facebook, my FB rules are that I have to have met you in person (with a handful of exceptions...). But of course I could be lying and you can't tell that either. I've sent her a note asking her to email the address above.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely trust you as an 18k editor and would accept it, but it's mostly the Wikimedia Foundation's skin that's on the line if there is ever a court case over it (people have filed for less), so that's why I have to be so thorough in verification. Plus not to mention they could target me for some kind of damages. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Try Ticket 2017011710013653 or 2017011710014091 - Janet sent me a simple line saying she approves the photo for Wikipedia which I have forwarded with the facebook information and agreement for use (I hope). Thanks for your help.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your deprecation of my edit
I noticed you deprecated a revision (diff) I made at KT Tunstall. First things first: a deprecation is not a revert. Unapproving an edit only pushes it back in the pending queue; editors are not notified when their changes are deprecated; and your fellow reviewers are highly unlikely to see your review notes—in practice, a deprecation only serves to hide changes until another reviewer approves them.

Now, as to the substance, did you read my edit summary? NOTBROKEN ("Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken") is a guideline—something you are expected to follow in mine run cases, see GUIDES—and it explicitly rejects your idea about piped links. As it explains, linking to a redirect instead of piping facilitates usage tracking, eases maintenance, and simplifies editing markup. If you disagree with this conclusion, you should open a discussion to change the guideline. Thank you. Rebb ing  21:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe in not biting newbies. The edit was valid if unnecessary, the editor relatively new. So I approved it and left it, it didn't damage the article. You reverted it on the grounds of not broken. I didn't want to directly revert you,, but I felt it was unnecessary so I put it back in the queue for someone else to review.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 22:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in biting anyone, but the IP's edit was not merely unnecessary but actually contrary to our guideline concerning redirects; my revert was appropriate, and there would have been no legitimate reason to undo it. Your deprecation of my approval of my own guidelines-based edit intending that someone else might revert me comes across as passive-aggressive and sneaky; the reviewer right is not to be used to gain an advantage in disputes. I can tell you, as someone who has a little more experience with the right than you, that the only result this sort of behavior will produce is confusion, irritation, and the possible removal of your bit. Rebb  ing  23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah - that put me off editing for a while.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

reference for rehab engineering article
hey, saw the 'citaton needed' claim in the article where it says that web access is also a topic in rehab engineering. heres a book you can use for citation or just list as a reference!

heres the link: https://books.google.at/books?id=DejKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=Engineering+Rehabilitation+web+access&source=bl&ots=fU07nnmIb8&sig=xmRE7mbCuag4hCphesUbfFcSx_o&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-_rSqvO3RAhVTsBQKHdWSC3EQ6AEIIDAC

mfg, toffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:4000:7380:D10E:A045:B78A:F3FF (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . I didn't realise it was a year ago - I was very happy to get this and today I started as new job it's particularly nice to be reminded.

April events at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello from Shir-El too...
I received a messge that someone has, supposedly, altered an article I am unfamiliar with from my IP address.

Since my computer has only been out of my possession for a repair, since I DO NOT save my passwords on it and since, under normal circumstances, I am the ONLY user with access to my computer, EITHER the repairman abused his trust or someone has COUNTERFITED my IP address.

Please specify dates of this infraction, so that I can pinpoint which possiblity it is. Cheers, Shir-El   too  20:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * PS The IP address quoted in your message DOES NOT appear in the article's history. ARE YOU THE TROLL? Shir-El   too  20:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I don't know your IP address and see your name here - I don't know which edit you are talking about? I addressed 2 IP edits recently - is it one of these or another - also, it is unfriendly to accuse another long term editor of being a troll without more evidence than an message about an IP address.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 07:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 offerings @ WikiProject Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

July 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

September 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question about peer or earl
Thank you for your message about Mary Stanley. My reasoning was that, if the wives of peers are not categorised in the same stub categories as their husbands, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_nobility_stubs would have to contain 25 different sorts of wives - i.e. duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, viscountesses and baronesses in the peerages of Engalnd, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the UK. While there are 25 separate categories for their husbands. As stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Why_is_stub_sorting_important.3F "stub categories attract experts in specific areas (chemists can see chemistry stubs for example)". I suggest that Mary Stanley is more likely to receive attention from an expert if she is in the same category as her husband, than if she is in Category:British_nobility_stubs. I agree that the logical consequence of my suggestions is that each of the 25 peer categories should be amended so that it refers also to peeresses - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Peerage_of_England_duke_stubs would read "This category is for stub articles relating to dukes *and duchesses* of the Peerage of England. May I seek your opinion on where would be the most appropriate place to propose this? Alekksandr (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of fictional characters with disabilities has been accepted
 List of fictional characters with disabilities, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=List_of_fictional_characters_with_disabilities help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your draft article, List of fictional characters with disabilities


Hello, Antiqueight. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of fictional characters with disabilities".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of the List of fictional characters with disabilities
I noodled up a version of your article that's in table form so it can be sorted (by work, by medium, by refs existing, etc etc). It's sitting at User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 3 - thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oooh! that's lovely! Wow. Well done. ! Yes, I think you could just drop it into the page entirely.. - Only addition I can think of is to add a sortable column of what the disability type is so that if someone is looking for "disability like mine" they can quickly find it? This is an area I'm not hugely familiar with but thought would be handy for people looking for other people with disabilities in fiction...  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's good too, saves having to explain it in the notes. I think in that case I'll merge the notes/refs column into one to save room. I also kind of want to have a separate column for medium so you can sort by work/series/universe and by medium as well. I'm glad you liked it, I didn't want to just dump it on your article all willy-nilly and confuse or possibly upset you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! As someone on the talk page noted it's missing the literature genre at the moment. Mostly because when I started I was rooting through those I knew and any who came up while I looked them up to check I had it right....  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and the note worked so well. I might well have been piqued at such an overhaul but it is such a good idea. I try not to 'own' pages but I'm only human ;-)  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh totally, especially if you've done a lot of work on something. I have a couple of pages that I started where I would be more than a little salty if someone went and overhauled them without so much as pinging me. I'm wondering if some of these categories wouldn't be better served with split-off lists eventually. Category:Fictional characters with disability has quite a few sub-categories with lots of entries. Anyway sorry for the long gap there, I had to be offline briefly, but I'll go ahead and copy the table version over into the mainspace. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent (yes, I was afk for a while too). Honestly I started the list then got uncertain about it so put it in for AfC and forgot all about it. Now I get to try remember where I was and pick up and run with it. :-D    &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 07:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Mail
--Muzammil (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WiR December highlights
--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Advice
You asked for my opinion. This is not policy. This is my own idealistic view of living with Wikipedia. There are 25m + articles and 5m + of them are in English. A proportion of these have errors. A very small percentage have errors that I could spot. One of the errors in one article is due to an editor who thinks that they must be right and they are willing to play games to keep their opinion as the correct way in that article. Luckily Wikipedia has procedures that over months that will control editors who cannot agree, but I will need to invest a lot of time to get that help. Where should I place the majority of my efforts? I think that the "small percentage [with] errors that I [can] spot" times 5 million is a lot of (very productive) work. The one article that has a problematic editor can takes it turn? Victuallers (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So I should let it be and wait for time to do its job in correcting it? (Opinion, not policy) In slang - 'chill'?  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 20:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's my suggestion. If you look at how you can be most productive and avoid damage from arguing with someone who enjoys stress more than you. Thats not to say that you I would stand by whilst someone adds that JFK's other killer has been found. But if someone wants to change someone's birthyear fron 1870s to 1873 (without a citation) then there are bigger errors to fix (if they refuse to listen). However if you want to proceed then we can Victuallers (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

IPBE request
Hi -- I'm terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your email, but sometimes things get lost on the functionaries list. :-/

I see you're able to edit normally now, but I've granted you an IPBE so this doesn't happen again. The range from which you were editing has a very active sockmaster that uses that network from time to time and I can't change that block, but I can fix it so it doesn't affect you.

If there's anything else I can do, you can contact us again or email me, and I'll do what I can. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize again. Katietalk 12:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No worries - I am well aware how long it can take when there is so much to cover. I have been able to edit from any location except that IP. But if this works it will be excellent. Thanks for your help. I'll be giving it a shot after Christmas. Have a good holiday.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 13:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Help or suggestions, please...
Hello! I added information from The BMJ to the article Man flu, which was immediately catergorized a 'spoof' by another user. To clarify the issue I contacted The BMJ directly and received an email confirmation that the article in question was for real and based on current, published research.

I took the item seriously because of recent reports of medical and pharmaceutical information being seriously biased due to single-gender studies and testing - most often to the detriment of women. Now a bot has demanded a sitation for my revision and I don't know how to deal with it.

Any suggestions? Cheers! and SEASON'S GREETINGS!!! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  06:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The bot is merely cleaning up the tag. The BMJ supposedly writes spoof articles at Christmas - so the question is whether or not this article is a spoof or not. The term man-flu usually isn't serious so it needs a good citation to show that the article is not a spoof. If you have that evidence, you can go back and show that the article is not a spoof.....The problem with the email confirmation is that it isn't public. If the BMJ for example had a website where they confirmed the information either way - or even a confirmed twitter account which stated it? Worst case you could ask an administrator if there is a way to use the email to confirm it, though I don't see that working. I'll read the rest of the article - but asking for a citation is usually fair enough - and an email to you rarely counts.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact a quick online search shows that your best bet is to find sources which support the science behind the article or the BMJ's spoof articles. Basically don't give up on finding other supporting citations.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IPBE request
Hi -- I'm terribly sorry for the delay in responding to your email, but sometimes things get lost on the functionaries list. :-/

I see you're able to edit normally now, but I've granted you an IPBE so this doesn't happen again. The range from which you were editing has a very active sockmaster that uses that network from time to time and I can't change that block, but I can fix it so it doesn't affect you.

If there's anything else I can do, you can contact us again or email me, and I'll do what I can. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize again. Katietalk 12:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No worries - I am well aware how long it can take when there is so much to cover. I have been able to edit from any location except that IP. But if this works it will be excellent. Thanks for your help. I'll be giving it a shot after Christmas. Have a good holiday.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 13:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Help or suggestions, please...
Hello! I added information from The BMJ to the article Man flu, which was immediately catergorized a 'spoof' by another user. To clarify the issue I contacted The BMJ directly and received an email confirmation that the article in question was for real and based on current, published research.

I took the item seriously because of recent reports of medical and pharmaceutical information being seriously biased due to single-gender studies and testing - most often to the detriment of women. Now a bot has demanded a sitation for my revision and I don't know how to deal with it.

Any suggestions? Cheers! and SEASON'S GREETINGS!!! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  06:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The bot is merely cleaning up the tag. The BMJ supposedly writes spoof articles at Christmas - so the question is whether or not this article is a spoof or not. The term man-flu usually isn't serious so it needs a good citation to show that the article is not a spoof. If you have that evidence, you can go back and show that the article is not a spoof.....The problem with the email confirmation is that it isn't public. If the BMJ for example had a website where they confirmed the information either way - or even a confirmed twitter account which stated it? Worst case you could ask an administrator if there is a way to use the email to confirm it, though I don't see that working. I'll read the rest of the article - but asking for a citation is usually fair enough - and an email to you rarely counts.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact a quick online search shows that your best bet is to find sources which support the science behind the article or the BMJ's spoof articles. Basically don't give up on finding other supporting citations.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging