User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 10

AfD nomination of New Kadampa Tradition
An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

'''Greetings, Itsmejudith. Please comment at Talk:Eugenics'''Virago250 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved for archiving Darkness Shines (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on reliable source noticeboard?
Hi Itsmejudith, I know you've been active on the reliable source noticeboard, but haven't commented on the Ferenc Szaniszlo section.... either because its obvious, or too complicated, or too long, etc. But if you get the chance I'd appreciate your thoughts (when you've time). Sorry to trouble. Am trying to convince people working on the noticeboard to comment... -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS
How close is this to becoming policy? It is desperately needed, some of the sources I see used for historical facts are terrible. BTW, you have four TB templates at the top of your talkpage, they will not get archived cos of where they are. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be good. It has to become a guideline first, I think. User:Fifelfoo put so much work into it but now he has other claims on his time. I'll have to ask on the main helpdesk where we go now to get it accepted. Oh, those templates - I can't really be bothered with them. I suppose I could just manually add them to an archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved them to a section and signed it so it'll archive. I thought the village pump was the palace for those discussions? When you do post could you let me know the link please, I think this would be a major improvement for articles dealing with history. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Itsmejudith! I have been aware of your excellent Wikipedia work for a long time now, and I have wondered before why you weren't an administrator. Would you be interested in running for RfA? I am a little surprised that you didn't run again after your first try, as you got plenty of support then. It's been four years since then, and in my opinion that is more than enough to show that you've addressed the concerns raised in your first RfA. So how about it? If you're interested in running, then I promise to write you up a stormer of a nomination statement. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, am I to take this silence to mean "maybe"? :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, very flattered, dont have enough time at the moment. In a rush now, sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War - a recently deleted section
I am sorry to bother you, but the user Pluto2012 deleted the section "British policy in support of the Arabs" which is unfair in my opinion.
 * 1) If there are errors or biased view, it can be modified accordingly and not erased.
 * 2) concerning the facts in this removed section, I have not found any mistake yet. Moreover, I have asked him and other participating editors ,and none of none have returned with an error.
 * 3) There was a proposal to add Benni Morris somehow opposite 2 views (p. 78 & p. 81), which should be accepted, in my opinion.
 * I'll appreciate it if you have a look at it. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh
Debilitating.. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558282406 your edit] to Edge Hill University may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Central Lancashire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A suitable quote on Chaucer, Dante et al
Hi, thank you for your help. I think, given another editor's views, I won't add the piece as it is. Rather, it needs a direct quote, perhaps from Chauncey, which says in so many words that mediaeval authors including Chaucer and Dante made reference to astrological themes. Lewis certainly supports that but my quote could (at a stretch) be taken to mean Latin gods rather than planets. I'm inclined to leave the whole thing alone, but would be happy to help if you have a suitable quote to hand. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

British diplomacy supported the Arabs
I accepted the advice of user TransporterMan and would like to have your advice concerning the removal of the section:"British diplomacy supported the Arabs" (article:1948 arab israeli war). by user pluto2012.

The main problem, in my opinion is not the content but a user conduct. Pluto2012 deletes a lot of my writings, although he does not claim that there is an error or sources problem. He usually has some vague claims like: due weight, POV, better place etc.

As I see it, he should obey Wikipedia rule: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPoV#Achieving_neutrality do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.]

If I am wrong in blaming him, I would like to know why. Otherwise, if he does not obey the rules, he should be notified, and hopefully stop the methodical deletion of my writing.

Am I wrong or right in blaming him with this misconduct?

thanks Ykantor (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't go down the road of thinking about misconduct. Instead, stick to the sources. Can you find ultra-reliable scholarly sources? My advice: forget about the bias, think about the quality of the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I have done. When I realized that some sources are not popular (e.g. Karsh), I have looked for sources like Morris, Gelber who are accepted by everyone ( to my knowledge) but it does not help. Pluto is deleting my writings anyway, because off some vague claims like: due weight, POV, better place etc. There is no way to argue with him. If I try to isolate the problem he replies in a vague and generalized words. e.g. If asked what is wrong with Karsh points, Pluto replies by saying: "you have been already told", "it is in the talk page".


 * So I thought that if he would be told that he has to obey the rule, he might stop this harassing. It does not make sense to work, find sources, to write and then to watch how it is deleted, although it is correct, objective (in my opinion) and concise. I have nothing to loose here, even if I will be blocked.


 * Please, do me a favor and tell me: Am I wrong or right in blaming him with not obeying this rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. ? Ykantor (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Han-Nom (sic) again
FYI: 1. the merged article has reappeared. 2. Also related new edits to RfC at Template talk:Infobox Chinese. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga.
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic
Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation
Hey, Judith, wanna issue a Third Opinion in a dispute which involves the question of whether Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC) (Just kidding.)

children's books as sourcing for articles
Please feel free to edit or comment on my new essay on children's nonfiction as sources for various subjects. I read your comments a few months ago in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 40, including your comments of April 20th and 21st. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (Added a link I had stupidly forgotten and corrected another link: 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)) (Reformatted link (my error): 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC))

French Indochina in World War II
I saw your comment on my talk page, thanks for letting me know your thoughts - As you can probably imagine, these sort of national specific-historical articles are a bit of a minefield, but I'm firmly of the belief that countries/territories should be given the name they had at the time. Take Israel and Palestine - currently separate categories "in World War II" on Commons - Israel only became a country in 1948 and before that, the British Palestine Mandate covered the whole area. Distinguishing between them (in a historical period) is thus extremely confusing! It's obviously not quite such a problem with Vietnam, but it would be best to be consistent where possible! --Brigade Piron (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have the time ...
Hi, there! I've seen that you sometimes edit articles on academic institutions, and are well up on our policies on them and so on. If you have the time, would you care to take a glance at Central Saint Martins, where I've been trying to clean up a bit? I'd appreciate a second (and probably much sharper) pair of eyes. If not, no problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles
Since you participated in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2 you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI
You may want to note this: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp#Requested_move_2
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Tripp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You believe in materialism, eh?
I am the person who asked about the surname Bishop at the Language reference desk, and you replied. I went to your userpage and became impressed by the number of userboxes you have. Then, I noticed that you believe in materialism, and I was like, "Hey, isn't that outdated?" Since you are a materialist, I would like to hear your opinion, if you don't mind, on how you explain the existence of energy, physical forces, chemical properties that induce chemical reactions, and imagination (and I don't mean the neuronal activity in the brain). Personally, I have found the materialism unsatisfying and a bit outdated with what I know or perceive of the world. So, please, I would like to hear how you manage to reconcile materialism with your worldview. If you do not feel like answering this question, then you may ignore or delete this message. Thanks in advance. 140.254.227.67 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your enquiry. I don't think it's outdated at all. Only very narrow or reductive versions are obsolete. What I am really is a critical realist, starting from the idea that "the world exists independently of our knowledge of it". Critical realism is "a philosophy of and for the social and natural sciences". I'm also a Daoist. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm back. I am going to look into this critical realism philosophy; it looks quite interesting, and I am always into subjects pertaining to science and the philosophy of science and a bit of science fiction. It's neat that you're a Daoist. I once knew a half-Chinese woman who was Daoist and Buddhist, while her husband was atheist. I identify as a nonreligious atheist, because I come from a nonreligious environment, devoid of religious practice or beliefs. Nowadays, I don't even know what I am, but I enjoy reading the Bible and academic papers on religion and biblical matters. People say that an atheist can read the Bible as literature... in theory. In practice, I seriously wonder how many atheists actually read the Bible, become inspired by the works of God, and live as though God did exist. If there is such a thing called "implicit atheism", then I think there should also be a thing called "implicit theism", which basically means "trying to live a righteous lifestyle as if God exists without realizing that God exists". 140.254.136.158 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks. I also like looking at the Bible from time to time. I'm interested in religion as part of our history - east and west. Reading and editing Wikipedia is a good way to research all that. Itsmejudith (talk)

Thanks for the thank you note
Sincere thanks, but I only add categories and help place pix for User:KLOTZ (he's on Commons only). Without going into details, I'm sure he'd appreciate a note, though it may take him awhile to notice, and he's been taking photos for over 6 decades. Amazing guy. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit more info, see File:AUTOCARRIL, ECUADOR.jpg for a truly amazing photo. Apparently, nobody has anything like it anywhere on Commons - a schoolbus that was converted to be a self-propelled railroad car, running a route through the Andes that has been more or less closed ever since.  You might also appreciate a little video I made of his photos File:User KLOTZ the Movie.webm.  All the best Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment
Hi. You kindly commented on my inquiry in WP:RSN here. Since then, me and other folks added some notes. Would you mind taking another look to see if your opinion might have changed about this book. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Historian ?
Hello Itsmejudith,

I think we will not find an agreement on the talk page. Do you know if there is a place where we could ask people to solve this question undependently of any other context... Here : WikiProject History ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment requested
Hi Itsmejudith. This concerns this RSN discussion concerning this article talkpage discussion. Various remarks are calling for you such as: "You tried WP:RSN and got a reply and I said I didn't think she had all the information and if she would post here on the talk page I would accept it."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference desk question
Hi, I posted this to your recent reference desk query on the problems you were having with your Macbook Air, but the question was archived as I posted my reply. I've copied my response here as I hope that it will be of use to you. Equisetum (talk &#124; contributions) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP user was a bit snarky about it, but the point (s)he makes about backup is fundamentally an important one, and yes, Apple should advise you of it in the manual and frankly I'm surprised that they don't (I checked and it isn't mentioned). I don't think a backup drive should be included with the machine as some users may already own one (in the same way that I don't think that power adaptors or usb cables should be included with smartphones - it simply leads to waste). I'm not saying that this is what has happened to your machine, as it's impossible to tell without examining it, but any drive can fail catastrophically and irrecoverably at any point after purchase (for a device of such complexity is is simply not possible to eliminate the possibility of this happening). Therefore the only reasonable defence against loss of data is to maintain a reliable backup of any data you consider important. You need, at very least, an on-site backup (e.g. a backup hard drive), and for any data you wouldn't want to lose if your house got burgled, set on fire or flooded you need an off-site backup as well (i.e. some form of online backup). The following articles provide a very simple explanation of how to do this (there are of course other backup products, but I use these and they work well) on-site backup, off-site backup. I implore you, whatever the outcome of your current issue (and I hope it's positive!), to set up at least one of these (or an equivalent) immediately. Once set up, test it by trying to recover some data - a backup you can't recover stuff from is useless. I promise you, it will save a lot of headache in the long run. Equisetum (talk &#124; contributions) 14:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Simpsons
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much
Thank you for your support regarding WP:RD/L. Mille mercis. AldoSyrt (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Je t'en prie. Nice working with you. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing academic oddballs
Hi, I'm getting a bit concerned about incestuous sourcing and its effects on notability as well as perceptions of reliability. It is, of course, normal for academics to form subject- and theory-based affiliations but we seem to be developing a host of biographical articles around the fraught topic of libertarianism that really do rely on each other. I don't actually understand the libertarian concept and I've no great desire to delve into it but there appear to be a number economics professors, polemicist authors etc who are more notable for their revisionist writings on history and who form a school based around associations with thinktanks & publishers such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, Lewrockwell.com, The Independent Institute etc. They praise each other, they appoint each other and they cite each other ... but rarely do they seem to appear in, for example, mainstream history literature except when reviewed in an excoriating fashion. We are ending up with articles such as Thomas DiLorenzo & Jeff Riggenbach that rely substantially on these dodgy connections. Or are they dodgy? It feels to me like we've constructed an entire housing estate comprising buildings made of cards. Can we really rely on sources that are so intertwined yet distinct from the rest of the world?

I know that you have an interest in sourcing and in history stuff, so I'm just curious as to your opinion. If you have the time and inclination to expound, of course. I'm aware that the notability side of things probably is not of interest to you - no worries - but even those who are developing these articles are saying that independent sources are difficult to come by because the subjects are not of the mainstream. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to have a look at it all, Sitush. Thanks for the alert. In relation to the two individuals you mention, I think notability must be demonstrated before anything else. In terms of the institutes, I note that there doesn't seem to be a wikiproject on think tanks. I don't know if one is merited, but it would be good to work out what makes a good article on a think tank irrespective of its right-left orientation and the claims and counterclaims that surround some of them. That's just my first thoughts. I'll try and look a bit deeper. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. FWIW, I've just sent the Riggenbach one to AfD: it may be that is the best route to determine some sort of general consensus about these groups of niche/self-sustaining sources. And, yes, some sort of standard regarding think tanks would probably be no bad thing. I'll have a think about that. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a potential problem on Ludwig von Mises Institute, when it cites lewrockwell.com. I'm not entirely opposed to using non-independent sources for facts about when and how institutions are established. For instance, we rely a lot on universities' websites for their histories, locations of campuses etc. But this refers on to a section in Austrian school on a supposed split in that school and I'm far from convinced that the split is presented objectively. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for saying that you missed me on the Refdesks. I have no less affection for Wikipedia despite having less time for its improvement. As I've not been contributing, no one's had any reason to say anything positive to or about me. So that was a nice surprise. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it's me appreciating the nice comments. Many thanks and good luck in all your enterprises. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

re: AfD on Hunbatz Men
Just a note that I had to procedurally close the AfD on Hunbatz Men and renominate it, due to an error in nomination. I noticed you had made a comment on the original AfD, so just informing you, if you wish to comment on the 2nd nomination. Safiel (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

AIG
Is it just me, or is there massive overlinking form the website on the AIG article? That either means it's mianly OR or mainly insignificant, I'd say.... Guy (Help!) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Globis University Graduate School of Management
Thanks for your work on this article. I was (while gritting my teeth) erring on the side of credulousness/inclusiveness; you've chopped what I wanted to chop.

Well, I've spent quite enough time on the article for now. I may return to it later, I may not. (Of course if you ask me to take a look at this or that within it or pertaining to it, I'll try to do it.)

Incidentally, I've also mentioned the article here (W-project Japan). -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Getting some people who read Japanese on to it is a really useful step, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, one needs reliable sources in Japanese. ¶ Apropos of alien tongues, if you can translate from corporate blather into English, do please take a crack at "human resource management training" and "organizational development solutions". I mean, please don't think that you should get my OK or anything like that. (My own hunch is that they mean next to nothing, and they are best either deleted or discussed in the light of a certain elegant little book from Princeton University Press.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Human resource management training means training people to be what used to be called Personnel Directors. Organizational development solutions, means, I think, offering consultancy to companies that wish to improve how they are structured. It would help if people writing in English would write in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, right-branching: ([{human resource} management] training). -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose they don't have (inhuman (resource management) training). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparent Battleground/POV editing
In regards to this edit, no, it's not about Pamela Geller, it's about a long-term pattern of combative, POV editing. There's no one diff to demonstrate this. It's a long-term pattern. MM came to my attention as the result of this RSN discussion. And if you know me, I rarely get involved in disputes that come up at RSN but even if I was wrong, edit-warring to include possible BLP violations is never acceptable. Please see the following. The editor only makes one type of edit: inserting/defending negative (or at least what some may perceive as negative) information regarding some living person with which they disagree politically. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add that point in the ANI discussion. You may be right, and I am only judging from what I have seen. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added this post the ANI discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids
While I generally fully support the point you made here, I am not so sure about the Evening Standard. Are you sure you would regard it as a reliable source? On a further point, I wonder if the time has come to institute a general blacklist of tabloid sources on Wikipedia, as we already have for BLPs. We could base it on your list, or a modification thereof. --John (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this comment. ES is variable, not so good as the others, but has in-depth coverage of London issues. It's also well known for its arts coverage, so that a review in the Evening Standard would contribute towards notability for a book, play or film. I'm not sure what would be achieved by a whole blanket ban on tabloids. WP:RS used to specify "preferably at the top end of the market", or some such phrase, and I would be happy to see that go back in. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Self revert request
Hi, At List of... please delete your pointless, non-constructive salvo following my comment that "These arguments sound like a defence against accusations of bias." We're supposed to comment on content, not other editors' behavior, as you know full well. After you self-delete that bit, if you wish to make an "accusation of bias" please do so in a straight-forward manner at an appropriate venue, and then whoever you accuse can make a straight-forward "defense".... though it would be better to use language about article improvements instead of battle language. Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592314552 your edit] to Voltaire may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mohammed was a "charlatan", but "sublime et bold".

Voltaire
Sorry you are struggling there. Did you remove or added tags there as Bladesmulti says? Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I neither removed or added any tags. However, after bringing in the French text we now have too many primary sources and quotes. I'm pretty sure that the primary sources are the ones referred to by the good secondaries, Pomeau in particular. Since there are whole-length academic books, we really ought to make full use of them. The French-language and English-language scholarship constitutes a whole - everyone reviews and cites each other's work. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Spirit possession
I just saw your comment on User:John Carter's Talk page. (a) I could be of a little help in the area as I studied classical Greek demon possession texts 20 years ago, but not sure what area your query lies. (b) Any idea how to fix the yellow block on John's talk page? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles I have listed the articles from the 3rd edition of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits, which has "Possession" among its articles of 2 pages or longer, what I call "Major articles" there. So far as I can remember, that article deals with what we would here call "Spirit possession". If you can access that source, in any edition, that might help a lot. My computer broke down in December, and I gave myself a bit more time off over January, but I am going to work to establish lists of that type for as many major, basically current encyclopedic sources as possible. With enough of them, we might make some topics a bit more generally accessible for a lot of people. If you don't have access to the source, it might be best to drop a note at my WikiSource user talk page, as for the near future I expect to be doing more there in the near future.  John Carter (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln Group of Schools Page
Hi, ItsMeJudy. I am a digital marketing specialist employed at Lincoln Tech (Lincoln Group of Schools - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Group_of_Schools). I am tasked with cleaning up this page. I see that you are active in the colleges and university project. There are some inaccuracies on this page that need to be removed or revised. Could you tell me the best way to go about this, or how to find an editor who can help me with this? Thank you, Eric, 74.102.85.132 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Judith. (I'm sorry I called you ItsMeJudy before). I put this message on my talk page, but I think I was supposed to put it here? You suggested that I ask for help on the WikiProject Schools page. Could you tell me which page this is and where exactly I am to put this? Thank you very much. -Eric 74.102.85.132 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)
You are invited to join the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833. ... Since you previously responded in Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor Sing 11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loren Cordain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest Grove (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians?
Hi! In case you are interested, there is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. If you have time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Michael Barber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Minister of Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

David Littman (activist)
Hello Istmejudith,

Regarding this discussion, given there is a "disagreement", we need to make an official request for the move. Do you know how to proceed ?

Many thanks,Pluto2012 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

List of
Please see new subsection about the MOS at list of sci opposing; thx NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and maybe a favor?
Hi. Thanks for your encouragement and note at Talk:Vietnamese poetry. The original creator/translator Hongtran0507 has mysteriously reappeared, and seems willing to help me with this daunting task. This editor is a noob, I'm already setting high expectations, and I question my own ability to be a good mentor. Specifically (as is the case for most people) I don't remember what it's like to know less about the process, so when mistakes happen, my inclination is just to say "look it up" or to fix it my damn self, neither of which is very helpful for the growth of a new editor. My spidey-sense tells me this editor should be retained and will be affected by initial experiences. Maybe mentoring isn't your thing either, but if you can, I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on Hongtran's progress, and jump in if you see me providing inadequate guidance. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your interaction with him on his talk page and have few worries. He seems keen and will ask for guidance. By all means advise him to come to me if he needs a second opinion. I'm not going to be editing very intensely. I do speak some Vietnamese (rusty) and know the main poetic structures. I also read French. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I fear I will be editing intensely. "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!" Phil wink (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in but I'm actually female. Hongtran0507 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops! No, it's me that's sorry for assuming it. My only excuse is that men preponderate among wiki editors. Look forward to seeing your edits. Please do jump in on Vietnamese poetry, as it desperately needs a native speaker. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time
Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

VP again
Hi, IMJ. I'm near the bottom of my well of sources for verse forms at Vietnamese poetry. I've got a couple more coming through the library, but I suspect they won't yield much more on these lines. You seemed to have particular concerns about coverage for some of these forms, so I wonder if you wouldn't take a few minutes to informally review the sections I've completed(?). They're Prosody (both subsections) and Verse forms (Regulated verse, Luc bat, and Song that luc bat). Do you find elements missing? or that should be expanded or clarified? or approached differently? Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All very much improved. Many thanks for your hard work. I only really knew about luc bat, so the article is helpful and informative. When you've reached the end of what you can do, Hongtran might be able to help with some translation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Phil wink (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to track down an associate of yours...?
Hi 'Itsmejudith'

I am trying to get hold of someone who has credited you on their wiki user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unisouth

Do you have any contact details for Unisouth or the ability to get me in touch with them?

Many thanks,

Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wish I could help, but it was a long time ago, and I don't think I interacted much wih Unisouth. It was kind of them to acknowledge me. The user, given their name and interests, may have been connected with one of the universities on the south coast of England. Portsmouth, perhaps, or Brighton. But then, they may have graduated a while ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.. I'll keep trying :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:American Left
In 2011, you wrote there: "I would like to see less minutiae of party splits and more on the relationship between the various parties and the social movements." Well, the prefaces of The Encyclopedia of the American Left (copied into the talk page) plainly indicate that the most important categorizations in the American Left are pretty much "who likes capitalism and who doesn't?" and "who's got an international focus and who doesn't?" and those categorizations most likely define the relationships between many of the parties and movements (although I don't have a reference for that). Conservatives in the US seem to want to portray the left as mostly anticapitalist. Liberals just want to avoid the existence of those socialists and communists and claim the entire Left as if it were theirs to own. Check out my userpage and the recent article history for some amusing corrections I attempted at that article in February. I may be guilty of some bad policy wikidrama thingie, but nobody has stopped me so far. After the dust has settled, you might try to go in there and talk about the lead, scope, and structure of the article, but maybe not. You might have more patience than I have, but it's scary in there! Flying Jazz (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Better late than never
Good work on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive. Thank you. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi
Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

format error at ref desk?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#dry_leaves where I "fixed" what was apparently a format error of yours, although only you can confirm if it is what you intended. :) μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of people reported to have lived beyond 130& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Nice to see you back. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Ofir clarification
Either Shrike or I have misread your remarks on Jonathan Ofir at the RSN board. See here. My take was that you and Only in death does duty end did not question Ofir/Mondoweiss as reliable, which was the reason given for removing him from an article where it has lain, stable, for over one year. Could you find a moment to reread the RSN thread and perhaps clarify your view there on whether the existing translation, there since February 2016 until removed as WP:Undue, requires consensus to be restored now that one editor removed it on grounds Only in death does duty end finds totally unrelated to serious policy interpretation? Thanks and sorry for the bother, Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN
See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Drsmoo (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice old RfC withdrawn and recreated with a clarified question
This is to notify you that the prior RfC at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming was withdrawn as the question confused several people, and instead it was re-opened with a new clarified question. I am notifying all those that responded to the old RfC (except those that have already responded) so that they may comment on the new RfC. The new RfC is here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming Obsidi (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a reply at Talk:Cold War II
Hello. I pinged you at Talk:Cold War II for clarity request. I am giving you notice just in case. --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Hope you're ok. I notice that your edit count has dropped dramatically these last few months. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I’m absolutely fine. Just got a lot of real life going on at the moment. Thanks for your thoughtful message. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Khalid ibn al-Walid good article reassessment
Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"QIA" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect QIA. Since you had some involvement with the QIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Laun chba ller 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
Hi Doug. Thank you for the brownie. I'm hardly around at all though. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival


The article Shanghai International Fashion Culture Festival has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Apparently non notable festival."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)