User talk:JoePhin

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi JoePhin! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:55, Monday, December 28, 2020 (UTC)

Welcome JoePhin! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 40,600,669 registered editors!

Hello JoePhin. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Bag of holding
Hello JoePhin! I have for the most part restored the content you had removed from Bag of holding section in Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). There was a separate article about this, but it was decided in a deletion discussion that there was not enough encyclopedic content based on secondary sources to warrant it's own article, but to merge it to where it is now. I think the content that does not pertain to D&D is also important to have there. Actually, I think it is especially important, because: I have seen many deletion discussions about such topics, where a main argument was that there is not enough content with real-world relevance, and so many an article was deleted because it was considered "fancruft". If we don't have enough such real-world connections, the Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) article is also in danger of being deleted in the long run. If you think otherwise, or if you are concerned with specific phrasings, let's please discuss. Happy New Year! Daranios (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello JoePhin, thanks for stopping by! Yeah, many D&D-related articles (and other fictional topics) have been deleted/redirected in the last year(s), and you can see the reasoning in this specific case here. Those most strongly advocating for deletion would expect a rather long direct treatment (and not focussing on plot-summary) of the topic in question in several secondary sources. As for combination on a level lower than the whole Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), Hammerspace has been suggested as a possible parent article for the concept on a broader scope than D&D. There also once was an article about the concept of Magic satchel, but at that time was also voted to deletion here. Daranios (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC) First I had posted that at my page before realizing you kindly switched talk pages for answers. So I repost here, just in case. Daranios (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Daranios, thanks for reposting this here. Joe 14:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing
Hi, just a note that edits like this one risk leaving misleading referencing behind. If the sentences you've added are not verifiable by looking at the citation (I haven't checked) then it's potentially misleading to leave an existing citation sentences away from the information it originally used to support. Keep up the good work! GPinkerton (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, and I see what you mean. I'm going to revisit this page and make sure its all in the reference (it should be, I think) and I'll try to make sure the references aren't mixed up or too far away from specific portions of the text they relate to. Maybe I could even get another good reference involved in there. On an unrelated note, is the reason you have no userpage so that when people link your name like '' it comes out pinkish looking, or is that just a coincidence? Thanks again for the attention and critique, if you ever notice anything else like that in my edits, please let me know and I'll try to do it better (I'm noob). Yours, Joe 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

BRD
If you are revedrted you make a case at talk you do not just edit war.

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

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

Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . I'm "revedrted", am I? I invite you to discuss your concern over my edit to the Cryptozoology page here, or if you have some more technical objection to my edit, to bring it up in the article's talk page, which I will try to look out for. I recommend that you read the NPOV article to understand why the text in the Cryptozoology article does not currently meet Wikipedia's strict neutrality standard. The short version is: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject", as well as the BRD article, particularly the 'What BRD is not' section where it is observed that, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." as well as the 'Alternatives' section where it is observed that, "BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress."
 * Reading through the Cryptozoology talk page, other editors have noted your unwillingness to compromise on the article, for example, wrote, "for each topic on wikipedia there are a handful of obsessed editors who in their minds 'own' a given page, and dominate any changes made to that page to ensure that it stays in line with their own views. For this page, Cryptozoology, the dominant editor(s) have decided that all crytozoology is a front for young earth creationism, and have applied to this topic (cryptozoology) the same condemnation they associate with the other topic (creationism). In reality they have homed in on a particular sub-group of cryptozoology and applied the entire article to that group. This is evident in the current 'owner's words, 'As the article makes clear, cryptozoology is a well defined subculture.'"
 * I believe you may be what the BRD article calls a 'VIP' - a Very Interested Person - and while I am dubious of your willingness to engage in an honest back and forth, or to address the NPOV violation on the article, I am willing to have a discussion with you. I understand that you probably deal with many cryptozoologists who wish the Wikipedia article to say 'cryptozoology is a perfectly legitimate science' and I would stand with you against edits to that effect. I am not a cryptozoologist, as is evidenced by my own edit where I refer to cryptozoology as pseudoscience. The fact that cryptozoologists use pseudoscientific methods does not mean neutrality goes out the window. One way or the other, the Cryptozoology page will be held to NPOV. No matter our disagreements, I wish you the best. Please take care. Joe 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss this is over at the articles talk page, where others can also make their case. Compromise can only be reached, if people discuss, not just revert, you failed to discuss thus there was no possibility of compromise. Moreover, I knew others would revert you, hence why I told you to seek consensus. I will not discuss your reasoning here, I will at the talk page of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest you read wp:agf and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We will have the discussion on the Cryptozoology talk page, then, Ping me if you want to ask me anything, I'll try to reply. All my best, Joe 17:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PLease make you ca there then.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 18:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'll happily admit that I'm new and that I don't know everything about Wikipedia's policies yet (although I have been recommended more than a little reading over the past month). If you see me slacking on compliance with policies and guidelines, or if you think something I post is otherwise errant or disruptive, I really would like it if you would let me know; and since I've gotten mixed up in the Cryptozoology page, I will keep FRINGE in mind. It is fringe stuff, after all. Joe 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at cryptozoology. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Your edit summaries and edit warring seem to indicate that you are assuming ownership over this article. As you have been warned already, further actions in this regard are likely to escalate to request for remedies including blocks and bans.'' jps (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A number of editors are behaving as if they own the cryptozoology page, but I am not one of them. You may have noticed that not a single one of my edits to the page, outside of minor copyediting, have survived, and we're discussing the edits in the talk page as per WP:BRD. Speaking of BRD, I'd appreciate it,, if you would contribute to the discussion we were having rather than summarily deleting material from the page that is under review. Joe 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your signature
Please could you change your signature; it conflicts with a longstanding administrator (User:Joe Roe) who also uses "Joe". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, nice to make your acquaintance, however digitally, and sorry for any confusion my name caused. In the future, if you're ever trying to tell the difference between my and Joe Roe's posts, there are several distinctions. Your man Joe's signature: "–&#8239;Joe (talk) " always contains a dash, and the 'talk' portion is smaller. Mine is just the extremely generic "Joe (talk)" with no dash or embellishments. Now that you've brought it up, I've realized there are probably hundreds of other 'Joe's' out there on Wikipedia (it's hardly an uncommon name, after all) and I probably ought to add some distinction to my own signature to make it easier for people to distinguish, just as Joe Roe has. I'll probably make it emerald or something, if I ever figure out how you clever kids change the colors on these things. Thanks for mentioning it.
 * P.S. I enjoyed glancing through your user page, and particularly liked number 28 from Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Maintenance - wish you'd been there to scream for me the first time someone dropped 'WP:SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS' on me without explanation. Cheers from Joe Phin (not to be confused with the no-doubt eminent Joe Roe) 00:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might find this tutorial helpful.:) S0091 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, you're always helping me out! Joe (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not enough, apparently. I see you have ran into some "trouble".  Best advise is to heed what experienced editors are telling you, even if at time it does not make sense.  Have fun creating your new sig! S0091 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about me, I got bit a few times, and I may have bumped into a few walls here and there, but it worked out alright in the end. Also, behold! All new druid-green Joe ! I rather like it, I ought to have done it sooner. Cheers for everything, a little bit goes a long way.  Joe  (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC info
Joe, an RfC is a WP:Request for comment. Most acronyms and wiki-jargon can be found by entering "WP:.." into the search bar, as in "WP:RfC". Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you kindly! Joe  (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Quote
"The door was opened by a young woman. Very obviously a young woman. There was no language in which she could have been mistaken for a young man, particularly not braille." -Pterry Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What can I say, Gråbergs Gråa Sång? I'm a silly bugger. Joe  (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

 * Cheers, this 'super straight' page certainly is controversial, I'll try to be careful. I'll ask you if I have any questions, and if you see an edit of mine you think is poor, please ping me and let me know! I just want to copyedit, but I somehow find myself drawn into Wikipedia controversy. Must be a character flaw. Anyway, if you've got the time, check out the new super straight page that, if you ask me, has been created despite the subject matter's general lack of notability. Maybe you can help improve it before it gets deleted for being POV and unreliably sourced? I don't have high hopes.
 * Nice to make your acquaintance! Joe  (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi JoePhin, this message is a standard notice issued to editors who demonstrate interest in controversial topic areas. In your case, the Super straight article is covered under special rules (discretionary sanctions on gender and sexuality) mentioned near the top of Talk:Super straight. Many editors involved in controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of the rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf.If you would like to opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions at Ds/aware to place an awareness banner on your user talk page.Based on the discussion at Articles for deletion/Super straight, it looks like the main argument for deleting the Super straight article is that the reliable source coverage on this topic is not sustained over a sufficiently significant period. Since article content does not determine notability, improving the content of the article would not actually counter that argument. If the article does get deleted, I recommend looking out for new coverage of this topic, and collecting reliable sources that can be cited into a future draft of the article. If the article subject is determined to not be notable now, it could still be notable after new reliable sources materialize in the future. —  Newslinger  talk   07:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I'll keep an eye out for more articles! Also, I don't think I'll remove myself from these notification things, I'm still just three months old on Wikipeida, so I appreciate any help/advice. Cheers! Joe  (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

'Dead meme' section on your user page
This is a bit odd: Your name doesn't appear in the discussion at RfD which led to the deletion of dead meme. More to the point: In most cases, only administrators can delete pages, so the statement that 'deleted' something has the potential to mislead other editors into thinking you're an administrator. I suggest you change the wording or remove the section. Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to say this. I'm guessing you didn't recognize the image? Or read the other sections on my page? (If you do have a read through, don't worry, that link doesn't actually go to a GoFundMe page)
 * Worry not, if anyone erroneously concludes that I am an admin from such scurrilous evidence as a meme, I will be only too happy to dissuade them. Maybe I'll even add a userbox to that effect. Nice to meet you anyhoo, Mr. Tea! Joe  (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you, too. Thanks for making the change to your user page. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at MRM
You know that the Men's rights movement article is under discretionary sanctions, right? So please start a discussion for the text you wish to include, and don't stick it back in without any kind of context connecting it to the MRM.

The WP:ONUS is on the person who wishes to have disputed text in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 GOCE news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Wikipedia
Merry Christmas Card.png Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night! Joe (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLELANG
What it says is Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white). We leave this up to editors at an individual page. valereee (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, JoePhin, and welcome to Women in Red. As you are interested in archaeology and paleontology, you perhaps intend to write about women who are active in these fields. If so, you might find some deserving names in our redlinks, e.g. women archaeologists (crowd sourced) and women archaeologists (from Wikidata). Similar redlists exist for paleontology: (crowd sourced) and Wikidata. As you have not yet created any biographies, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thank you for all these links, I shall have a look at them, and I will definitely ask you if I have questions. I'm only barely a year old on Wikipedia, so I appreciate any help. Cheers! Joe  (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're getting along very well after your first year. I look forward to helping you out. It's good to have a new member with such a great sense of humour.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018



 * February 2022&mdash;Issue 018


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019



 * March 2022&mdash;Issue 019


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hippo
Please don't reignite this again. We already had a long discussion, and got a consensus to mention the myth but not to use these three sources. We don't need three sources for a trivial statement, particularly YouTube videos. Move on. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020



 * April 2022&mdash;Issue 020


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Linking
Yo, I appreciate all the hard work you do at List of common misconceptions as I'm sure you do elsewhere. Just thought I'd point out that in linking you can use, for example,  to generate the link Help:linking in place of. Hope this helps! Anderjef (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ! I've only been editing Wikipedia for about a year and a half, so I'm still very much a noob, and I appreciate whenever people let me know these things. I think I've probably made a bunch of links that are needlessly long and stupid all over Wikipedia. I'll try to make my links with 's's and 'ing's and whatnot on the end rather than like ((Duck|Ducks)) from now on. Cheers! Joe  (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. Hopefully it'll save you some time. :) Anderjef (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IP
The Ip is at it again on the stabbing page Joe. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They’ve now been warned. But idk if I should continue reverting because I don’t want to get busted. If I wasn’t warned, I should be ok. But do you think you could also keep an eye? LordBossMaster100 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I had to step away for a moment, but I see the page has been restored by User (thanks by the way, WWGB). If this continues to be a problem, we can ask for the offending IP to be temporarily banned for disruptive editing.  Joe  (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * They seemed to have stopped for the time being because somebody warned them, and the page has been request for semi protection from IPs. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Heed?
Dear, I appreciate you removing vandalism, but I like to be the master of my own talk page. Would you please restore whatever that random IP editor added? I'll remove it myself, if I want to. Cheers! Joe (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * JoePhin, while I understand the desire to control what's on your page, there are things that are detrimental to the project and have repercussions beyond one's desire to curate their talk page. The post has been deleted, not just removed, and cannot be restored.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mary Sue
Greetings. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Mary Sue with reference to an article in Bitch magazine. Do you happen to know the author/title/date of the specific article? I haven't been able to find these details online. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Sangdeboeuf, the source I was using for that was (I think the only) Bitch Magazine reference that's already on the page; Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, Volume 31, P56, specifically
 * "Regularly referred to as "Marty Stu," or "Gary Sue," they are especially prevalent in science fiction and fanfic..."
 * I see that someone changed the lede back to "Gary Stu." I'm not sure if that's attested to in the RS, but at the same time, speaking in terms of simple WP:BLUE, the term Gary Stu is undoubtedly used, and may actually be more common for all I know. It probably doesn't really matter if we say "Gary Sue" or "Gary Stu." I mean, we could say both, in addition to "Marty Stu," but if we listed every single male alternative, that might go on for a while. Unless you think we should change it to be "Gary Sue" per Bitch, I'm happy to have it either way.
 * Nice to talk to you, cheers! Joe  (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a preview for that source is not available. However, with some digging I was able to find a full-text version of the article: https://works.bepress.com/raizelliebler/14/. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * huh, that's very weird, I can actually see a preview when I look on that google books page I linked. Maybe it's region locked or I have special access to it through an institution or something? I don't know why I can see it but you can't. Anyway, thanks for finding a general purpose version of the text, and thanks for your recent cleanups on the Mary Sue page - reference copyediting is one of those important but thankless things that tends to just get ignored forever because it's mostly out of sight and out of mind. I appreciate it whenever I see someone doing that sort of thing. :) Joe  (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see now, there is a snippet visible on the "classic" GBooks site that doesn't show up on the newer site. The wonders of technology ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Common Misconceptions Discussion
Hey Joe, unsure if my last response in our discussion got lost in the fray, dropping a link here. Sorry if this is presumptuous and you've just been busy and haven't had time to respond. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I left you hanging there for a bit,, I just left a response on the Common Misconceptions talk page a moment ago. Cheers. Joe  (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21



 * August 2023&mdash;Issue 021


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 22



 * September 2023&mdash;Issue 022


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 23



 * October 2023&mdash;Issue 023


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 24



 * November 2023&mdash;Issue 024


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 25



 * December 2023&mdash;Issue 025


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 26



 * January and February 2024&mdash;Issue 026


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!



Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 27



 * March and April 2024&mdash;Issue 027


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!



Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Joe!
Welcome back to the List of Common Misconceptions talk page and article. Enjoy the WP:SOUP! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a break from editing Wikipedia for five minutes, and while I was gone the lede got deleted and someone proposed to delete the whole article. I guess there's no rest for the weary, eh? Joe  (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Deep One Lovecraft 5576
Hey! Would you mind making the necessary changes to this image to give me proper attribution (it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license)? Thank you! Coughdrop12 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Sorry if it's bothersome of me to ask, but how should I do that? Joe  (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not bothersome at all! I am not entirely sure, but I think you just need to mention that the image has been cropped, masked (you removed the background), and mirrored under "source" alongside giving a link to the original image.
 * I am using these images as a reference:
 * Male whale shark at Georgia Aquarium crop.jpg
 * Nurse shark with remoras (cropped).jpg Coughdrop12 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, TY! I'll make those changes. Sorry I didn't originally, I don't do much editing on the commons end of things. Thanks for posting the lovely image, by the way! Joe  (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Lede
Hey Joe, thought I would drop a line here as I'm going to open an RfC on the lede if no other editors are weighing in (beyond you and MS). I wanted to run some options by you and confirm that you won't drop a link to a source you believe the lede is summarizing:

Option 1) Is the paragraph:
 * "A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true but which is actually false. They generally arise from conventional wisdom (such as old wives' tales), stereotypes, superstitions, fallacies, a misunderstanding of science, or the popularization of pseudoscience. Some common misconceptions are also considered to be urban legends, and they are sometimes involved in moral panics."

sourced by WP:BLUE in light of an editor challenging it as incorrect and unverifiable?

Option 2) Is the paragraph....

Summarizing the sources provided in the body of list of common misconceptions?

Option 3) Does WP:BURDEN require sources verifying the information in the paragraph...

Be provided before the content can feature in the article after its veracity and correctness has been challenged?

I will admit I will be quite rocked if an RfC confirms that the sourcing was fine and I was reading policy this badly the whole time, and I'll likely have to step away from the page for a while haha. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear User Rollinginhisgrave, first of all, please feel free to make a RfC, it's always good to get lots of people's opinions about these things. I very much expect you will not get the lede removed, however, in light of the overwhelming number of RS that support it. When you ask for someone to "drop a link to a source", I'm a little perplexed by what you exactly want or expect. Do you think there is a single citation in the body of the List of Common Misconceptions page that will source the entire lede? I mean, there may well be, given the absolute preponderance of sources, but you'd be better served by seeking out the individual aspects of the lede that you find issue with. For example, if you are in some way unsatisfied with the statement about common misconceptions being linked to old wives tales in the lede, I recommend having a look through the article and checking out the sources on entries that could also be considered old wives tales. If you do the same for each individual aspect of the lede, you will find ample citation, and I suspect that in a RfC, the same result will be found. That said, this is the sort of dialectical that improves things! I'm sure the lede isn't perfect, and having multiple people think and argue about it is sure to result in some kind of synthesis. I'm afraid your section became a little bit buried on the Common Misconceptions talk page, and didn't get much attention, so again, by all means, feel free to get a RfC going! Joe  (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Haha, User:WhatamIdoing has resolved the issue I had with the entries. I don't think it was a failure to read policy, but a failure to think through exactly how conventional wisdom could cause common misconceptions. Glad it's resolved. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad it got sorted out. Cheers! Joe  (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)