User talk:The Vintage Feminist/Archive 1

Welcome
 Hello The Vintage Feminist, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

The Vintage Feminist, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi TVF - I replied to the question you asked at the Teahouse :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


 * --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Appointment as Member of the Order of the British Empire
I've changed your edit on Lesley Abdela that referenced "Member of the British Empire", this should be Member of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. The name of the order is in section 1 and ranks of the order in section 2 of The Statutes of the Order of the British Empire (The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 30250. pp. 7791–7999. Karl Stephens (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigations and protocol
Hi Vintage Feminist, thank you for your message on my talk page. However I need to explain that this was not the right way to go about this. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation against another user. In the case of the user you identified they were clearly linked as alternative accounts (see the outcome of the investigation). I understand that this can be confusing but we do have a policy on legitimate use of multiple accounts (see WP:SOCK). Also it is courteous to notify the user that you are reporting not other users. On the other hand notifying others can be seen as canvassing, and that's not appropriate. This approach can also led to miscommunication and that can led to interpersonal issues. As you are a relatively new editor here I can see that this was merely a mistake so I'm just giving you a heads-up on what people expect here--Cailil  talk 14:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. You are right I am new and I didn't know the rules regarding canvassing.


 * Just to be clear this was not a case of undeclared sock puppetry (I could see the declaration at the top of Iamcuriousblue's page and said so in my report). This was a case of illegitimate uses namely avoiding scrutiny and posing as a neutral commentator for going back and forth on the same article as two different users. Since I couldn't see where you were supposed to report suspected breaches, I sent an e-mail to the arbitration committee.  Roger Davies replied saying "Hi: Thanks for your note. The committee is not normally the first port of call for sockpuppet investigations, which are instead dealt with at WP:SPI. Best is probably to file a case there. Roger Davies" I instigated the investigation on his advice.


 * As for the issue of notifying the user about the report - in the "important notes" section on the main page it states: "You can notify the suspected accounts by adding [code given] to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.}" and again, on the page that you actually fill in it says "You may wish to notify the accused..." I perceived it to be sub-optimal * and notified those who I felt had been duped (ironically as a courtesy). Finally, regarding the outcome of the investigation, again my lack of knowledge meant I didn't realize that the length of time that had elapsed since the rules were broken would make the slightest bit of difference.


 * Overall, I regarded the whole thing as a simple administrative, housekeeping exercise, where the administrators would look at the days/dates/times and ask: Did this user break the rules? Yes / No, and take whatever action they thought necessary. Rather like tidying up the references section in an article. Having read their comments and yours I can see that this isn't the case.


 * Thanks again for your time over this.


 * * I can't imagine the circumstances when it wouldn't be sub-optimal. I may discuss it with Wikimedia's Gender Gap Project. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Opening an SSPI is intimidating at the best of times. Yes indeed the WP:SSPI does give advice on whether its optimal to advise the named user of the investigation. However, generally when dealing with linked accounts (no matter how clearly that link has been made) it is best to advise them - that's not in the 'rulebook' its just my observation over the years. And I can see why you opened this case - the page User:Iamcuriousblue doesn't clarify that they have/had a legit master account, but the User:Peter_G_Werner page does that the other account is a legit alternative account. This should have been clarified and I'm sure Iamcuriousblue will do so. My general advice is that a talk page discussion with the user might have sort this without the need to go to SSPI. But again no worries, Wikipedia's systems can be byzantine & our expectations of how people behaviour are often counter-intuitive. If you ever need to ask anything drop me (or any other sysop) a line--Cailil  talk 21:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexualization article revert
Hi. I just reverted your edit at the sexualization article. This kind of revert can be painful and I sympathize but it's not appropriate to reproduce the EU draft proposal on sexualisation within the article itself. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the article talk page (Talk:Sexualization/Archive 1) which expands on this a little further. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

UNiTE to end violence against women
Hello ,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, UNiTE to end violence against women, may be copied from http://endviolence.un.org/about.shtml. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems with UNiTE to end violence against women
Hello. Concerning your contribution, UNiTE to end violence against women, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://endviolence.un.org/about.shtml. As a copyright violation, UNiTE to end violence against women appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. UNiTE to end violence against women has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:UNiTE to end violence against women and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:UNiTE to end violence against women with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:UNiTE to end violence against women.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Uberaccount (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosie Barnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guy Barnett (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) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard
Hello The Vintage Feminist,

I saw your inquiry. If you are questioning whether these two sources are reliable, then I suggest the Reliable sources noticeboard. I hope this helps.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Mavis Maclean
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Mavis Maclean, appears to be directly copied from http://www.spsw.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/static/Oxflap/Members/Maclean.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Mavis Maclean if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding templates
Hello and welcome. Please note that acording to long-established common practice generic sidebar templates and links to portals are not meant to be included in biographical pages. Their addition is seldom useful since all of the important links are in the infoboxes of these articles. Sidebar templates are only meant to be included in pages which are linked to them. So it is appropriate to add a "Kantianism" template to the article about Arthur Schopenhauer, but it is not appropriate to add it to the article about Michael Sandel.

Note that most navigational boxes should not be placed in a biographical article unless the name of the topic of the article is listed in the navigational box. So, e.g., it is not appropriate to add a "Universities in the United Kingdom" template to Catherine Malabou since her name is not included in the template.

Also note that certain categories are inappropriate for biographical articles; so, e.g. one may add Category:Feminist theory to the article Cultural feminism but it is not appropriate to add that category to the article about Judith Butler. Please take a look at FAQ/Categorization and WP:COP. Happy editing! --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As per above, please stop adding navigational boxes without a good reason (as you did in the following articles: 'Rane Willerslev', 'Carol Smart', 'Mavis Maclean', 'John Eekelaar'). Those templates are only meant to be included in pages which are linked to it, not to every single article that is relevant to their subject. Also note that the 'Authority control' template goes above the 'Persondata template' per WP:ORDER. Please don't "correct" things that are already in conformance with the Manual of Style. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alison Assiter


The article Alison Assiter has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:The Vintage Feminist/Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) was accepted
 Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-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! Lugia2453 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Article was already exist
Hello, good to see you editing and helping Wikipedia, you have just created Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) but an article with title Fifty Shades of Grey (film) was already exist in Wikipedia. You just have to add contents in that. I'm going to ask someone to merge the editing history, thanks. --  Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!     ( T - C  - G  ) 03:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration and effort but I think you should redirect Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) article into the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) so it can take readers to the single article. Editing history will be merged soon, thanks again. --  Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!     ( T - <font color=Green>C  - <font color=Green>G  ) 05:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Further reading"
I saw that you added papers by Meenakshi Gigi Durham to practically every article they might be relevant to, ranging from gang rape and victim blaming via Twilight (series) to the National Football League draft. I don't think that's appropriate. Firstly, it gives the impression that you are unduly promoting the works of specific scholars, giving them undue weight. Or to be blunt, it looks like citation spam to me, especially when the article on Durham doesn't establish her notability. Secondly, I'd say some of those papers represent fringe aspects of the topic you added them to, irrespective of the particular author - especially the NFL draft. Huon (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed all of the remaining "further reading" sections. Please do not re-introduce this citation without first discussing it on each article's talk page.  --Chris (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem?
Hi, you should check the edits being made by 58.8.114.97 - they seem to be removing edits made by you. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Check Seann Walsh and Sean Lock. Denisarona (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Contact an admin such as User:Materialscientist as soon as possible. The IP is reverting my reverts also. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The edits removed were all the same: a spam link, and which were added to the very early part of each article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.114.97 (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "very early"??? What are you talking about?--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The spam links were added to the first part of each article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.114.97 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have also left a message with User:Materialscientist. Denisarona (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * They are comedy acts the links show which comedy agent they are ALREADY signed to. It's not touting for trade if they are already on the agent's books.


 * Why didn't you message me first about this before you went 'revert crazy'? Oh, and it's a small point, but I have nothing to do with the company in question, so why would I bother spamming for them? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Vintage Feminist, I noticed the discussion on Materialscientist's page. The agent is hardly an encyclopedic part of an article on a comedian — as 58.x says, it's not interesting. I don't see agents mentioned for actors etc — why for "comedy acts" in particular? There's no need to assume a conflict of interest, but in practice mentioning the agent amounts to spam. Especially if its placed in the very short lead sections. I don't understand the argument "It's not touting for trade if they are already on the agent's books", it doesn't make sense. Of course any mention of a company in a Wikipedia article tends to be to the advantage of that company — to make others (not indeed the article subject, who they already represent) more aware of it. Please don't re-add it. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your message. Just to be clear, I noticed that Off the Kerb had a very small article on Wikipedia despite them having been a major player on British TV for over 30 years, so I added a list of artists that the company represent to their article and then went onto each artist's page and said who represented them.


 * The opening paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on talent agents states, "Agents cannot produce their own shows due to conflict of interest." This may be true in the US but not in the UK. Off the Kerb is the production company whilst Open Mike Productions makes programming that acts as a vehicle for the acts that Off the Kerb represents, so they are more than simply an agent, (Avalon do the same but I'm not aware of anything similar for actors even in the UK). The infobox of films tells you who the production companies are, but the infobox for comedians has no "agent" parameter (perhaps I'll suggest it as a proposal), which is why I put who represents them into the opening paragraph of their articles.


 * When I said "It's not touting for trade if they are already on the agent's books", what I meant was, I wasn't suggesting "Off the Kerb are a very good agency and it would be a smart move if this act signed with them immediately.", the acts in question are already signed to OTK.


 * Finally I just wanted to say that my main objection to 58.8.114.97 were the comments he made in the edit history of each article he reverted, stating "rmv addition by known spammer". 58.8.114.97 has no justification for calling me a "known spammer" and when I left a message on Denisarona's talk page asking what I should do, 58.8.114.97 jumped in again, aggressively saying "What should you do? Stop spamming articles." I believe 58.8.114.97's anger and antagonistic behaviour has been entirely disproportionate. It is also disingenuous of 58.8.114.97 to claim, retrospectively, that he/she "tried to start discussions". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

IMDB as a source
Please note that I removed the birthdate you added to the Lauren Pope article. Per long standing consensus, IMDB does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for personal information in biography articles. You can read more about this here, here, and here.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeley Hazell and pornography portal
You are wasting your time debating this at the BLP noticeboard. You need to establish consensus about the larger issue - is "glamour modelling" generally considered "porn"? There are cases to be made for and against, so I think your best choice is to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography to get some input. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with DC above. That BLP noticeboard discussion is going exactly where I thought it would a few days ago...nowhere. It's full of the a general "bare breasts...ewwww!" attitude that "porn" is a horrible thing that one shouldn't label someone with without a mountain of "evidence". The real issue is whether or not Page 3 girls are engaging in softcore pornography, which could be discussed & settled in any number of forums, including the one suggested above. I'm no expert at all on the Page 3 thing, and the alleged sex tape issue doesn't appear to have gone anywhere over the years on the Keeley Hazell talk page.


 * I've also noticed that a lot of these Page 3 girls have suddenly shown up here, which I assume is your doing (?). Guy1890 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fifty Shades of Grey WikiProject templates
Hello. I just thought I should explain this edit I made earlier to Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey (film): I removed most of the WikiProject templates you added, leaving only WikiProject Film. There's no strict policy here - the final decision on whether an article belongs in a WikiProject is ultimately up to the WikiProject itself. But in my view, we should try to avoid cluttering talk pages with templates for unrelated and tangentially-related WikiProjects. In this case, Fifty Shades of Grey (film) is clearly relevant to WikiProject Film; but it's not obviously related to the WikiProjects for Feminism or Gender Studies, and quite plainly unrelated to WikiProject Discrimination. If in doubt about whether a WikiProject template belongs on an article, take a look at what categories it's in; I believe the categorisation of Fifty Shades of Grey (film) supports my actions here. Robofish (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

16 October 2013
Can someone look at the recent history for sexualization? My edit was jumped all over and reverted, I was then accused of attempting to "dictate". All of this happened whilst I was in the process of composing the explanation of my edit on the talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Continue to use the talk page as a means of dispute resolution. If that doesn't work, use other means of dispute resolution to get assistance from editors experienced in situations like these. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:"Hugh Hefner, 'I am in the center of the world,'" by Oriana Fallaci, LOOK Magazine, January 10, 1967.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"Hugh Hefner, 'I am in the center of the world,'" by Oriana Fallaci, LOOK Magazine, January 10, 1967.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSCA (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) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wythenshawe and Sale East
Please be careful with your edits to Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, 2014. Candidate selections must be cited. In some cases, such as Labour and the LibDems, the candidates will be chosen later this month, and should only be added to the candidates table with verifiable sources. Any disruptive editing from you could be considered vandalism. Regards, doktorb wordsdeeds 13:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FAs
When editing Featured articles like Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease, please be aware of FA standards, medical sourcing guidelines, and the need to keep citations consistent. There is a big edit summary notice on these articles, which you see when editing them, and which give additional links: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Alzheimer's disease
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Schizophrenia

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594611298 your edit] to Page 3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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) 03:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweet - Happy 21st Birthday @MissNicoleNeal have an amazing day. Hope you're being spoiled miss : xx|url=https://twitter.com/HollyJadePeers/statuses/326252292456189954|publisher=Twitter - @

Golf Monthly
Dear The Vintage Feminist,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to make a slight expansion to the above article supporting it with relevant references. Hopefully, you'd approve of it. Best regards,    (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

Deletion discussion about Motor Boat & Yachting
Hello, The Vintage Feminist,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Motor Boat & Yachting should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Motor Boat & Yachting.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ryanthewebguy (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Golf Monthly
Hello The Vintage Feminist,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to make a slight expansion to the above article supporting it with a relevant source. Hope you'd like my little effort. Best regards,     (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Clasper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland (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) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> prevention of violence

Thank you for articles on thinking women like Mavis Maclean and men like Ian Bruce, for adding references and infoboxes, for EGM: prevention of violence against women and girls, for saying "give peace a chance", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation on the composer's talk. Did you know that you entered a minefield? (War since 2005) Did you notice that discussion is also here, fair enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that discussion, thanks for the link. I've now added my thoughts there too. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "infobox + composer = extremely touchy subject which requires discussion" - a mild description for the Bach discussion (I knew it required discussion) which would be almost humorous in retrospect if it hadn't cost Wikipedia an excellent editor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Palimpsest (journal)


The article Palimpsest (journal) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking an image
You made some excellent points at the inexecrable Merkin POTD discussion, and File:Mary Beth Peil 2011 (cropped).jpg would be wonderful on the main page. In case you weren't aware, it is possible to link to an image by putting a colon before the "File", just as putting a colon before "Category" makes a link to the category rather than putting the current page in the category (example Category:American film actresses). I'm posting this in case you wanted to edit your comment to make a link. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Username
What does your username refer to? Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June 20, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Andrew Graham and Gordon Marshall (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) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kudos
Happened across your user page via AN/I. Loving your work, keep at it. —  Scott  •  talk  12:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You said: "Mark Miller, participation rates for women are unlikely to improve unless we roll our sleeves up and get stuck in." I cannot agree with you more. Editor retention tried to look into the situation but the research seemed to fall off. Oddly enough, just before your ANI posting I discovered a new project that Tparis had begun, WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force. The number of female editors is very low and the if I understand your post at ANI correctly, that blog article was part of that Men's rights movement. I guess that was what Baseball Bugs was trying to say. I agree with Scott above. keep up the good work and I am now watch listing you user page. Feel free to drop me off a message if you ever need assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

BNA access query
Please respond to the query at BNA related to getting access to BNA, Sadads (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Martha L. MacDonald for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martha L. MacDonald 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/Martha L. MacDonald 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there, as suggested in the deletion discussion, I've proposed a move request, so you may want to state your opinion on the talk page. Regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection
Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. RFC ends on the 14th. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled status granted
Hi The Vintage Feminist, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Delirium (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious is correct Reply Comment
Religious is the correct term, not religous. Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia, anyway! Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 00:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Active peer reviewers
The projects WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if you could possibly click on one or more of those articles and add your username under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Please let me know. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Serial killers
I don't think you should add the male or female categories to unidentified serial killers. I was intentionally leaving them out, we don't know we they are. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories
Your work on murderers and serial killers raises something that's been niggling at me for a while. At least now actors are not split into actors and actresses, but I looked at just one female novelist and found this:

Category:American women writers, there is Category:American male writers

Category:French women writers, there is Category:French male writers

Category:American women novelists, there is Category:American male novelists

Category:French women novelists, but no Category:French male novelists

Category:20th-century women writers, but no Category:20th-century male writers

Category:21st-century women writers, but no Category:21st-century male writers

In general I think that "categories" are a bit overdone. But categorising on a male/female binary particularly so. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that categories can be a bit overdone but I found that by having, for example, Category:French female serial killers that I was able to use it as a replacement for both Category:French serial killers and Category:Female serial killers. Users of Wikipedia can navigate by: serial killers > serial killers by nationality > French serial killers > French female serial killers. Alternatively they can search by: serial killers > female serial killers > then look for nationality.


 * Gender can be a useful categorization for categories especially when they are large, but for me it is a case of avoiding a "female dumping ground" to reduce the size of a particular category. Perhaps it is a policy idea "that no gender orientated category should be created without a similar opposite gender category being created". Possibly with transgender being discussed on a case-by-case basis. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That would make sense and avoids the risk of 'othering' (whether this is done inadvertently or no). I am unsure about how transgender would fit, and tend to avoid discussion in that area. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 08:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF Arbcase
I think ya have to be an arbitrator to vote there :) GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Keep up the good work in areas of mutual interest!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Blanca Gomez deletion
Hi The Vintage Feminist:

Thank you for your opinion. Sadly who were in favor of the deletion were mostly women. There is a lot of men journalists and also women without any relevance in Wikipidia. Blanquska (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We can do it!
1) You have the coolest user page ever 2) I love Michael Sandel 3) I definitely just put the "we can do it!" badge on my user page. Happy editing! Safehaven86 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing
Let me be blunt here. Your regular, almost paranoic, aspersions on others who do not share your obvious bias regarding the GGTF being primarily a means to promote feminism comes across to me, and I imagine others, as being almost childish, rather immature, and frankly counterproductive. Please reas WP:AGF and realize that it is possible, however fervently you might apparently believe otherwise, that people can legitimately disagree with your opinions and not be anti-feminist. And, yes, as I said on the talk page in question, the purpose of the task force was to increase the participation of women of all sorts, not just radical feminists like you apparently are. And, also, at some point, you might want to look over the various pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias and see that I have added several entries there which apparently relate to women which do not necessarily show the radical anti-feminist bias you so strongly and obviously indicate is shared by anyone who doesn't want to see the GGTF become the "feminist WikiProject" in all but name. Frankly, I can honestly say that there are some other women who are active editors who do not share your personal biases and I have to think that if they see the comments and discussion at the GGTF talk page they may well become even perhaps a bit more disinterested or even opposed to the group than they might already be. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to your post on my user talk page, I think you will notice that I did not disagree with that statement, although your own comments seem to willfully denigate the possibility that women could be interested in topics of "traditional" interest to women. And it is not unreasonble to point out to you that your clear bias, as indicated by your user name, and your repeated unfounded insinuations regarding the motivations and thinking of others does clearly at least seem to border on the paranoic. While your comment on my user talk page makes it rather obvious that you either don't read what others say, or possibly, somewhat self-righteously(?) jump to conclusions and assume that your telepathy makes it possible for you to devise what they are "really" thinking, I have to say that much of your conduct and commentary of late seems to me anyway to be blindly biased in favor of a clearly feminist ideology. Maybe you could make more of an effort to actually read and address them, rather than try to spin everything, including the comments of others, to somehow perhaps reflect a feminist perspective in accord with your own. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Speed
This is a new experience for me: to have another editor so speedily add to an article I'm creating (with something other than a "notability" tag or a category, at least) that a series of edit conflicts ensue. To further my understanding of how Wikipedia works, how did your attention come to it so quickly? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hospital articles
Hi. You seem to be adding a social work portal to numerous hospital articles where this would not appear to be enhancing these articles. Hospitals are not a sub-category of social-care. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Health and social care is becoming more integrated in Scotland, but please desist from spamming multiple hospital articles with a portal that is not directly relevant.Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You are sequential adding a social work portal to articles even despite there being no mention of social work in the article, in facilities where the type of care provided is not social care. Please understand that would appear to be spamming, which needs to be challenged. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my reaction to your addition to these pages has caused you any upset. I admit it was harsh of me to use a phrase like "spamming" which can refer to some unpleasant behaviours. I guess your motivations were genuine and that you were aiming to be constructive. I recognise that there was not any commercial motivation in your actions. I had been concerned that I was seeing a systematic addition of unrelated material to a number of articles despite my attempts to discuss this further. I hope that we can make some progress discussing this at the WP:hospital talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxen
As a question, what information would you like to see in an infobox for A Rape on Campus that isn't part of the first sentence of the lead? This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox request on Parthenogenesis
Hello, you recently requested an infobox on Parthenogenesis. As a primarily biological article, I'm not sure what kind of infobox would be appropriate, at least in Category:Infobox templates. Since you added the request to the Gender Studies project banner (a Wikipedia area I'm less familiar with), did you have any particular infoboxes or navboxes in mind that would be pertinent in the context of the article? Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing about the Androgyny and Transgender articles. Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one. Lady  of  Shalott  00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I was wondering similarly regarding this and this matter. And by "wondering," I mean that it seems that you are tagging all these talk pages simply because you don't see an infobox in the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you replied here on LadyofShalott's talk page. I prefer to keep discussion centralized (see WP:TALKCENT), so I am replying here. What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox. They likely don't need an infobox unless one already exists for them. And even in the case that infoboxes do exist for them, they still might not need one. WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. I am likely to revert you on some of these infobox tags you've added. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox." Why isn't it?
 * "WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes." Isn't that just a matter of opinion?
 * It strikes me that there are no infoboxes at all within Category:LGBT templates and that is merely a case of a infobox request not having been put in yet. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your "Why isn't it?" question, I feel that it isn't for the reasons I stated above. Once again, as seen here, you have needlessly requested an infobox. That article does not need an infobox; as is currently seen in it, it has a relevant sidebar at the top of the article and a sexual abuse template at its bottom; that is all that it needs. Is that my opinion? Yes. And I'm sure that it would be the opinion of others if I started a WP:RfC on the matter at that talk page. You are going around tagging all of these articles with a "needs an infobox" alert as though they need them. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles don't have infoboxes and do well without them. An infobox distracts our readers from the lead, and infoboxes or similar can take up a good portion of the lead, as in this case (an addiction glossary); so, yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding, and you are likely to get more queries and/or complaints about them. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had one complaint, yours, and I have read it and replied to it. "yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes" - fine, in that case we will agree to disagree. You go your way I will go mine. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Guerillero, Animalparty, LadyofShalott do not seem pleased with your infobox tags; that, in addition to my query/complaint, is why I stated, "You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding." And as for going "my way," Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and you are coming across articles that I have on my WP:Watchlist; so you are coming "my way." If you mean that I should go ahead and revert you, since you clearly do not want to discuss the matter, I will then. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Theirs were queries, if they "do not seem pleased" it is because you have chosen to interpret it that way. By "you go your way I will go mine", I simply mean that I have read what you have to say, I have answered it and I have nothing further to add. Please put your comments to the Wikipedia community on the talk pages of the articles that you have on your watchlist as per WP:INFOBOXUSE, or as you've already said, at WP:RfC, rather than making the same point over and over on my talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If their comments only seem like queries and that they are not displeased by your tags, then that is because, unless they state otherwise, you have chosen to interpret those comments that way. Guerillero stated above, "This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers." And LadyofShalott stated, "Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one.", which is exactly the point I was getting across above, and is why I agreed with her. Those comments certainly do give an "I'm not pleased with your tags" impression. As for all this disagreement being a matter of how I view things, we can certainly open this topic up to wider community discussion, so that you can see that it is not simply an "it's only you" matter. I have not repeated myself over and over on your talk page. But, yes, my discussion with you on this matter has run its course. I have reverted you at some articles, and will not press further on this topic unless one or more WP:Edit wars result and/or it is addressed at the article talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me state it more clearly: I do not agree with you that these articles should have infoboxes. Since you think they do, the onus is on you to show how such an infobox would be useful. You have not done so. Lady  of  Shalott  15:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation) only. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Disability listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Disability. Since you had some involvement with the WikiProject Disability redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Soldier Systems
You appear to have added more links to soldiersystems.net, via your draft page User:The Vintage Feminist/Edgar Brothers and other pages, than anyone else on Wikipedia. I'm trying to discover the degree of editorial oversight or firearms expertise embodied in the website. However they're basically anonymous and opaque. Do you have any knowledge of their operations or the people behind it? Unless some more information appears it's hard to make a determination of their reliability. So far, it appears to be a glorified blog. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms in case you'd like to add any input. Rezin (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was hoping for more background but your participation is appreciated. Rezin (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (pronounce)  @ 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You've given a great response, but I won't be able to run the interview in a report with just your answers. Do you know anybody else who might want to participate, and would you invite them, because otherwise I'll be forced to wipe the page.  Rcsprinter123    (warn)  @ 08:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Social work portal
Hi The Vintage Feminist! I note that you've recently added a link to the Social Welfare and Social Work portal on a number of pages I'm interested in. Adding portal links is really meant for portals that are finished, rather than under construction, as this portal appears to be. Otherwise you are driving traffic to a page lacking much content and full of redlinked sections. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! & another female aviator
Thanks for all the work you did on Bonnie Tiburzi. I've just drafted an article on British aviator Draft:Yvonne Sintes. Please improve her article if you can! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurohealth.ie
Hi: Thanks for comments on European Institute of Women's Health .. EUROHEALTH.IE

I think this may have been the first entry I submitted to Wikipedia.

I put up the original article and was not aware that anyone was questioning their validity and importance. While a small organisation, they are the ones who put women's health onto the European political agenda and have written reports for the EU, European Parliament and have attended UN and other international meetings as experts.

Today they organised and delivered an international meeting in Brussels:

Expert Workshops on Sex and Gender in Medicines Regulation and Medical Education 4th March 2015, 0900-1730. Room TRE7701, 7th floor, Trèves Building, 74 Rue de Trèves. European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels

I am a bit surprised that no notification was given on this topic or maybe I am being nieve...

They are currently in 4 major international EU funded projects.

MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaguire (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Information and communication technologies for development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley. 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) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Solow–Swan model
I appreciate when people clean up reference information (I do it all the time all over Wikipedia), but why did you here add the DOI information both in the designated field  and again in the   parameter? This is redudant information, isn't it? --bender235 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's just a personal choice thing, so that the name of the article has a hyperlink and the doi number can also be read (even without clicking on the link). Different editors do it different ways. Looking at help pages / advice etc. here suggests that it is fine (unless you know of some policy and/or consensus to the contrary that I'm not aware of).


 * The training video states "fill in as many fields as you can", it then goes on to show doi and ISSN being filled in, I've never really bothered with ISSN. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I just saw some of your edits on pages I watch. I agree that a URL reference to a book DOI can still be useful, even if the DOI is also listed in the DOI field. Often enough, I can find a different URL to point to, but I would never consider it an error to see the URL field pointing to a DOI page for a book. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any policy or guideline, but I don't think this is good practice. In some case, you also added the  ID, which in combination with DOI and URL then gives thrice the same information. This is link overkill in my opinion. But maybe we should seek broader consensus for this. --bender235 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help fix Barbara Bergmann's page
Very sadly, Barbara Bergmann died yesterday, 5 April 2015. Details should soon be published; I wanted to alert you since I'm not familliar with the process for changing bios of people who have recently died. Many thanks!DStrassmann (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More info: The Fall 1998 issue of Feminist Economics published a short biography of Barbara Bergmann written by Marianne Ferber on pp 3-4 and  an interview of  Barbara by, Liz Strober on pp 5-6. Pages 193-201 include a complete bibliography of her books, chapters, articles, book reviews, and other publications written up to that date. I can help work on this, especially as more comes out, but wondered if this should first be moved out of the "living persons" category. DStrassmann (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up her article a bit and added a further reading section with the special issue of Feminist Economics that you mentioned. I've only ever put in death details on a biography where I had a report in the press, or something similar to add as a reference, so this was a new one me but I found this template that I think will do for now and altered the categories etc. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> prevention of violence

Thank you for articles on thinking women like Mavis Maclean and men like Ian Bruce, for adding references and infoboxes, for EGM: prevention of violence against women and girls, for saying "give peace a chance", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 832nd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice welcomed for student contributions
I welcome any advice you might like to offer the students in my Feminist Economics and Public Policy, who are currently working to improve some articles. For details, please visit the course page of Feminist Economics and Public Policy (Spring 2015) -- you can navigate to it from my userpage. Many thanks! DStrassmann (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Susan Speer
Thank you for creating this article. I added it to Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which tracks new and improved LGBT-related articles during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you create or improve other LGBT-related articles this month, please feel free to add them to this list as well. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Women's Health
Hi, when you made this edit, I think you pasted in the wrong link (it goes to Autism Speaks, not Mary-Anne Liebert...) Perhaps you can have another look. This journal is a nice addition, by the way :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes its the wrong link, corrected it now. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's health-related journals
Thanks for your talk page message on Women's health. Do you actually have access to any of the journals that you templated? I use journals all the time related to med and health topics and would to have access to some of these. Best Regards,
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 10:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Notification
Hi, you've made productive edits to this article, given my past removal of some self-published material, I'd like your opinion on this edit. Thanks TVF -- Aronzak (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Karpowitz
Hi. An article you recently created, Christopher Karpowitz is up for deletion. At present, the article resembles a C.V.  It needs to cite more secondary sources discussing Karpowitz's career and his scholarly influence. Since you created the article, I assume that you are familiar with his work; I urge you to add some discussion (preferable with references) of the way his work has been received.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stop Bild Sexism


The article Stop Bild Sexism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Project does not meet General Notability Guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Stop Bild Sexism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stop Bild Sexism 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/Stop Bild Sexism 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see Łem and the rest of the Unpleasant Comments Section from WP:THREATENING2MEN have found their way to the page. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for participating
<div class="plainlinks" style="width:100%; background:#ABCDEF; color:Black; padding:0.5em; font-size:100%; font-weight:100;">

Thank you for your interest in Women in Red and for your participation in the virtual Women in Leadership Edit-a-thon, 7-20 September 2015. It was a resounding success with over 160 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! We'll keep you posted on future events. --Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Law & Economics
FYI... you created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Edgar Brothers.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:Edgar Brothers.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of User:The Vintage Feminist/Clare Lockhart


The article User:The Vintage Feminist/Clare Lockhart has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * material from inactive user-space article has been merged into mainspace article Clare Lockhart

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Thelema12 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clare Lockhart
So I only recently became aware of the project WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts because some of the articles I've been meaning to write showed up there. Anyway, since there is a Clare Lockhart page in mainspace, I merged the citations in your user-space draft with the mainspace article. If you still want to keep your draft, just get rid of the deletion tag.--Thelema12 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:The Vintage Feminist/Female Chauvinist Pigs
Hi there, I noticed that there's a number of pages you created as drafts and then created in mainspace such as User:The Vintage Feminist/Female Chauvinist Pigs and Female Chauvinist Pigs when reviewing old drafts out there. Normally, the page should be moved so that the history is together rather than copied and pasted. We either redirect the draft page to the main one or to history merge the two so that the whole history is in one place. The reason is that there's changes to templates, to images, to categories, etc. and rather than having multiple versions of the same text lying around, it's generally a good idea to put it all together. If you could check on that and redirect those, that would help cut down on some of these backlogs we have. I'm an admin so feel free to tell me if you want it history merged instead. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)