User talk:The Vintage Feminist/Archive 2

Free the GGTF Three
Hi, do you remember who created a template for Carolmooredc when she was banned? Something like free the GGTF one, maybe? I had an idea that it was you, but can't find it. I was thinking of converting it to Free the GGTF Three, for Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather. SarahSV (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's okay, I found it at User:Milowent/FreeCarol. SarahSV (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

81.170 sock farm
Looks like the sock factory have turned to reverting some of your material. AN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Range_block_urgently_required report here] if you need it Snowded  TALK 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've requested semi-protection on the pages affected and added a comment to the above link. I've also left vandalism notices on 's talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ulrika Dahl
I try to do my part to alleviate the gender gap, but I kinda suck at writing biographical articles. I started working on a Swedish-language article on Ulrika Dahl a while back, but my interest waned. :-/

If you're interested, I could help translate Swedish-language sources. Dahl got her education in the US and I believe she's published a lot of her research in English.

Peter Isotalo 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you start a draft English version and add a link on Women in Red then I'm sure we can all work on it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's translated now and I added a redlink at WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Feminists.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Sorry for being a bit too grumpy, but your edits showed all signs of being refspam (irrelevant links on seemingly stray articles). Thanks for fixing it. Cheers, Tom. Thomas.W talk 16:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Deirdre M. Condit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deirdre M. Condit 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/Deirdre M. Condit 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.  DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoa, that seemed to close fast... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because of this discussion perhaps? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! Were you able to get the draft version of this? I was thinking of you and realized we hadn't talked about the article for awhile. If you need my refs, I'll grab 'em again. I remember where I found most of them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks, it's currently here: Draft:Deirdre M. Condit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alkire article Suggestion
Hi there, as the creator of the Sabina Alkire page I was wondering if you would agree that the bibliography is over-long. It is one of the longest I have found on Wikipedia and includes briefing notes and self-published works (by her group). Considering the lead and information are so short and rely almost entirely on primary sources such an extensive bibliography seems strange and almost seems pasted from a CV. If you consent I would trim it down to just key papers. Mountain cirque 13:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've created a daughter article for it now. Thanks anyway. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of Nuremberg trials
I just noticed your cleanup edit (posssibly using a script?) on Nuremberg trials. It looks to me as if it doesn't conform to WP:MOS (it now has sentence case for the title of a journal article and still has typographical quotation marks, but I thought I should check with you (especially in case a script or bot needs changing). I'm not sure if there is a special recommendation for quotations within the titles of journal articles, but I suppose straight single quotes would be standard. It currently reads --Boson (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 *  


 * I have to confess I had to look up sentence case (not a phrase we use in the UK). Book sources tends to put everything after the initial letter in lower case (as here), and the journal template shows both all caps or initial cap and then lower case as examples. I just did what I thought looked right, I think it's just a case of personal preference rather than any specific rule under WP:MOS. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Question
Curious why in this edit and others you have reformatted the title to be different from the actual book? Thanks by the way for the polishing you did. WCM email 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean upper-case/lower-case? WP uses lower-case for titles e.g. journals, and the same for books. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that's it, the very first example in journals however contradicts you. Normally I use the Google books citation generator, which uses the raw text from Google.  Is there any reason why you wouldn't stick with the title as written normally - ie I mean why change the grammar structure in a book title? WCM email 16:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a particular reason, just personal preference. Some journals write their titles in lower case e.g. Comparative European Politics, and I've seen BLOCK CAPS used by some journals as well. (I'm not sure how journals contradicts me btw.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If its a matter of personal preference, I would prefer it if we reflected the source. WCM email 16:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)








 * If its a matter of personal preference, then you should reference the way that you prefer and I should reference the way that I prefer, otherwise they wouldn't be personal. If I see all caps as the source then there's no way I'm going to slavishly copy that. Thanks for your interest though. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thats fine, just wondered why you changed it. FYI capitalisation differs in British English, for example The Tripartite Forum of Dialogue would be capitalised in British English as it is a name, there is a handy ref here for future reference .  If you don't mind I'll be correcting the grammar back to British English.  Regards and thanks for your work.  WCM email 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm British too, and well aware of what a pronoun is. I created the article Mediterranean Politics and was going through refs adding wikilinks to the journal title. I didn't realise that The Tripartite Forum of Dialogue was a book or I would have left it in caps, although I would still leave the non-pronouns of 'problem' and 'solution' as lower-case, but thanks anyway. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't I look an a***e for assuming you were American! Thanks for being gentle with me, undeserved but I thank you nonetheless.  Regards, WCM email 23:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Challenge (journal)
This is a magazine, not a journal. The official website says so unless you have proof that it is an academic journal, which requires "References" or a list of cited sources. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Merger discussion for Japan foreign marriage
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Japan foreign marriage &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.77.86 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

"Women are everywhere"
Hi The Vintage Feminist. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester
Do you have references for the listings of the Palace, the Opera House and the Theatre Royal? I think they are actually Grade II listed, not Grade II*. Certainly, their individual pages have them down as Grade II. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  

Now checked and they are all Grade II.KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize that there was a difference between II and II*, have now removed. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Grade II* is much rarer than Grade II, the former covering only 5.5 percent of all listed buildings, while Grade II comprises 92 percent of all such buildings. Best regards.

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Social Work
I would like, if you can add Social Work Article to your watch-list. Any attempts towards article improvement are thwarted and talk page legacy of the editors also doesn't farewell. Checking the current reversions of cited material without edit summaries is proof. I am not going to engage into anymore reversions. But the article calls for sedulous and tough editors attention to stop detrimental actions.117.213.20.27 (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My watch-list is blank as I do not watch articles, but thanks for your message. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

White Helmets
White Helmets - please let's just stop and get it right? Thanks DBaK (back after a bit of a break. But it&#39;s still me!) (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Already corrected before I got your message - please let's just stop and not be too previous perhaps? Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I was not "previous". You made it wrong, then corrected it back to your wrong version, then corrected it to another wrong version. Mote and beam, I rather think. Please check the page history. Thank you DBaK (back after a bit of a break. But it&#39;s still me!) (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh this was really very boring of me, sorry. I took a huge long holiday from Wikipedia because of this very sort of thing and then I come straight back and start getting out of my pram almost immediately. Sheesh. Sorry. I need to take my own advice sometimes! Apologies for any offence - it was all quite unnecessary, nothing happened, and history will record that she supported the right group! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Alison Webster (photographer) drafts
I hope you don't mind but I redirect your three drafts to Alison Webster (photographer). All three were in draftspace categories and exactly the same content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake I meant to get rid of the drafts once I moved the article to the mainspace. I've removed the redirects as they're not needed. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

navbox
Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)


 * From the point of view of creating a nav box it looks fine, except you probably want to add capital letters e.g. data model, conceptual model changed to Data model, Conceptual model. I can't really comment on what should be included / excluded or whether the nav box is even needed / wanted. It is probably worth asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science what they think of the content. Hope that helps. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020


The article Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * WP:TOOSOON. 2017 election hasn't even been run and no information can be gleaned about the 2020 election this early on.

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.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Alison Assiter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alison Assiter 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/Alison Assiter 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Little Hulton
Hi, I noticed your recent edit to Little Hulton. I can see a lot of work has gone into it but the Governance section is now swamped with the table on councillors, mostly non-notables. This is WP:UNDUE for a settlement article which so far complies with WP:UKCITIES. It would be much better in a separate article Little Hulton (ward) and linked as you have done at Boothstown and Ellenbrook (ward). J3Mrs (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cooperation. J3Mrs (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 for deletion
You might be interested in discussing the proposed deletion of this article that you've contributed to.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 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/West Midlands mayoral election, 2020 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.CarlDurose (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

..and again here: Articles for deletion/Tees Valley mayoral election, 2020 CarlDurose (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Walker
See article and my talk. TY for msg.Protozoon (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Lesbian Studies
Hi TVF,

Just to let you know, this one crept up #843 in WP:JCW/POP. It doesn't have an IF, but it is indexed in Scopus, which we usually consider selective enough. That's about the only women-related journal I can find in the top 1000 missing entries of the latest compilation. Cheers! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. (Add: authors are often some of the worst offenders for sharing copyright-violating copies of publications: if you go to the Sage site you'll see republication of this article requires permission.)  Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME
Hi, I agree that this IP editor's accusations seem a little overwrought (and said as much in my edit summary already). But "pandering to vandalism", seriously? We need to apply policy regardless of whether the anonymous ranter agrees with it or not.

I assume you know more about this article's subject than I do (I encountered these edits while doing RC patrol and don't recall hearing about the person before), so perhaps there is something that I am missing. But unless these two women (or girls) are either notable on their own or actively involved in their father's activism, their precise names do not seem "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (WP:BLPNAME) and tying them to such a controversial figure in Google searches could well have the kind of unwarranted negative effects on their lives that the BLP policy is concerned with.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, The full quote for the policy is "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I would argue it does give the reader a full(er) understanding of Mike Buchanan to give his daughter's names than to not do so. Names of children / spouses / relatives generally are usually given in blps if they can be reliably sourced. I think the diffs (and subsequent diffs) are aggression / hysteria taking the form of vandalism ("I don't want it there, so I'm going to get rid of it!"). I was in the process of adding a second newspaper source, which at least says that Buchanan is a father when I was edit conflicted out of the way.
 * More generally articles involving the men's rights movement etc. have been the source of considerable contest, take this discussion that I had lately, or this archived discussion from the Gender Gap Task Force. That was why I was very careful in terms of making sure of my citations etc. Pro-men's rights movement editors had noting to 'get me' on, that's why they came up with this nonsense about having put Buchanan's daughters in harm's way. You might be interested in a speech that Buchanan gave at the International Conference on Men's Issues 2017 (ICMI17) which was held in Australia. The first 5 mins and Q&A from 29 mins onwards in terms of 'coming out' as a men's rights activist is really extraordinary. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More generally articles involving the men's rights movement etc. have been the source of considerable contest, take this discussion that I had lately, or this archived discussion from the Gender Gap Task Force. That was why I was very careful in terms of making sure of my citations etc. Pro-men's rights movement editors had noting to 'get me' on, that's why they came up with this nonsense about having put Buchanan's daughters in harm's way. You might be interested in a speech that Buchanan gave at the International Conference on Men's Issues 2017 (ICMI17) which was held in Australia. The first 5 mins and Q&A from 29 mins onwards in terms of 'coming out' as a men's rights activist is really extraordinary. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Email request
Hi TVF, could we please have a (hopefully very short) email exchange? My email address is mike@j4mb.org.uk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.9.61.18 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Answered here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Ooh, thank you very much! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red and Marsha Rowe
Hi TVF, not sure if you know about WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66 which is currently improving articles about women in Great Britain and Ireland.

Incidentally, I have posted on an article about Marsha Rowe, but had difficulties locating online sources concerning Rowe's activities in recent decades. It is somewhat abbreviated after the late 1970s at present. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Manchester City Council wards
Piccadilly Gardens, a green space and Deansgate, a road, do not need WP:UNDUE Governance sections. I think I have said before, the wards would be better as separate articles linked to the settlements they represent. J3Mrs (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The governance sections on both Piccadilly Gardens and Deansgate do not breach WP:UNDUE, however if it is something you feel strongly about then by all means create the articles and the links yourself as per WP:DIY, I have no objection. The fact that you think the wards would be better as separate articles linked to the settlements they represent is an interesting opinion but I am unaware of any policy to that effect. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are much better as stand alone articles. I am surprised you added Deansgate and Piccadilly to Manchester City Council as City Centre is still the ward until May. J3Mrs (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Campaigning has already begun, Labour have been out for weeks. The full list of candidates will be announced in the next couple of weeks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as being relevant. The city council still has City Centre ward and Deansgate and Piccadilly wards will only be part of the council from May. J3Mrs (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Illustrated a couple of articles you were interested in
Hope you like. --GRuban (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Formatting question
Hi there, I was just making some edits to Institute for Public Policy Research and I noticed that the article's name is showing up in italics. I don't think it should be italicized since it's the name of an organization. After investigating, it seems that when you added the journal infobox to the article, the article name became italicized. I'm not super familiar with infoboxes, but I'm guessing there is something that automatically italicizes the article titles of articles with this infobox in them. Just curious if you know of a way to override this in some way? Not a huge deal, just a persnickety formatting question, but I'm curious if you have any ideas on the matter. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Marquardtika, my error there's a parameter for journal infoboxes, "italic title = no" which stops it happening. I've now corrected it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Councillors
Please note that councillors standing down this year remain in office until 7 May. It would be premature to make changes to individual articles until then. MapReader (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which articles are you talking about? I can think of a couple where I've said they don't plan to run, e.g. Karina Carter in Bucklow-St. Martins. Carter announced her intention not to run in this May's election back in December 2016. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if they have said they won't run, they remain a councillor for another four weeks. MapReader (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which article(s) have I said that they are not currently a councillor? Can you provide links please? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For example your recent edit to Wes Streeting MapReader (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I've restored it, I thought that when he became an MP he had stood down. Just for future reference, it's better to ping another editor on the talk page of the article. Alternatively you can restore the content yourself and in the edit summary say "He is still a councillor with Redbridge council until May." If your comments are too long for the edit summary box then, "As per Talk:Name of article " and post your comments in a new section of the talk page. It's much quicker. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jo Pike for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jo Pike 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/Jo Pike 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. FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on notability of local elections in the UK
Hello. As you're a regular contributor in the field, I thought you might be interested in this discussion on notability of local elections in the UK (and this AfD). Cheers, Number   5  7  06:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages on guideline & policy pages are not a venue to announce RfCs for an article
And, of course, there is no WP:RfC. You also need to use section headings that don't focus on one particular editors. Sometimes we might, but you should be more specific. "Recent edits" would do, for instance. Talk pages after all are for discussing things such as edits, not editors. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewisham East (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi I took out the bolding in the winning candidate line to keep the page consistent with the style guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style

Is there something I am missing or doing wrong? Every other constituency page I edit has it that way too.


 * If you mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#Elections it's an example showing the election boxes, rather than a definitive election box. I think "winning" was added later to the template. The WikiFairies just haven't got around to putting them all in bold. Some editors try to put winning candidates in bold which doesn't bold the name of the party, see this correction. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok I get it. I used to bold the winners but then I got burnt by an editor who felt quite strongly against it. They have since been banned for unrelated reasons. So bolding it is. If I get dusted up again I will be calling you in as the cavalry though :). I will go back and change all those constituency pages I have edited so that the winners are bolded. And the related by-election pages.

Benawu2 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked along with an IP vandal
You blocked Special:Contributions/213.205.240.0/20 as a sock farm. The block is not anon-only, presumably because of the rampant sockpuppetry. But I see no overlap between edits from that range and this account, who has been editing for six years now with a clean record. I therefore suggest you, as blocking admin, consider changing the block to anon-only. Thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I changed the block from hard to soft; Vintage Feminist, that should take care of the problem--sorry you got caught up in it. There were indeed a few socks here who were related to someone vandalizing one specific article for a few years now. I semi-protected that article also, so I'm hoping that will minimize that problem too. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  - England beat Sweden 2-0 in the 2018 FIFA World Cup and I'm back in the game! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Was it ever in doubt that they would? I'm watching Croatia right now, holding on to a one-goal lead. Imagine Belgium and Croatia both going through. What's next, Liechtenstein and San Marino? Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Football Lads Alliance, July 2018
Just a heads up that the RfC has been closed. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - Thanks very much for this and your detailed assessment before closure. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Katharine Coman article
Greetings, I noted that a few years ago you worked on the Katharine Coman article. I have been working on it the last several days and would like to get your input on the edits made. Please drop by if you are interested. Thanks for all you do.AnaSoc (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great AnaSoc! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!AnaSoc (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse
I mention you on Wikipedia:Teahouse. KarenBrittworth (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Mike Galsworthy
Why is this AfD such an uphill battle? Galsworthy is absolutely all over the media. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm in the middle of a DRN (Dispute resolution noticeboard) over this template Template:United Kingdom in the European Union. I added the "Calls for second vote" section. It's been a battleground ever since, the logic being "get rid of the linking articles / links to sections of articles, then delete the links from the template." I also created People's Vote and Template:People's Vote. The edit history of People's Vote is just a running battle with pedantry. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your efforts. It seems clear that the two points raised by the OP are both incorrect, and this should be closed with no consensus to delete. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page of the new redirect. -- Evertype·✆ 09:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment to the deletionist. -- Evertype·✆ 09:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with my ANI?
Can someone please deal with my ANI WP:Administrators' noticeboard/European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? I prompted here: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 14 and just got further abuse. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That discussion appears to have already been archived with no action, so there is nothing to be done with it. If you still believe there is an issue requiring administrator intervention, my best advice would be to file a new issue at the Admin board. Yunshui 雲 水 08:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yunshui. I have now done that Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Meaningful Vote comment - Thanks
Thanks for adding my signature to my comment from a month ago. I hate when I forget to sign my comments. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Vote
Hi, I just changed your text at People's Vote. There was a discussion on the talk page about the phrasing recently. I personally don't think that either phrase is particularly problematic, but I prefer 'public figures' as being simpler and less ambiguous, and my feeling is that there was general consensus that 'public figures' was preferred over 'representatives of civil society'. By all means revert me if there's something I haven't considered, or if you feel sufficiently strongly about it. Girth Summit  (blether) 01:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise there had been a discussion on this, thanks for the heads-up. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network
Usually I would just allow an AfD to run but an inexperienced editor has taken opened this AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network and has since:
 * voted on his own AfD diff
 * changed his mind completely about the rationale for the AfD diff
 * and now he is canvassing diff

He has also previously tagged the article with 8 tags diff - all without any discussion on the talk page. I don't see how this AfD can continue properly. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will likely see these things, though it might be better to make your point on the AFD itself just in case. We don't close AFDs early just because of some canvassing. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Parent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Parent 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/Rachel Parent (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

People's Vote: December 2018
I forgot to put the People's Vote page on my watchlist. Have now readded the names you removed and added citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Women's Equality Party (UK)
Template:Women's Equality Party (UK) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman  14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael Brunström
As regards this edit, you are the one who needs to read WP:A4 WP:G4, which very clearly says that the criterion does not apply to articles that have previously been speedily deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read this (from WP:CSD) as it is very clear that deletion discussions only apply to AFDs: G4:"This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion." thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing?
On what grounds, may I ask? Both sides openly acknowledge that current events re. the current Brexit situation amount to a silent coup. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both sides openly acknowledge that current events re. the current Brexit situation amount to a silent coup. Do you have citations for that? It's not even a good article that you've linked to. Take it to the article's talk page and ask what other editors think if you disagree. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll drop some links over on the talk page when I get a chance. I agree with you that the Soft coup article has seen better days; I might have a crack at it myself sometime this week. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

| last2 = et al
Re these edits:

Just so you know, the proper way to indicate that there a citation has additional unnamed authors / editors etc is to use the display-authors, display-editors etc parameters. These take either a number – to limit the number of names that the template displays to that number – or the keyword  – to indicate that there are more authors that the template does not hold.

After the next 2_module_suite_weekend_of_20–21_April_2019|update to the cs1|2 module suite (expected the weekend of 20–21 April 2019), use of et al and the like will show as a red error message:

If these edits were made with the assistance of some tool that suggested et al please tell me what that tool is so that it's maintainers can be told that it is doing bad things.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

EU
I'm afraid I misread it as 2 June 2019, and I've changed every UK MEP because of that. Thanks for changing things back, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael P. Johnson
That's weird, when I click those links, nothing happened. When you posted that the links were not dead, I tried again and still nothing happens. So I tried IE and, presto! the links are indeed not dead. For some reason they don't work in Firefox. As for the PAIR study, I don't really understand what "implemented" means here. Did Huston set up this study? What was Johnson's role? Now that I can read the two references, I see that neither mentions Johnson, so apparently he was just a collaborator. If so, then why devote a whole section of his bio to this? --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox (version 52.9) and the links are working fine. If you go into "Help" and then "About Firefox" it will tell you which version you've got, perhaps yours needs updating. He was a collaborator versus he was just a collaborator - that's an eye of the beholder distinction for me. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox 67.0.2 (64 bit version), which is the latest one. Weird. Anyway, the only source we have for his implication in PAIR is Johnson's own faculty page, it would be good to have an independent source, preferably one that gives a bit more info on what exactly he did. Also, would there be a better word for "implemented", which to me sounds a bit weird when talking about a scientific study and gives the impression that Huston was just a kind of manager, which is not usually what a PI does (the archived links have an amusing typo: "principle investigator" instead of "principal investigator". I have no doubt that Huston is principled... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Harini Iyengar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harini Iyengar 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/Harini Iyengar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. MB190417 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:The Vintage Feminist/Stacy Alaimo


Hello, The Vintage Feminist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stacy Alaimo".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Kiplin-mobb (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tool for reference cleanup
Hello, have you ever tried Citation bot? Nemo 19:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

bye wikipedia
Your petty vendetta against me has driven me to stop using wikipedia. I was doing a lot of good work, adding detail to the articles for native british orchids, populating the malagasy version of wikipedia and yes making pages for talented early career comedians. All this has now stopped. I’ll never understand what motivated you, and really don’t want any kind of window into your mind. Regularuk (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN
For your information, there was a filing at DRN about Goddard Gunster, an article that you created about six months ago. I have closed the filing for various reasons including that it is incomprehensible. You may want to leave this alone, or to laugh quietly at it. Then again, you might know something more than I do. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jo Pike for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jo Pike 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/Jo Pike& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Advocates of the European Union has been nominated for deletion
Category:Advocates of the European Union has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elshad (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Charlotte Proudman" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Charlotte Proudman. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I just wanted to say that if you start a new article or draft for Charlotte Proudman, feel free to leave me a message! I would be happy to contribute. I originally wanted to delete the redirect just because I saw an IP editor say they were concerned about how the redirect sounded, but I would like to contribute if an article is made. Best, - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Billiards and snooker
Hi. A source you could use for Allison Fisher reaching the fourth round of the 1995 World Snooker Championship, where she lost 4-10 to Roger Garrett, is "". Let me know if there's anything I can help with around billiards or snooker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Salford elections
Hey TVF, I noticed you worked on the 2019 Salford council elections so just letting you know I've done a quick old job on creating 2021 Salford City Council election including mention of the boundary changes. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Trafford council - svg needs updating following a resignation
Hi,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafford_Council

I've just edited this page but I am not in a position to amend the graphic showing the seats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trafford_Council#/media/File:Trafford_Council_Composition_April_2020.svg

I note you uploaded the above file. Please can you do a January_2021.svg file with 1 less red dot and one more clear dot?

You're also welcome to confirm I did the two edits ok - I've edited before and think I did the right thing but it's nice to be sure.

Cheers, J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.63.81 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Buchanan
Hi TVF, I hope this finds you well. Thanks for starting my Wiki page and editing it over time.

I've just announced that Elizabeth Hobson, leader of the political party Justice for Men & Boys, has resigned, details here, https://j4mb.org.uk/2021/03/21/elizabeth-hobson-has-stepped-down-as-the-j4mb-party-leader/, and I've assumed the role of party leader again.

I thought you might want to include something in my profile about me being the prime organizer of the 120-speaker online sixth International Conference on Men's Issues http://icmi2020.icmi.info. I am the Conference Director for the forthcoming (November) conference in November, again online but interactive http://icmi2021.icmi.info.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.182.1 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Who Could Ask for Anything More? A Celebration of Ira Gershwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerard Casey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Stretford
I was born in Stretford in 1940. I lived on Urmston Lane. While on vacation in 2005 I purchased a book called Stretford by Syvia an Cliff Hayes. On page 92 in the Sport section I was surprised to see a picture of myself running in a race at the old White City Stadium. That is me in second place at the finish line behind Hector Bulmer. I was 11 years old in 1951! Good practice as I have a silver medal from the 1961 Canadian Championships competing with Oxford Track team who were on their way to a tour in U.S.A. Thanks for the memories. P.S. now on my 82 trip orbit round the sun. CDM 74.12.149.75 (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Delfont Mackintosh
Template:Delfont Mackintosh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny 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/Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Pilaz (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Buchbinder


The article David Buchbinder has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Someone put their favorite prof's CV online and called it an article. Hasn't been touched in two years and doesn't seem notable. Almost all references are primary sources."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Justice for Men & Boys
Hi TVF, I hope this finds you well. You might like to know the Electoral Commission accepted our request to change the name of our party from "Justice for Men & Boys" http://j4mb.org.uk to "Children & Family Party" three months ago, website http://cafp.uk. Best wishes, Mike Buchanan. 2.26.145.230 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike,


 * If you click on this link it will give you the instructions you need to request a change on the article about you & your party.


 * In particular adding   at the top of your post on the article's talk page.


 * Best wishes, The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft on an Austrian political scientist
Austrian political observer (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Dear colleague, I have seen that you take an active interest in writing good Wikipedia articles on political scientists. Would you please have a look at this particular article on an Austrian political scientist, whose Festschrift is forthcoming with Springer in 2023? Regards Austrian political observer (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC) The draft is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arno_Tausch

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nimax
Template:Nimax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Really Useful
Template:Really Useful has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Dab pages
Hi TVF! I've reverted a few of your recent edits. Disambiguation pages (and Surname pages) are characterised by: exactly one blue link per entry, and no pipes; ie, the full article name should be visible.

It's OK for the bluelink to be a redirect (so Gary Briggs (musician), guitarist with Haven is OK, as would be Gary Briggs, guitarist with Haven (band). Lots more at MOS:DAB. Doug butler (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)