User talk:The void century/Archive 1

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, The void century! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Learning experience
I can tell from the lengthy discussion at Talk:Woman that you're going to be a fine editor, if you stick with it (which I hope you do). I realize that to some extent, that discussion must have been a frustrating experience for you, as things didn't turn out the way you might have wished, but I hope you'll take it as a learning experience. You really listened to what others had to say, even (maybe especially) when they didn't agree with you, and you took their opinions in good faith, thought about it, gave good responses showing you took in and understood what they said, sometimes offering cogent countertheories or even changing your approach. All very good signs. I hope you'll continue to build content in the encyclopedia, and feel free to ping me anytime if you have questions, or just feel like a rant. Take care, Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Haha thank you, yeah it was informative. I've read wikipedia extensively since I was a kid (20 years or so), and I've learned more here than anywhere else on the internet, so I want to give back and contribute for future generations. The void century (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and one of the really fun things is jumping in in some area you know nothing about, and contributing there. The whole point of Wikipedia is to base what we write on sources, so generally you don't need expert knowledge on something (too much expertise can even get in the way sometimes; real experts sometimes have blinders on about their long-held point of view on their specialty area). What do I know about things like Fertility fraud, or Maréchaussée or War guilt question or New York State School for the Deaf, or Fiscal pedaling, or the Odebrecht–Car Wash leniency agreement? Nothing. Or at least, I didn't when I started, but I found something that piqued my curiosity about the topic, and now I'm much better informed and had a great time researching and learning about them while writing the article. Jumping into *really* popular and/or controversial topics can wear you down, especially when you're a newer editor; I don't avoid those topics entirely, but I try to balance them with a big helping of less popular topics where I can really make a difference, and quickly. There are so many areas like that, and in a few days you can really make a difference in a topic that is poorly covered, or not at all. So, my advice would be to find some topic out of the public spotlight that you find interesting even if you know nada about it, do some research, and go improve (or create) the article about it. You'll feel a great deal of satisfaction when you do, and then after a while, you can go back and take a peek at one of the endless discussions at some popular Talk page, and cluck your tongue in the realization that the same people are still yammering on about the same arguments in the same discussion, while in the meantime you just expanded four articles, and created one new one from scratch. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Female (gender)
Hey there,

Did you know that material in the page that you created, Female (gender), already exists at the article Gender? If you do not object to this, I would like to convert your page into a WP:redirect that goes to the article Gender. May I do so? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I decided to do so already. If you think that this topic substantial content for an article that does not already infringe upon the material at Gender, feel free to revert me. But do not forget to cite sources and follow these guidelines. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please hold off on redirecting. There were literally years of discussion on Talk:woman and Talk:female that led to me creating that page. It's meant to be a stub that will be expanded on over time. The void century (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. Do any of my edits so far jump out to you as breaking policy or page-specific restrictions? The void century (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope! This is just the standard warning that everyone is given out. I got one myself about an hour ago CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, The void century

Thank you for creating Female (gender).

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Why did you redo an edit that was already reverted?
 * Please take a moment to review some of the discussion on the talk page and hold off on redirecting. The void century (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Female (gender)
Hello, The void century, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Bruxton, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Female (gender), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Female (gender).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing to WP:STONEWALL. The void century (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice
I see you are making what I think if your first article. Thanks! I also see you're getting criticisms. My advice is to create things in draft and then move them into the main space once they are ready. Then you will only get critique of the final version, rather than us all butting in on early drafts. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And you might be able to avoid the drama by moving it to draft, getting it final, asking @Bruxton to withdraw the delete nomination, that would surely be a less stressful path, but of course your choice, just my advice. CT55555 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't know you could create collaborative drafts when I made the article, so I'll probably do that in the future.
 * I think I'm just going to let the AfD run its course and focus on editing other articles until it's over. The void century (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * People tend to do drafts alone. But you can collaborate and encourage help via WikiProjects etc. I think you've started with a particularly difficult focus area, so I guess this might be annoying or frustrating and I hope it does not put you off. CT55555 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about mostly doing drafts alone, but I always include the Draft article template at the top of my drafts, and include the yes parameter to show that I'm not trying to hoard it. I've collaborated on drafts several times, and recommend it. And the point about WikiProjects is an excellent one. Draft:Liberation of France remained a draft from July 2020 to January 2021, and benefited from major contributions from Rjensen (a.k.a., Richard J. Jensen, the historian) and Elinruby, and minor tweaks by bots and a few editors. So, it can happen. I'm a big proponent of draft space, where even if your writings are noticed, you're given tons of slack, and you'll never have to answer questions about insufficient referencing, empty sections, garbled sentences, or pretty much anything that would sink an article in main space. At least, not until you submit it, when you *want* that kind of feedback.
 * There's another reason to use Draft space, especially if your new article idea is controversial, or in an area covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or if you suspect that your article might generate questions about its notability or suitability as a stand-alone article: namely, that bringing it to WP:AFD or one of the Talk pages or noticeboards where article issues are discussed, may use up the resources of numerous editors, as is the case with this Afd. I mean, that's what an Afd is for, but otoh, all that time devoted to that Afd, is time that might have been spent improving articles somewhere. Volunteer editor time is a limited resource, and all the administrative tasks at Wikipedia, including Afd, eat into that, to a certain extent. It's a necessary part of the project, but as a good faith editor, sometimes you can make a decision that will benefit the project by saving on that scarce resource, and if that's possible, then it's something worth considering, next time. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. Now I realize all you have to do is add Draft: to the title to make a draft, but I didn't know that before. There's no button on create a page that says "Publish as draft". It gives you that option on Article wizard/CreateDraft, but it's not obvious if you go directly to the creation form. The void century (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend you start here next time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts CT55555 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Good sign
Hi, The void century. As you know, I've been participating at the Afd for "Female (gender)", and our views don't agree. I consider that completely unimportant. What's important, is that you argue your best shot based on your understanding of policies and guidelines, and in particular, that you learn from other editors as you go; that is important.

A particularly good sign imho, is your of the backstory at Talk:Female (gender). The fact that you were able to articulate and clearly explain some of the principal views making up the foundation of how the afd arose, including views clearly opposed to your own, is a very good sign. I've often considered that as one of the best ways to recognize a good editor. So kudos for that. (I still disagree, though .)

The only thing that concerns me a *wee* bit at this point, is that the proportion of your Talk vs. Main space edits is getting a bit out of balance in my opinion. There are some editors who come here mostly for the drama, and they'll have a disproportionate amount of edits in talk spaces and drama boards. If you had 10,000 edits I'd be more concerned; but at only 236 edits, just a few days on a hotly debated topic like the Afd, can totally skew your numbers, which I imagine will come back into better balance in time. (Another thing is, that editors come here for different reasons, and it's possible to be a good editor and still spend little time in main space; that's a conversation for another time.)

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it, because I figured that with all the excitement, you might not be aware. I'd love to see you contributing to articles more, so I hope when the Afd is over (one way or the other; I have a view but I trust the process, and any consensus is fine with me) and things calm down again, you'll be back contributing to articles again. So, keep at it; I'm certain you're going to be a good editor (and I don't care if you never agree with me on a Talk page). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate you saying all that. I'm trying my best to consider other people's views. You're right that my proportion of Talk edits has gotten out of balance, and I intend to stay in the main space as much as possible from now on. I've said my piece in the AfD discussion, and it would be unproductive for me to keep arguing there (though it's hard to resist). The void century (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library
Fyi, I think you will enjoy the Wikipedia Library. It is a wonderful resource, and you appear to be not too far off from qualifying for access. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Biology
Can you please start a discussion of why you think "adding main templates" is necessary? I have reverted them because I believe they are redundant and add unnecessary clutter. Please discuss on the biology talk page. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Danielkueh
 * Firstly, human being here. I'd appreciate if you don't say things like Hello!!!! Anyone home?!?!
 * It got your attention, didn't it? :) danielkueh (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert edits unless you have a very strong reason to. As per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and WP:HATNOTE:
 * It's an option. Not a requirement. And yes, reducing clutter IS a good reason. Also, see WP:BRD. danielkueh (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link
 * Hatnotes are the recommended style for linking out to the child article, and the hatnotes I am adding are to articles that cover these subjects in much more depth. This improves wikipedia by clarifying where readers can find the most in-depth discussion of the section subject. The void century (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers can still find the in-depth by clicking on the wikilink. Also, the only thing that is recommended is to seek consensus WP:consensus. So far, there is none. danielkueh (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: biology section hatnotes: I don't have time to discuss section hatnotes on a talk page, especially when they're already covered in WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and WP:HATNOTE. Please revert if you have a problem with a specific hatnote, but only if you have a strong reason. For example, I didn't see that section was mostly about general chemistry (it should probably be retitled to chemistry then, huh?). But still, it's a biology article. Biochemistry is what's actually in scope. Please don't WP:OWN. The void century (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Biochemistry is in the section called Macromolecules. If you don't see how atom and molecules related to chemistry, then you have no business editing that article. This is not about "owning." This is about being "accurate." And if you can't be bothered to discuss, then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia. danielkueh (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. I am asking to REFRAIN FROM ADDING HATNOTES to the page until we reached a wp:consensus. You are making a large format change to the article. Do you understand?!?! Do I need to explain it you again? You are a clearly a newb. Maybe you should edit less and observe more. danielkueh (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding a section hatnote is not a large format change to the article. It's a minor improvement. It's clear that the main article with the exact same name exists, such as photosynthesis, cellular respiration, etc. Like I said, I will not touch the sections you disagreed with like chemistry, but you haven't actually provided a policy-based reason for disagreeing with adding section hatnotes. The void century (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Danielkueh chill. I didn't revert any edits. I'm pretty sure you have reverted more than 3 of my edits at this point though, which would mean that those reverts shouldn't have happened in the first place. There's nothing inaccurate about linking a section on photosynthesis to that article.
 * First, it is common practice to keep discussions in one location. So please respond here. Second, the reason why we have a discussion is to come to a consensus. You might think you're making an improvement, but others disagree. Hence, we discuss to reach consensus. Understand?!?! Third, re-adding templates that have been reverted IS reverting, even if you didn't click on the revert button. Fourth, I'm not going to fight over this issue. If it makes you happy, have at it. Just do me a favor and don't fuck up the page. Thanks danielkueh (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe start with that Fourth point next time.
 * Cheers, The void century (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Natasha David
Hi,

Your article on Natasha David is rather promotional in tone, and I'm skeptical on whether the author meets our notability guideline for biographies, as I couldn't find sources which are particularly independent. (Edit: NYT sources seem okay.) I've tagged it accordingly, but please improve it if you can. Ovinus (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ovinus I discovered her via the list of Iron Chef America episodes. I think the following makes her notable enough:
 * Competing on a major TV show
 * Coverage in multiple notable publications like NYT, Wall Street Journal, and BonAppetit that are independent from her.
 * Having recipes appear in about ten books (mostly not published by her, though her book received a lot of press)
 * Winning multiple awards from popular food magazines. The void century (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, The void century. Thank you for creating Steven Croman. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of The Chosen One (trope) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Chosen One (trope) 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/The Chosen One (trope) 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 until the discussion has finished. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Modern Meadow review request
Hi there, I proposed some updates to the page about biotech company Modern Meadow, and I think this might be of interest to members of the Biology WikiProject. I see you’re a member of that project who has been actively editing things on Wikipedia during the last six months, and I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at them? The proposals address the concerns of a flag posted on the article. I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks very much for your time. Olympus4Me2 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Page Move at 2023 China balloon incident
Hi The void century,

Thank you for your close of my page move request at the captioned page (I now realize my information was outdated) and for opening the new page move request. Carter00000 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thanks for understanding. I figured that was what happened since it's a current event and new information is still coming out. The void century (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello The void century. I replaced your original RM template with a new one because the move wasn't showing up right in WP:RMCD. The message that I saw was Hope it works now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston I appreciate the assistance, thank you. The void century (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi The void century, thank you very much for posting a notice at the Gender Studies Wikiproject Talk page about the Female (gender) draft. However, I think the third and fourth lines of your message should be removed, because they do not seem to be a completely neutral description, and it is best to err on the side of caution. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. The void century (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - and btw, have you signed up for the Wikipedia Library? I think your access to this resource could help further develop the draft and other articles. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

nobody owns anything
Please respect that in the future soibangla (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Soibangla, WP:BRD-- there are already discussions about how that section was getting bloated where other editors agreed with my decision to pare it down. It's not ok to continue adding to that section when another editor provided policy-based reasoning (WP:UNDUE) and asked you to discuss and reach consensus before adding to that section. The void century (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fully complied with BRD. You are the only editor objecting. This article is not by any means bloated. You do not own this article. Do not lecture me as though you do. soibangla (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was bloated before. I'm trying to prevent it from becoming bloated again. The void century (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * it is not anywhere near bloated. you don't own it. don't talk to me as though you do. soibangla (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about ownership. It's about you consistently adding undue content (in my opinion) to the same section that I asked you to discuss first. I specifically asked you to discuss so that we have other editors opinions and can reach a consensus. The void century (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * in my opinion that's why I asked what others think, per BRD. you don't own it. soibangla (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the fact that you didn't discuss before your edit was ignoring multiple requests from another editor. That's not bold, it's combative. The void century (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have restored that content. It's just as much, if not more, about debunking Trump's nonsense, so it's quite relevant and due there. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi The void century, while WP:ONUS likely favors further discussion, it also seems to be a natural part of the life cycle of current news event articles that there will be bloat followed by reconsideration as time goes on. It can also be distracting when an editor starts making what appears to be an unsupported allegation of WP:OWN and seems to suggest they do not want to discuss your edit with you, but temporary disengagement from a particular issue can be a constructive path forward in a well-attended current event article, particularly when WP:BLP violations are not involved. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair. Agreed-- it's probably best for me to disengage from this. The void century (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD
This is not how it works. When you are reverted, you are supposed to start a discussion without reverting again. That's how everyone should do it. This is also the second time you've failed to follow that policy at the Lab Leak Theory page. Please respect the policy. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Adoring nanny reverts are not a tool to be used willy nilly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please refer to WP:DONTREVERT. Given your self-proclaimed support of fringe science and lack of respect for WP:NOT, WP:BRD doesn't work how it's supposed to in this case. Your revert was essentially WP:VANDAL behavior. The correct way to engage with vandalism is to restore the edit. The void century 04:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:VANDAL. It's at variance with what you wrote above. I'd add that having failed to WP:BRD, the appropriate course for you would be to self revert. Lastly, in regards to the contentious topics, are you now aware that Covid is under WP:CTOP? I wouldn't want to double alert. But the awareness standards are strict. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the second paragraph begins The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Malicious removal of content seems to be the trend here. WP:ACTIVISM is a component of vandalism, and unfortunately, your views disagree with scientific consensus. I'm not saying that the scientific consensus is static. It may change in the future. But as far as I can see, your revert was an attempt to prevent the most prominent viewpoint of reliable sources from being clear in the article. The void century  04:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ACTIVISM can be a compondent of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS; it is better to avoid suggesting such conduct is vandalism, which has a very specific meaning. I also encourage you to continue focusing on the content - there are options to address issues related to NPOV, including the article Talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for chiming in. I'm having trouble reconciling BRD with this essay from Adoring nanny's user page. It's hard to compartmentalize that info. The void century 05:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the particulars of the content issue, but from my skim of the article Talk page, it looks well-attended with editors ready to produce and discuss RS to support content, so hopefully this level of engagement can help resolve content disputes that may develop. From my view, BRD can be a good fit with contentious topics generally - if an editor seems to become tendentious, that is a conduct issue and can be addressed elsewhere if necessary, after content discussions happen at the article talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The void century (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (Aug 23) and Governors Island Wiki-Picnic (Sun Aug 27)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sunday: NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Gov Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sep 20: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Wb
Nice to see you back! Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Sun Oct 1: NYC Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York (Oct 21–22) and Wikidata Day (Oct 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nov 15: WikiWednesday Salon + Wikimedia NYC Executive Director job
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wed Dec 6: Hacking Night + job listing
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thu Jan 4: Hacking Night + Wikipedia Day soon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Female (gender)
Hello, The void century. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Female (gender), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Female (gender)


Hello, The void century. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Female".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)