This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
First, thank you again for getting the RfC going. Likewise for commenting on actual policy at ANI.
I'd hope my edit summaries answer your question, but all I'm doing is trying out possible solutions in the context of the article. Sometimes I get so focused on a source, sentence, etc that I don't think enough about how it will work in the context of the article. Doing so made this solution appear.
Meanwhile, I agree that material under dispute in an RfC should not be moved or changed, other than removed if policy requires it. Of course, I think policy is on the side of removal until there's consensus for inclusion in BLPs where there are NOT/POV/etc concerns.
I hope this answers your question, and am happy to go into further detail. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Anastrophe ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't believe I violated 3RR, while the other user did. I'm not planning on making any changes to the article or article talk page in question until user Vnkd is back, so that we can work (hopefully) collaboratively. I'd appreciate not being blocked from the whole of wikipedia. Thanks. ADDITION: I was unaware of the 1RR in place on that article. I have no history of disruptive editing, I would hope that counts for something. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It appears that your block has expired. SQL Query me! 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Bbb23: downgrade to partial block?-- Deep fried okra 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Here you go. I've saved you $1.50 (do they really cost that much)?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
So - to summarize, as my tendency to bloviate can cause drowsiness: I understand the block was for edit warring, and the block was justified for that reason. 1RR, 3RR, .0076RR are irrelevant to that overriding issue. I promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week - and then, not before some reasonable discussion has formed and consensus arisen. Hell, I probably won't edit the particular issue itself ever - I'm not invested in it. And, with all of that, I say we let the block run out on its already-set timeline. I'll live, trust me - no no, please, I know how to swim, there's room on the liferaft for the next chap who's gone overboard, I can tread water to shore.
This is what happens when I write immediate after having my morning coffee. Cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good Afternoon (At least if you are on the east coast of the United States). I had made some edits to the Skyscraper article, which according to this site you had reversed. I had intended to link the fact that there were plenty of large, commercial buildings in New York before Chicago had really taken to develop, and that a good segment of the population in New York believes that they are the first city to develop a skyscraper. I am not ignoring or disparaging the accomplishments the fine city of Chicago has made in the architectural sphere, especially developing the first steel-framed commercial building, and I have a deep respect for the city. I am simply saying that perhaps this added context would, with the existing sources of the E. V. Haughwout Building and the Equitable Life Building already developed as further research, be needed aspects to this important discussion.
-- Omnificent879 ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Anastrophe = I didn't mean to revert anything you did - my apologies - but we edit conflicted. Forgive me? Will you go back and make them? Atsme Talk 📧 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to figure out when the buildings were built, and not the interferometer, but wasn't so sure on that. 1999 is fine with me. Gah4 ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
How can we resolve the issues with "Queering the 19th Amendment"?
Last time you took it down you wrote:
"as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources."
I have provided "wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources"
Perhaps there are others who would agree with the inclusion of the text I contributed. There is other material in the article that have "has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment" but discuss the suffrage movement and specific suffragists. The material I have provided is no different. Please refrain from these vague rebuttals and help make this contribution possible.
Also, your response could have been made in a more timely manner. My text was posted uninterrupted for a couple days. "please discuss on talk page. While sources have been expanded, the larger problem is that this is meta-commentary on some of those involved in the suffrage movement; it has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment. It may be appropriate to the larger Suffrage article as well as the individual suffrage actors"
"Queering the suffrage movement"[edit | edit source]
“Queering the suffrage movement" is an effort actively underway in suffrage scholarly circles[1][2] Wendy Rouse writes, "Scholars have already begun ‘queering’ the history of the suffrage movement by deconstructing the dominant narrative that has focused on the stories of elite, white, upper-class suffragists.”[1] Susan Ware says, "To speak of 'queering the suffrage movement' is to identify it as a space where women felt free to express a wide range of gender non-conforming behaviors, including but not limited to sexual expression, in both public and private settings."[2] Suffragists challenged gendered dress and behavior publicly, e.g., Annie Tinker (1884-1924) and Dr. Margaret ‘Mike’ Chung (1889-1959); they also challenged gender norms privately in bi- or homosexual relationships, e.g., African-American activist, writer and organizer for the Congressional Union (later the National Woman’s Party), Alice Dunbar-Nelson (1835-1935).[1] “Boston Marriage” partners (women involved in intimate longterm relationships with other women) included Carrie Chapman Catt with Mary Garrett Hay, Jane Addams with Mary Rozet Smith, Gail Laughlin with Dr. Mary Austin Sperry.[1] Other known suffragist couples are Susan B. Anthony with Emily Gross, and National American Woman Suffrage Association president Dr. Anna Howard-Shaw with Susan B. Anthony's niece, Lucy Anthony[3]; Alice Stone Blackwell was "betrothed" to Kitty Barry.[2] Many leaders of the National Woman's Party co-habitated with other women involved in feminist politics: Alma Lutz and Marguerite Smith, Jeanette Marks and Mary Wooley, and Mabel Vernon and Consuelo Reyes.[4] There are also the significant same sex relationships of NAWSA first and second vice presidents Jane Addams and Sophonisba Breckenridge, respectively,[5] and the chronic close female friendships of Alice Paul.[6] "Outing" historic feminists is not the aim of "queering the suffrage movement," but identifying a broad range of gender identities within the suffrage movement attests to the diversity of those contributing to the cause.[2]
^ Jump up to: a b c d Rouse, Wendy. "The Very Queer History of the Suffrage Movement". 1920-2020 Women's Vote Centennial: the official site commemorating 100 years of women's right to vote. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ware, Susan (20019). Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN 9780674986688. Check date values in: |year= (help) ^ Salam, Maya (August 14, 2020). "How Queer Women Powered the Suffrage Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Lillian, Faderman (1999). To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America--A History. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 3. ISBN 039585010X. ^ Jabour, Anya (January 24, 2020). "When Lesbians Led the Women's Suffrage Movement". The Conversation: Academic rigor, journalistic flair. Retrieved August 20, 2020. ^ Rupp, Leila J. "'Imagine My Surprise': Women's Relationships in Historical Perspective". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 5, No. 3 Autumn 1980: 61–70 – via JSTOR.
Have I gone suddenly nuts (after 18+ years of editing here with only one previous confrontation) or is Sundayclose just way off base? He doesn't seem to be making any effort to discuss my proposal on Talk:Wayne_Williams#Aftermath, he's just rehashing my original (abandoned) edit and throwing around lies, insults, and threats without even the flimsiest of pretexts. You don't seem to have an axe to grind in this matter, so I'd welcome additional input from you, whatever you think. 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Now he's going through my other recent edits and removing entire paragraphs in violation of WP:NOCITE just because I made minor changes to them. Pure spite. Also he made four reverts on Carl Gugasian in just over 24 hours because he was angry at me for correcting him when he reverted the work of three editors just to get at one editor he disagreed with, also in violation of NOCITE. What's the next step for dealing with an editor like this? 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
You have been named in a dispute resolution request here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebekah_Jones (unsigned, by 2603:6081:2A0C:0:9AFC:4C07:D80:C280)
I saw your edit summary on the solar cycle article and I thought it was funny. As a subject matter enthusiast, I plan on updating these articles at some point, but unfortunately the Sun related articles have a ton of other issues that I think need to be addressed first. For example, the misleading and incorrect information given in coronal cloud, the existence of the AR12665 article, and many others. Anyway, I thought I'd just let you know. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Anastrophe, just letting you know that I've removed your comment from the talk page primarily because I removed TheGunGuru73's and revoked their talk page access and so didn't want to leave your comment sitting there. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't targetting your comments specifically. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to know why Usenet is not a proper channel for distributing child pornography, my comments are to the point. Of course, once you know the facts, you may search for sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Turns out we're both right. I'm American born and bred and I've never ever heard anyone say "sunsetted". Everyone always says "sunset" as the simple past/past participle. None-the-less, not worth fight about. As I'm sure you'll agree. Merry Christmas,
PainMan ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Alexbrn ( talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Many devices and PCs only read down the first level of TOC. Not to sub-headings. And a subject notable enough to have its own sub-heading may have one. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D ( talk) 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The next few entries are archived fro the anonymous user's talk page; the user's IP changes frequently, and I rarely engage in talk outside of article talk pages, so figured I'd copy it here for "Posterior", heh. Begin:
(I'm responding inline as well, simply for convenience, and since this isn't a more formal discussion. Hopefully it remains readable. As well, I acknowledge that your IP may change; I personally prefer to keep my talk page clear, and rarely engage in cross-user-talk page discussions. If you are inclined, I'm willing to move all of this over to my talk page for the time being.)
((I see just now by the edit history on Maus that your IP does appear to change almost daily; feel free to drop a response on my page regarding moving the conversation there for the time being))
In response to your screed, though I doubt you'll read it:
Why do you think it proper for you to change ref names from the wp-appointed names?
What makes you believe that your choice is better than that of WP?
What makes you think that the purpose of the ref name is to convey information or editorialization about the text?
As you from time to time make errors, which is of course human, you are on the downside creating more work for those who need to make sure that ones dont creep into this other needless/questionable exercise.
Absent satisfactory answers, I would suggest that you reconsider and stop the practice. There is no upside to it. And there is a downside
Anastrophe ( talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
You may wish to fix this edit - you reverted yourself instead of doing what you had stated you trying to do in the edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maus&diff=prev&oldid=1069159599&diffmode=source cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I've had my share of umbrage bubble up as well; we're human, it happens. I apologize if my tone in various places has been confrontational. The section, for the most part, is well written at this point - and it's been done collaboratively (though with unnecessary use of abrasives, heh). I still maintain that this will fade from the headlines in relatively short order; school districts the world over have been removing "objectionable" text based upon age-appropriateness for ages, and around the world (good luck getting Maus added to the curriculum in Iranian grade schools!). But time will be the ultimate arbiter. I will do my best to try to be less confrontational, as I would ask that you do as well. On an entirely separate note: I respect an editor's right to remain anonymous, though I have assorted quibbles with how it's employed here on wikipedia (the vast number of vandalism incidents are from bare IP's, which causes a generally negative presumption). It is worth noting however that an editor is less anonymous when they remain an IP address; IP addresses are often, though not always, geographically identifiable. If you employ a username, that is obliterated from public view. Just a datapoint. Anastrophe ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anastrophe, no worries. I agree that it will be a good idea to incorporate the content about Steve Crowder infiltrating a Fat studies conference into the "Louder with Crowder" section since that YouTube video would have been part of that series. Might also trim it down as well. Andykatib 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I agree that it will be best to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Andykatib ( talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I feel happy :-) 85.193.215.210 ( talk) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
You helped me, now I helped you. I am almost sure that the IP 195.224.241.178 and 86.187.235.123 belong to the same user, which is known as WP:LTA/BKFIP. See also here. 85.193.215.210 ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. The date you reverted at Fallen Astronaut may be correct, please doublecheck the Apollo 15 article (I checked and the IP seemed to have it right but another look could help). Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
And thanks for the much better wording on NRA. QuilaBird ( talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
Nobody is laughing at you, or calling you a "stupid American". Nobody committed "gross incivility to the primary readership of en.wikipedia.org". A good advice essay I found is WP:Grow a thick skin.
It's really hard for me to believe you've been here for over 17 years, and call yourself "a general reader". With over 17,000 edits under our belts, we are editors, and have a bit more responsibility than that.
WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
References
JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for whacking away at it - I find just reading some of the changes that make it into my watchlist exhausting. Jane ( talk) 10:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
May I award thee:
The Userpage Barnstar | ||
"I am many, I contain multitudes". Herostratus ( talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
The IP which you recently dealt with on JBL is a disruptive LTA known as the Linde plc vandal. It's best to simply ban revert and deny any recognition. John Yunshire ( talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Stop removing edits without cause, comment, or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:EF3C:6100:F444:6159:55E5:F649 ( talk) 04:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Anastrophe This edit note isn't 100% accurate:
19:02, 8 November 2023 Anastrophe talk contribs 89,232 bytes −410 ( →Influences on crime: checked source, no claims even vaguely resembling these appear in the source. Likely WP:OR (no mention of stockton or oakland in source). Out it goes.)
Whilst the sentence about Stockton and Oakland, is referenced, and I can't seem to work out where it came from either. The first sentence is definitely in the source listed.
First Sentence: "Research suggests that being socially isolated along with parents not setting boundaries while not teaching their kids about the risk and consequences of certain actions can cause them to commit violent acts as they get older."
Source: "Environmental Factors Contribute to Juvenile Crime and Violence (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 83-89, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2022-12-20.
"....Even if violence is not modeled in the home, research suggests that the absence of effective social bonds and controls, together with a failure of parents to teach (and children to internalize) conventional norms and values, puts children at risk of later violence...."
I think the source covers the first sentence.
KarmaKangaroo (
talk)
14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the 3rd time you have removed my changes, I need to do this for a school project for college and it is very frustrating to me why you keep removing changes and I don't understand why I am citing all my sources and keeping everything said on the website. Andyvrabel ( talk) 18:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You can read about this in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 if you need more info Robercik st ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear Anastrophe,
Thank you for your help in editing the article " Transcranial magnetic stimulation" by eliminating the additional section "Theory" I wrote. You noted in the comment, "None of this material is associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation the topic of this article." In this additional section, I tried to help the article (as much as I could) to explain to readers the nature and theoretical grounds of the effect of the transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. I showed that the effect of TMS brain stimulation could appertain to the innate neurophysiological mechanism that provides coordinated neuronal activity in different organisms for the nervous system development. I believe there is no sense in discussing the importance of the central epistemic aims of science, which are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Would you be so kind as to explain your argument for eliminating this text because the mentioned one (above) seems insufficient? If you think that some scientific explanation of TMC would be desirable, I also ask for your advice on what I can add to this theoretical section (or change) to make it suit your requirements.
Best regards, Ana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Padovana ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on O Brother, Where Art Thou?. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:@
NinjaRobotPirate: What a ridiculous accusation. I did not revert article content - which is what is forbidden to do repeatedly - I reverted hidden text being presented as if it's a WP policy. Please retract this accusation. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.
04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
First, thank you again for getting the RfC going. Likewise for commenting on actual policy at ANI.
I'd hope my edit summaries answer your question, but all I'm doing is trying out possible solutions in the context of the article. Sometimes I get so focused on a source, sentence, etc that I don't think enough about how it will work in the context of the article. Doing so made this solution appear.
Meanwhile, I agree that material under dispute in an RfC should not be moved or changed, other than removed if policy requires it. Of course, I think policy is on the side of removal until there's consensus for inclusion in BLPs where there are NOT/POV/etc concerns.
I hope this answers your question, and am happy to go into further detail. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Anastrophe ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't believe I violated 3RR, while the other user did. I'm not planning on making any changes to the article or article talk page in question until user Vnkd is back, so that we can work (hopefully) collaboratively. I'd appreciate not being blocked from the whole of wikipedia. Thanks. ADDITION: I was unaware of the 1RR in place on that article. I have no history of disruptive editing, I would hope that counts for something. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It appears that your block has expired. SQL Query me! 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Bbb23: downgrade to partial block?-- Deep fried okra 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Here you go. I've saved you $1.50 (do they really cost that much)?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
So - to summarize, as my tendency to bloviate can cause drowsiness: I understand the block was for edit warring, and the block was justified for that reason. 1RR, 3RR, .0076RR are irrelevant to that overriding issue. I promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week - and then, not before some reasonable discussion has formed and consensus arisen. Hell, I probably won't edit the particular issue itself ever - I'm not invested in it. And, with all of that, I say we let the block run out on its already-set timeline. I'll live, trust me - no no, please, I know how to swim, there's room on the liferaft for the next chap who's gone overboard, I can tread water to shore.
This is what happens when I write immediate after having my morning coffee. Cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good Afternoon (At least if you are on the east coast of the United States). I had made some edits to the Skyscraper article, which according to this site you had reversed. I had intended to link the fact that there were plenty of large, commercial buildings in New York before Chicago had really taken to develop, and that a good segment of the population in New York believes that they are the first city to develop a skyscraper. I am not ignoring or disparaging the accomplishments the fine city of Chicago has made in the architectural sphere, especially developing the first steel-framed commercial building, and I have a deep respect for the city. I am simply saying that perhaps this added context would, with the existing sources of the E. V. Haughwout Building and the Equitable Life Building already developed as further research, be needed aspects to this important discussion.
-- Omnificent879 ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Anastrophe = I didn't mean to revert anything you did - my apologies - but we edit conflicted. Forgive me? Will you go back and make them? Atsme Talk 📧 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I tried to figure out when the buildings were built, and not the interferometer, but wasn't so sure on that. 1999 is fine with me. Gah4 ( talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
How can we resolve the issues with "Queering the 19th Amendment"?
Last time you took it down you wrote:
"as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources."
I have provided "wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources"
Perhaps there are others who would agree with the inclusion of the text I contributed. There is other material in the article that have "has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment" but discuss the suffrage movement and specific suffragists. The material I have provided is no different. Please refrain from these vague rebuttals and help make this contribution possible.
Also, your response could have been made in a more timely manner. My text was posted uninterrupted for a couple days. "please discuss on talk page. While sources have been expanded, the larger problem is that this is meta-commentary on some of those involved in the suffrage movement; it has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment. It may be appropriate to the larger Suffrage article as well as the individual suffrage actors"
"Queering the suffrage movement"[edit | edit source]
“Queering the suffrage movement" is an effort actively underway in suffrage scholarly circles[1][2] Wendy Rouse writes, "Scholars have already begun ‘queering’ the history of the suffrage movement by deconstructing the dominant narrative that has focused on the stories of elite, white, upper-class suffragists.”[1] Susan Ware says, "To speak of 'queering the suffrage movement' is to identify it as a space where women felt free to express a wide range of gender non-conforming behaviors, including but not limited to sexual expression, in both public and private settings."[2] Suffragists challenged gendered dress and behavior publicly, e.g., Annie Tinker (1884-1924) and Dr. Margaret ‘Mike’ Chung (1889-1959); they also challenged gender norms privately in bi- or homosexual relationships, e.g., African-American activist, writer and organizer for the Congressional Union (later the National Woman’s Party), Alice Dunbar-Nelson (1835-1935).[1] “Boston Marriage” partners (women involved in intimate longterm relationships with other women) included Carrie Chapman Catt with Mary Garrett Hay, Jane Addams with Mary Rozet Smith, Gail Laughlin with Dr. Mary Austin Sperry.[1] Other known suffragist couples are Susan B. Anthony with Emily Gross, and National American Woman Suffrage Association president Dr. Anna Howard-Shaw with Susan B. Anthony's niece, Lucy Anthony[3]; Alice Stone Blackwell was "betrothed" to Kitty Barry.[2] Many leaders of the National Woman's Party co-habitated with other women involved in feminist politics: Alma Lutz and Marguerite Smith, Jeanette Marks and Mary Wooley, and Mabel Vernon and Consuelo Reyes.[4] There are also the significant same sex relationships of NAWSA first and second vice presidents Jane Addams and Sophonisba Breckenridge, respectively,[5] and the chronic close female friendships of Alice Paul.[6] "Outing" historic feminists is not the aim of "queering the suffrage movement," but identifying a broad range of gender identities within the suffrage movement attests to the diversity of those contributing to the cause.[2]
^ Jump up to: a b c d Rouse, Wendy. "The Very Queer History of the Suffrage Movement". 1920-2020 Women's Vote Centennial: the official site commemorating 100 years of women's right to vote. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ware, Susan (20019). Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN 9780674986688. Check date values in: |year= (help) ^ Salam, Maya (August 14, 2020). "How Queer Women Powered the Suffrage Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Lillian, Faderman (1999). To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America--A History. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 3. ISBN 039585010X. ^ Jabour, Anya (January 24, 2020). "When Lesbians Led the Women's Suffrage Movement". The Conversation: Academic rigor, journalistic flair. Retrieved August 20, 2020. ^ Rupp, Leila J. "'Imagine My Surprise': Women's Relationships in Historical Perspective". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 5, No. 3 Autumn 1980: 61–70 – via JSTOR.
Have I gone suddenly nuts (after 18+ years of editing here with only one previous confrontation) or is Sundayclose just way off base? He doesn't seem to be making any effort to discuss my proposal on Talk:Wayne_Williams#Aftermath, he's just rehashing my original (abandoned) edit and throwing around lies, insults, and threats without even the flimsiest of pretexts. You don't seem to have an axe to grind in this matter, so I'd welcome additional input from you, whatever you think. 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Now he's going through my other recent edits and removing entire paragraphs in violation of WP:NOCITE just because I made minor changes to them. Pure spite. Also he made four reverts on Carl Gugasian in just over 24 hours because he was angry at me for correcting him when he reverted the work of three editors just to get at one editor he disagreed with, also in violation of NOCITE. What's the next step for dealing with an editor like this? 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
You have been named in a dispute resolution request here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebekah_Jones (unsigned, by 2603:6081:2A0C:0:9AFC:4C07:D80:C280)
I saw your edit summary on the solar cycle article and I thought it was funny. As a subject matter enthusiast, I plan on updating these articles at some point, but unfortunately the Sun related articles have a ton of other issues that I think need to be addressed first. For example, the misleading and incorrect information given in coronal cloud, the existence of the AR12665 article, and many others. Anyway, I thought I'd just let you know. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Anastrophe, just letting you know that I've removed your comment from the talk page primarily because I removed TheGunGuru73's and revoked their talk page access and so didn't want to leave your comment sitting there. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't targetting your comments specifically. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to know why Usenet is not a proper channel for distributing child pornography, my comments are to the point. Of course, once you know the facts, you may search for sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Turns out we're both right. I'm American born and bred and I've never ever heard anyone say "sunsetted". Everyone always says "sunset" as the simple past/past participle. None-the-less, not worth fight about. As I'm sure you'll agree. Merry Christmas,
PainMan ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Alexbrn ( talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Many devices and PCs only read down the first level of TOC. Not to sub-headings. And a subject notable enough to have its own sub-heading may have one. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D ( talk) 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The next few entries are archived fro the anonymous user's talk page; the user's IP changes frequently, and I rarely engage in talk outside of article talk pages, so figured I'd copy it here for "Posterior", heh. Begin:
(I'm responding inline as well, simply for convenience, and since this isn't a more formal discussion. Hopefully it remains readable. As well, I acknowledge that your IP may change; I personally prefer to keep my talk page clear, and rarely engage in cross-user-talk page discussions. If you are inclined, I'm willing to move all of this over to my talk page for the time being.)
((I see just now by the edit history on Maus that your IP does appear to change almost daily; feel free to drop a response on my page regarding moving the conversation there for the time being))
In response to your screed, though I doubt you'll read it:
Why do you think it proper for you to change ref names from the wp-appointed names?
What makes you believe that your choice is better than that of WP?
What makes you think that the purpose of the ref name is to convey information or editorialization about the text?
As you from time to time make errors, which is of course human, you are on the downside creating more work for those who need to make sure that ones dont creep into this other needless/questionable exercise.
Absent satisfactory answers, I would suggest that you reconsider and stop the practice. There is no upside to it. And there is a downside
Anastrophe ( talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
You may wish to fix this edit - you reverted yourself instead of doing what you had stated you trying to do in the edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maus&diff=prev&oldid=1069159599&diffmode=source cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I've had my share of umbrage bubble up as well; we're human, it happens. I apologize if my tone in various places has been confrontational. The section, for the most part, is well written at this point - and it's been done collaboratively (though with unnecessary use of abrasives, heh). I still maintain that this will fade from the headlines in relatively short order; school districts the world over have been removing "objectionable" text based upon age-appropriateness for ages, and around the world (good luck getting Maus added to the curriculum in Iranian grade schools!). But time will be the ultimate arbiter. I will do my best to try to be less confrontational, as I would ask that you do as well. On an entirely separate note: I respect an editor's right to remain anonymous, though I have assorted quibbles with how it's employed here on wikipedia (the vast number of vandalism incidents are from bare IP's, which causes a generally negative presumption). It is worth noting however that an editor is less anonymous when they remain an IP address; IP addresses are often, though not always, geographically identifiable. If you employ a username, that is obliterated from public view. Just a datapoint. Anastrophe ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anastrophe, no worries. I agree that it will be a good idea to incorporate the content about Steve Crowder infiltrating a Fat studies conference into the "Louder with Crowder" section since that YouTube video would have been part of that series. Might also trim it down as well. Andykatib 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I agree that it will be best to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Andykatib ( talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I feel happy :-) 85.193.215.210 ( talk) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
You helped me, now I helped you. I am almost sure that the IP 195.224.241.178 and 86.187.235.123 belong to the same user, which is known as WP:LTA/BKFIP. See also here. 85.193.215.210 ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. The date you reverted at Fallen Astronaut may be correct, please doublecheck the Apollo 15 article (I checked and the IP seemed to have it right but another look could help). Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
And thanks for the much better wording on NRA. QuilaBird ( talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
Nobody is laughing at you, or calling you a "stupid American". Nobody committed "gross incivility to the primary readership of en.wikipedia.org". A good advice essay I found is WP:Grow a thick skin.
It's really hard for me to believe you've been here for over 17 years, and call yourself "a general reader". With over 17,000 edits under our belts, we are editors, and have a bit more responsibility than that.
WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
References
JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for whacking away at it - I find just reading some of the changes that make it into my watchlist exhausting. Jane ( talk) 10:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
May I award thee:
The Userpage Barnstar | ||
"I am many, I contain multitudes". Herostratus ( talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
The IP which you recently dealt with on JBL is a disruptive LTA known as the Linde plc vandal. It's best to simply ban revert and deny any recognition. John Yunshire ( talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Stop removing edits without cause, comment, or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:EF3C:6100:F444:6159:55E5:F649 ( talk) 04:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Anastrophe This edit note isn't 100% accurate:
19:02, 8 November 2023 Anastrophe talk contribs 89,232 bytes −410 ( →Influences on crime: checked source, no claims even vaguely resembling these appear in the source. Likely WP:OR (no mention of stockton or oakland in source). Out it goes.)
Whilst the sentence about Stockton and Oakland, is referenced, and I can't seem to work out where it came from either. The first sentence is definitely in the source listed.
First Sentence: "Research suggests that being socially isolated along with parents not setting boundaries while not teaching their kids about the risk and consequences of certain actions can cause them to commit violent acts as they get older."
Source: "Environmental Factors Contribute to Juvenile Crime and Violence (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 83-89, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2022-12-20.
"....Even if violence is not modeled in the home, research suggests that the absence of effective social bonds and controls, together with a failure of parents to teach (and children to internalize) conventional norms and values, puts children at risk of later violence...."
I think the source covers the first sentence.
KarmaKangaroo (
talk)
14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the 3rd time you have removed my changes, I need to do this for a school project for college and it is very frustrating to me why you keep removing changes and I don't understand why I am citing all my sources and keeping everything said on the website. Andyvrabel ( talk) 18:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You can read about this in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 if you need more info Robercik st ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear Anastrophe,
Thank you for your help in editing the article " Transcranial magnetic stimulation" by eliminating the additional section "Theory" I wrote. You noted in the comment, "None of this material is associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation the topic of this article." In this additional section, I tried to help the article (as much as I could) to explain to readers the nature and theoretical grounds of the effect of the transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. I showed that the effect of TMS brain stimulation could appertain to the innate neurophysiological mechanism that provides coordinated neuronal activity in different organisms for the nervous system development. I believe there is no sense in discussing the importance of the central epistemic aims of science, which are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Would you be so kind as to explain your argument for eliminating this text because the mentioned one (above) seems insufficient? If you think that some scientific explanation of TMC would be desirable, I also ask for your advice on what I can add to this theoretical section (or change) to make it suit your requirements.
Best regards, Ana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Padovana ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on O Brother, Where Art Thou?. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:@
NinjaRobotPirate: What a ridiculous accusation. I did not revert article content - which is what is forbidden to do repeatedly - I reverted hidden text being presented as if it's a WP policy. Please retract this accusation. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.
04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)